Brussels prepares a major procurement shift as industry cheers—and lawyers warn of trade and competition risks
The EU is moving toward a “Buy European” approach to public spending, aiming to channel taxpayer money into EU-made strategic technologies. Supporters say it could shore up jobs and supply chains; critics warn it may raise costs, trigger trade disputes, and strain the single market’s own rules.
Brussels is preparing a new push to prioritise European-made goods in public procurement and subsidy-linked purchases, part of a broader industrial policy drive that EU officials frame as necessary for resilience, security, and competitiveness. But as debate intensifies, the central question is whether the EU can “buy European” at scale without undermining the open-market principles and trade commitments that helped build the bloc’s prosperity.
In a deep dive published on 26 February 2026, Euronews reported that the European Commission is expected to table a sweeping “One Europe, One Market” action plan at the March 2026 EU summit, with “Buy European” at its core—politically simple in slogan form, but legally and economically complex in execution.
What Brussels is considering
At the heart of the emerging plan is the idea that when public money supports “strategic” technologies—think clean tech, advanced manufacturing, critical infrastructure, and other sensitive supply chains—EU funding should come with conditions favouring European production. A Reuters explainer published this month outlined the Commission’s draft concept for a “made in Europe” approach, describing requirements that a minimum share of certain subsidised products be manufactured in the EU when public support is involved. (See: What is in the EU’s draft “made in Europe” law?.)
While exact thresholds and sectors remain politically contested, the direction of travel is clear: procurement, state aid, and EU-level programmes would be used more explicitly as industrial policy tools—an approach often justified by the need to reduce dependencies and strengthen Europe’s manufacturing base.
Why it’s controversial
EU procurement law is designed to ensure competition, prevent discrimination, and deliver value for money—principles that also matter for trust in public spending. Critics argue that blanket “buy local” conditions can backfire, narrowing supplier pools and raising prices for public services and infrastructure projects.
There is also the external dimension: the EU is bound by international trade commitments, and any shift that looks like systematic discrimination against non-EU suppliers risks disputes or retaliation. Even within Europe, member states do not always agree on how far “strategic autonomy” should go—especially when national industries compete for the same subsidies and contracts.
Some of the sharpest questions are practical: What counts as “European-made” in a world of complex supply chains? How should components be treated? And how will the Commission enforce rules without generating heavy administrative burdens—particularly for smaller companies and local authorities?
A UK angle—and a sign of the plan’s reach
The debate is already influencing partners outside the EU. In a Brussels visit reported by The Guardian, the UK’s business secretary said British voters want deeper economic ties with the EU as London seeks pragmatic cooperation. The same report noted UK interest in engaging with a forthcoming “Made in Europe” procurement scheme—an indicator that the EU’s choices could ripple beyond its borders. (See: The Guardian’s Brussels report, 25 February 2026.)
What this means for cohesion, regions, and public trust
Procurement fights rarely stay technical for long. If “Buy European” rules apply across EU-funded programmes, cohesion-policy regions may face new constraints on how quickly they can deliver projects—and on what terms. That is one reason cohesion ministers meeting in Brussels today are also discussing the future shape of cohesion policy and lessons for the next budget cycle, according to the Council’s forward agenda. (See: Council “Forward look”, 23 February–8 March 2026.)
For public confidence, the risk is not only cost: it is perceived fairness. Procurement is where EU rules touch daily life—transport, hospitals, schools, energy upgrades—and any system that looks designed for insiders can quickly erode legitimacy. That concern is not theoretical: procurement compliance is increasingly linked to broader EU governance, including rights and accountability safeguards in spending programmes.
At the same time, EU policymakers argue that without a stronger industrial base, Europe’s climate goals and economic security become harder to achieve. The challenge is balancing strategic investment with open competition and clear, enforceable rules. As Europe debates how to decarbonise heavy industry, for example, the question is not only how to cut emissions, but how to sustain the industrial ecosystems that make the transition possible—an issue also highlighted in a recent European Environment Agency-based briefing covered by The European Times.
Expect three flashpoints in the coming weeks: (1) the Commission’s detailed legal design—especially how it defines “European-made”; (2) member-state divisions over how protectionist the instrument should be; and (3) reactions from major trading partners, particularly if the new approach is seen as closing markets.
If Brussels wants a “Buy European” policy that survives court challenges and avoids trade blowback, it will need transparent definitions, narrow and defensible scope, and safeguards that keep public procurement competitive—otherwise the slogan may prove easier to sell than to implement.
