A move by senior European People’s Party figures to scrap the EU’s proposed industrial law has triggered accusations that they are abandoning European workers. Its opponents warn the plan could provoke trade wars, while Parliament’s negotiators say it should be improved rather than killed.
Christian Ehler, the EPP’s coordinator for the European Parliament’s industry committee (ITRE), submitted the rejection amendment on Wednesday alongside fellow German representative Angelika Niebler and Jörgen Warborn, the group’s coordinator for the international trade committee (INTA). Their intervention challenges the Industrial Accelerator Act, which would use public purchases and financial support to increase demand for European-made industrial products.
“We should be negotiating and improving the Industrial Accelerator Act, not blocking it before discussions have even started,” Christophe Grudler, the Renew Europe representative leading work on the legislation in ITRE, told EU Perspectives. He described the initiative as particularly surprising given Germany’s manufacturing job losses.
Protecting jobs, or provoking trade wars?
The amendment proposing to reject the entire file, as first reported by Contexte, argues that the legislation would not solve Europe’s competitiveness problems. Its authors specifically challenge the parliamentary negotiators’ proposed approach to admitting partner countries, warning that it could breach trade agreements and World Trade Organization obligations. They say it risks “plunging the European Union into multiple trade wars with some of our closest partners”.
Their alternative is stronger action against unfair competition, including anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. The disagreement is therefore over how to defend manufacturing: favour European production when spending public money, or concentrate on tackling unfair imports without disrupting relations with trading partners.
The Socialists and Democrats responded on social media that the move “puts Europe’s industry and millions of jobs at risk”. Pierre Jouvet, the Socialist leading negotiations for Parliament’s internal market committee (IMCO), called it “a betrayal of European workers”, Agence Europe reported. He accused the opponents of leaving Europe more exposed to Chinese industrial power.
Kathleen van Brempt, the Socialists’ negotiator on the legislation in the trade committee, accused the EPP of trying to torpedo the act on X. “Killing the Industrial Accelerator Act means putting European industry and millions of jobs at risk,” she wrote, urging its opponents to return to negotiations. At an industry debate in Strasbourg on Wednesday, she described the legislation as part of a wider industrial reinvention. “We know we need firm measures,” she said.
Ehler previously backed the proposal’s potential
The rejection bid contrasts with the EPP’s response when the Commission presented the legislation in March. Its designated negotiator, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, described the proposal as something the group had long advocated. Mr Ehler himself called it “an important part of the puzzle”, arguing that demand for European and greener products could help innovative industries expand.
Mr Ehler had also warned then that protectionism would not solve Europe’s structural economic problems. Wednesday’s amendment takes that concern further, seeking rejection of the legislation rather than changes to make it work.
We should be negotiating and improving the Industrial Accelerator Act, not blocking it before discussions have even started. — Christophe Grudler (Renew/FRA), rapporteur in ITRE
Mr Grudler argued that the initiative exposed divisions within the centre-right group. “This appears to be a personal initiative by the three MEPs and does not represent the EPP group line which is strongly divided,” he said. “I do hope they will come back to the table so we can work together on real solutions for European industry and jobs.” An EPP group source separately told Agence Europe that discussions were continuing towards a common position.
The Commission stood firm. “We stand 100 per cent behind the proposal that we adopted in March,” spokesperson Siobhan McGarry said at Wednesday’s midday briefing. She declined to comment on Parliament’s internal discussions, but defended the legislation as important for clean technology and automotive industries facing unfair competition and dependence on foreign suppliers.
Industry wants trusted partners included
The Commission’s proposal would introduce European-origin or low-carbon requirements for selected public purchases and support schemes, covering sectors such as cars, batteries, cement and aluminium. It also seeks faster permits for industrial projects. The idea is to give manufacturers more confidence that investing in European production will bring customers.
But businesses are pressing for rules that recognise their international supply chains. At Wednesday’s Strasbourg event, Javier Ormazabal, president of the European technology industries association Orgalim, called for access based on reciprocity, clear product coverage, faster permits and workable low-carbon requirements. The technology industry association argued that European preference should extend beyond the EU’s 27 countries.
Tomislav Sokol, one of the EPP’s negotiators on the legislation, acknowledged that concern. “Of course we want to include countries that are trusted partners,” he said at the same event. His emphasis was on who should qualify under the rules, illustrating the scope for negotiating changes within the group.
The Commission’s original proposal already provides routes for products from trading partners to qualify, depending on the agreement and type of public support involved. The fight is over how those arrangements should work in practice. Wednesday’s rejection bid raises the stakes: negotiators must now defend both the boundaries of European preference and whether the law should proceed at all.
