The EU Member States overwhelmingly welcomed the Single Market Emergency Instrument (SMEI), but called for numerous clarifications and streamlining during a first general approach debate at the EU ‘Competitiveness’ Council on Thursday 29 September.
“I am pleased to see that there is a very high degree of convergence” between the Member States, said the Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton. “It was very important because it is true that there had been some concerns expressed here and there (notably in our newsletter - see EUROPE 13022/10) when the text was proposed, and I believe that I was able to respond to all of these concerns”, he added.
During the speeches, all the ministers said that the European Commission had made the right diagnosis. The vast majority gave a positive opinion on the proposals made by the institution (see EUROPE 13024/1).
A division emerged between a group of “enthusiasts” such as Slovenia, Italy, Denmark and Spain, and a group of “sceptics”, starting with Luxembourg, Slovakia and Lithuania, although the latter was more nuanced.
Thus, in general, the ministers insisted on respecting proportionality and on clarifying the role of the Member States and the Commission, as in the case for France, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden.
The latter emphasised the importance of keeping the Internal Market open and putting business at the centre of the whole process, while other Member States stressed the importance of putting the EU Council at the centre instead. Hungary, Poland and Sweden have emphasised respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
In relation to the issue of proportionality, some Member States, such as Romania or Bulgaria or also Hungary, are critical of the possibility envisaged in the instrument to impose sanctions on companies that do not comply with information requests.
Belgium, for its part, insisted on respect for the right to strike, a demand that echoes that of the European trade unions (see EUROPE 13025/11). In addition, the issues of strategic reserves and priority orders have been on many people’s minds.
Another salient point that emerged from the speeches was the proper coordination of this instrument with other existing instruments or those currently being negotiated, such as HERA, the Chips Act, or the forthcoming proposal on raw materials.
Finally, in addition to proportionality and articulation, reference was made to the precision of the definitions proposed in the text, particularly with regard to the term “crisis”. Finland, Denmark and Austria particularly emphasised this point. The latter country, together with Romania, highlighted the importance of clearly defining the three stages, particularly in order to trigger the vigilance mode and, above all, the emergency mode.
One fear that was raised in several places was that the definition, due to its lack of precision, could potentially lead to a permanent crisis situation, a point that was highlighted in particular by the Netherlands. Belgium, for its part, stressed the need to better define strategic products.
The Czech Presidency of the EU Council has announced that it is aiming for a progress report on the text. It will be up to the Swedish Presidency to find a general approach on the instrument.
Bringing the Ukrainian economy closer to the Internal Market
At a press conference, Jozef Síkela, Czech Minister of Industry and Trade, spoke at length about the working lunch, which was dedicated to the resilience of the Single Market in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Responding to EUROPE, the Czech minister said that the Member States had mentioned the possibility of bringing the Ukrainian economy closer to the Internal Market. This process of rapprochement is not without technical difficulties, he immediately acknowledged.
This is why Member States have agreed to help Ukrainian companies enter the Internal Market to familiarise them with EU rules and tools. The idea is to strengthen cooperation so that European companies can also access the Ukrainian market, he added.
Mr Breton said that the European Commission has been working since 2020 on this rapprochement. “We are building on the existing”, he said. He recalled that the President of the European Commission has announced the inclusion of Ukraine in the new roaming framework. The issue of anti-corruption rules, among other topics, was discussed, he said.
European Alliance for Transformation Technologies
Still responding to EUROPE on the follow-up to the German proposal to set up a European Alliance for Transformation Technologies (see EUROPE 13026/24), the Commissioner indicated that there was a strong consensus between the Member States and the European Commission. Now we have to discuss the implementation of this project.
“We’ll see”, Thierry Breton said regarding this proposal. “The intention was to create a forum to discuss this”, he continued, stressing that the European Commission, the Member States and the companies concerned, as well as the European Investment Bank, would be present. Among the issues to be addressed, the Commissioner claims that it will be necessary to define the investment needs, identify the barriers to scaling up the manufacture of these technologies along the value chains, and finally target the levers to remove these barriers.
The Commissioner concluded on the practices of international competitors, noting that “some are starting to put up barriers to protect themselves, to prevent certain components from leaving their territory”, citing the example of the United States. It will be important not to adopt protectionist measures, he insisted, before exemplifying the virtues of playing “on equal terms” on the international stage. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)