Chauvinist “Made in Europe” message

Talk about Made in Europe It returned to the center of the European political debate led by its own governments. We are facing a story that is considered outdated and that today appears with a more urgent and, above all, self-critical tone.

The relevant change is not expected to bring more in Europe, up to the diagnostic that accompanies it. Emmanuel Macron has explicitly articulated this in various European forums to demand a common industrial policy that protects strategic capabilities.

Friedrich Merz spent the longest time identifying rodeo as the main obstacle. It is not the fault of entrepreneurial initiative or human capital. It is excessive regulation that undermines economic activity in the Union.

That this recognition came from the European political core is significant in itself. Over the years, the dominant relationship attributed less European dynamism to external or structural factors that were difficult to correct. Asymmetric globalization, China’s competence, state subsidies.

The Union tries to assume that a substantial part of its problem is the institutional arrangement

Now instead the fire is disappearing inside. The Union is determined to assume that a substantial part of its problem is the institutional set-up.

The paradox is evident. Europe has lost its largest constituency, the free movement of goods, capitals and people. It has built a unique market without historical precedents. no embargo, crashed at a place to come later. Simplify to homogenize.

Transform this market into a truly fluid space for production, turnaround and expansion. In practice, the Union of 27 continues to function as a superposition of the main national regulators, multiplying costs and reducing efficiency.

Merz himself bluntly expressed to the defenders the need for a single European legal regime for companies operating in different countries. Criticism should not be directed against regulation as a principle, but against its unorganized accumulation and its desirable transfer in each member state. The result is an environment where meeting the standard absorbs resources that could be dedicated to innovation.

The automotive industry illustrates this problem with uncomfortable clarity. No, because it was poorly regulated, though It is regulated in excess and in fragmented form. From the import of components to production, homologation, urban use, tax incentives and waste treatment, every stage is subject to European and national regulations that do not always apply.

Even an electric car can receive generous subsidies in one country and avoid the tax burden in another. You can move freely in one city and be restricted in another. Environmental requirements, purchase incentives, fees, maintenance standards or urban access criteria vary in a market that presents itself as unique. The consequence is not major climate change, but loss of scale and continued uncertainty for producers and consumers.

In Europe, we are discussing how to expand on an industrial basis, with the main competitors operating with the most predictable brands. Estados Unidos combines subsidies with clear and homogeneous regulations. China plans with internal cohesion and executes without fragmentation. Europe, on the other hand, legislates with ambition, but implements it scatteredly. This difference weighs and weighs heavily in capital-intensive sectors.

Ahí is the reason why the idea of ​​Made in Europe has to show its limits. How a political slogan works. As an economic strategy, it is insufficient if it is not accompanied by a profound simplification of the regulatory framework. The problem is not consumer preference or industry origin. It is about the inner workings of the market.

There is also a clear discrepancy between the institutional discourse and the actual behavior of citizens. Consumers are not elected to the role of political parcels, regardless of price, quality and habits. To think that Made in Europe can only compete as a matter of identity is to confuse industrial policy with marketing.

The Union would like to admit that something is not working. Checking the diagnostics is the first step, which takes a while but is fine.

Now I see it on the surface of the table. Europe does not need more brands or more strategic capabilities. It requires less bureaucracy and more cohesion.

If you really want to turn to manufacturing, the most revolutionary gesture will not be to protect the European, but to simplify Europe. Because the paradox of the single market is not the same market. This means that after creating it, you still haven’t learned how to make it work.