Slash transfer paperwork, steer orders to European factories and bankroll shared drone, air-shield, flank-watch and space sensors, MEPs insist. These could be the first steps toward bulk buying, cheaper kit and quicker deliveries for Europe’s armies.
Europe’s long-running quarrel with defence fragmentation moved a notch closer to settlement on March 11th, when the European Parliament backed two own-initiative resolutions designed to bulldoze market barriers and seed joint armament programmes. MEPs approved own initiative named ‘Tackling barriers to the single market for defence‘ by 393 votes to 169 and endorsed another, the ‘Flagship European defence projects of common interest‘ by 448 to 122.
Rapporteurs framed the vote as a response to Europe’s faltering clout in a season of wars. “European taxpayer money should primarily strengthen European industry, create European jobs, and build European capabilities,” said MEP Tobias Cremer (S&D/Germany), the rapporteur of the market-barriers report. His Italian colleague MEP Lucia Annunziata (S&D/Italy), sponsor of the flagships text, warned that the character of conflict is mutating fast.
An industrial single market
“Conflicts today present an entirely new face and entirely new threats,” the Italian member told the chamber. “What Europe can do rapidly, and shared by all member states, is to strengthen the development of technologies in order to create a common architecture—an integrated system of command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—capable of enabling European forces to act together efficiently and coherently.”
Parliament’s first text sets out a five-point plan. It urges a ‘Buy European‘ preference as well as mutual recognition of licences and security clearances. It also calls for a fresh procurement directive suited to drone-age innovation cycles, dedicated EU funding for scale-up technologies and a binding co-operation pact with NATO.
You might be interested
Mr Cremer put it starkly: “Colleagues, fragmentation is inefficient. It is expensive, but on today’s battlefield, we see that can even be deadly.” He noted that Europe operates 18 main battle-tank models while America runs one, a disparity reflected in everything from ammunition stocks to maintenance bills.
At a later press conference Mr Cremer argued that Europe cannot afford to import deterrence. “We have fantastic ideas, but what we need to do is to actually find a way to translate that,” he said. The share of common procurement inside the Union languishes at 17 per cent, far from the 40 per cent target agreed by governments. “Our objective here is simple, to build a competitive European defense ecosystem where every euro invested delivers maximum innovation, maximum security, and maximum value for money.”
From ambition to hardware
Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, in charge of the coming legislative package, echoed that logic. “Fragmentation stops us from developing joint defense projects,” he told MEPs. “If we overcome fragmentation, the defence industry can be the most important driver of competitiveness, not only for defence, but for the whole European economy.” A strategy for the European defence market and a rewritten procurement directive will appear before the summer recess, he promised.
Popular resilience is the most important weapon. — MEP Lucia Annunziata (S&D/ITA)
Parliament’s second resolution concentrates on capabilities. It blesses the Commission’s outline for four pan-European ‘flagships‘: a drone-defence network, an Eastern-flank early-warning system, a continental air-shield and a space-based sensor layer.
Ms Annunziata insisted the EU’s task is not to spray money but to plug hard gaps. “Our task, therefore, is not simply to increase military spending, but to ensure that Europe can genuinely protect its citizens through a collective effort and a shared strategy.” She wants the first coalitions of willing member states to declare themselves by year’s end and to lock in budgets under the next multi-annual financial framework.
Sceptics spoke loud
The two texts dovetail. The single-market plan supplies the plumbing—common standards, open supply chains, quicker licensing—while flagships supply the pressure that should push equipment through it. “This European defence cannot remain an idea. It has to become reality,” a Christian Democrat MEP said.
Not everyone cheered. Patriots for Europe objected that “respecting sovereignty is crucial, but we also believe that this perhaps is not the best way of strengthening our security.” Conservatives warned that “Brussels is pressuring competencies to be transferred from national level to EU level.”
The most acerbic barb came from Grzegorz Braun (IN/POL). “This is a very bad prognostic, and that is why I cannot support your programme,” he said. His speech featured the name of Stepan Bandera, apparently in order to demonstrate why Ukraine does not deserve any support from the distinguished Polish member.
Grants, not loans
Critics attack two flanks. Some fear that a market governed by EU rules would hollow out national industries and tip the playing field towards France or Germany. Others contend that procurement should remain bilateral, nimble and shielded from Brussels’ red tape. Mr Cremer tried to allay such worries. If mutual recognition works for civilian lorries, he quipped, it should work for a truck painted in camouflage.
The Parliament’s stance now moves to the Council, where defence ministers must decide how far they wish to cede ground to joint instruments; money looms large. Both reports plead for a hefty defence line in the 2028-34 budget and for the European Defence Investment Programme—modelled on the EU’s big research funds—to channel grants, not loans, into the flagships. Southern and smaller states, anxious about national offsets, will bargain for geographic spread of production lines.
Eighty per cent of European citizens are saying they want more defence common in Europe. Let’s deliver. — MEP Tobias Cremer (S&D/DEU)
Inside the Commission drafting rooms officials are already translating Parliament’s wish-list into clauses. Licencing deadlines may fall to 40 days. A new structure for European armament programmes could provide legal shelter for consortiums. Export-control rules may converge so that a missile sold to one EU buyer need not clear 26 additional capitals before resale to another. And the vexed Article 346 national-security exemption—invoked by governments to evade single-market law—may be confined to truly sensitive kit.
Strategic signal
Pressure to deliver comes from events. Iran’s war spills over shipping lanes; Russia’s armies grind on in Ukraine; America’s politics turn inward. Europe’s voters notice. In opinion polls four fifths now tell researchers they want the Union to play a bigger role in defence. Parliamentarians sense the shift. Mr Cremer reminded colleagues that “Eighty per cent of European citizens are saying they want more defence common in Europe. Let’s deliver.”
Neither text carries legal force as procurement remains a national prerogative. But both tell the European Commission how to shape legislation it plans to table this summer.
Even so, the leap from resolution to regiment will test Brussels. Common chargers for mobile phones took seven years to legislate. Warful skies will not grant as much time. Ms Annunziata closed the debate with a plea for public buy-in. “Popular resilience is the most important weapon,” she said. Winning that resilience may prove easier than cajoling 27 admiralties and defence ministries to pool their chequebooks; or so the hope goes.
