Remove trade barriers and deepen the EU Single Market

The European Parliament has adopted a report on the European Commission”s proposed industrial strategy. We asked Jessica Stegrud (ECR), a member of ITRE (Committee on Industry, Energy and Research), about her views on the report.

What do you think is particularly important in the European Parliament”s report, from a positive and negative perspective?

The focus on digitisation is, in principle, a positive development. There are a number of cross-border aspects in this, as well as issues where the Union needs to agree on common strategies.

Investing in small and medium-sized enterprises also sounds promising, and insofar as this is a part of a process of nurturing and reforming the EU Single Market, it is of course good. Unfortunately, the report contains too many references to non-commercial support measures, something that we are sceptical about.

There are also references to reducing bureaucracy. If it does so, it would of course be very welcome. The problem is that when you want to do so much more at the same time, it can have the exact opposite effect.

The negative thing, above all, is that that the Union is expected to address many issues that fall outside its competence. The fact that men and women do not have equally levels of pension is, of course, an important issue, but it is hardly a supranational one.

Unfortunately, the EU Industrial Strategy has been widely permeated by the Union”s completely unrealistic climate goals. This risk acting as a damper to both energy-intensive industries and hampering Europe’s long-term competitiveness.

How do you think the planned updated EU Industrial Strategy might affect Swedish companies?

It is difficult to say; to a very large extent it depends on how well it is implemented by both the EU administration and Sweden. A positive scenario would be that Swedish industry can remain at the forefront of environmentally friendly technology development, and also be able to take advantage of the opportunities arising in both digitisation and new infrastructure projects.

The ‘grant culture’ that is now spreading is, of course, less appealing. It can increase wasteful expenditure and can benefit so-called ‘grant entrepreneurs’ at the expense of established companies.

What would you like to see more of in the updated EU Industrial Strategy?

Nuclear power should be highlighted as an important contributor to the current climate strategy. If we are to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels over a very short timescale, without jeopardising the competitiveness and quality of life of EU citizens, then delivery-secure, weather-independent, large-scale electricity production is essential. Energy policy should be national, but the development of nuclear power within the Union could be facilitated, for example by classifying it as sustainable. It would also allow nuclear power to compete in the financial markets as an equivalent alternative to other energy investments.

How do you see the role of the EU Single Market in the EU Industrial Strategy and is the will to reform and deepen it sufficient?

The EU Single Market is the most important aspect of our EU membership, as well for the industry. The Coronavirus pandemic has violated many rules of the EU Single Market throughout the Union, not least in the area of State Aid. It is important to find a route back to the existing rules.

Reform should not be ruled out, but rules should be easy to follow and violating them needs to have real consequences.

Trying to create more ”European champions”, i.e. more large European companies, by changing the EU”s competition rules is an approach that is often advocated by countries like France and Germany. Do you believe that EU competition rules need to be revised? If so, what risks and opportunities do you see in so doing?

Competition, and measures to counteract monopoly-like situations, are fundamentally good approaches. At the same time, however, it is important to be prepared to follow developments and be open to the reality that certain things can be done better. I am prepared to listen to such arguments.

However, it is not an end in itself for the Union to help German and French companies catch up with their largest American and Chinese competitors. Therefore, perhaps it is more of a priority to prevent large companies from playing Member State governments off against each other.

How do you think the free trade issues have been handled in this work?

Unfortunately, protectionism has become increasingly legitimised, even within the EU. There is now talk of openly introducing a CO2 tax on the import of goods (the Carbon Border Adjustment). That would be unfortunate and would also undermine the EU”s negotiating position within the WTO. Instead, one should go in the opposite direction and emphasise clearly the positive impact of world trade.

Is there something you want to see more, less of, or perhaps something completely different?

As can be seen from the responses above, we would have liked to have seen a greater focus on ensuring a functioning EU Single Market.

We in the Sweden Democrats want to see more limited EU cooperation in many respects, and from that perspective, we would prefer to see less of most things. Given the far-reaching demands for reductions in CO2 emissions, there also needs to be a more realistic and pragmatic approach to energy issues.