France and Germany are at odds over how the European Union should define European production under its emerging industrial preference rules, with Paris favouring a narrow EU-only system while Berlin wants trusted trade partners including Britain, Canada and Japan to remain eligible.

France and Germany have reopened a fundamental dispute over the European Union’s “Made in Europe” industrial policy, this time over the question that will determine how far-reaching the programme eventually becomes: which countries should qualify as European suppliers.

The disagreement centres on the Industrial Accelerator Act, under which the EU wants to use subsidies and public procurement to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce dependence on Chinese production in strategic sectors.

France is pressing for a restrictive definition centred on manufacturing within the EU’s 27 member states. Germany favours a broader approach that could extend preferential treatment to countries with close trade agreements or reciprocal industrial relationships with the Union.

That could bring Britain, Canada, Japan and potentially Turkey within the system rather than treating their products in the same way as goods from China and other outside suppliers, according to reporting on the Franco-German dispute.

The dispute has important consequences because “Made in Europe” is intended to influence how large amounts of public money are spent.

The Industrial Accelerator Act is designed to introduce European-content requirements into selected subsidy schemes and public contracts in sectors including electric vehicles, batteries and clean technology. The underlying objective is to ensure that European public spending supports European industrial capacity rather than increasing dependence on imported technologies.

EU Today has followed the argument since the proposals began taking shape. In February, it reported that the Commission was preparing local-content rules for strategic technologies. The debate has since moved from whether such preferences should exist to how broadly “European” should be interpreted.

Paris wants the benefits concentrated inside the EU. The French position reflects concern that allowing manufacturers in countries with EU trade agreements to qualify could dilute the purpose of the scheme. If access is too broad, the argument runs, public procurement may do little to increase production or employment within the Union itself.

Germany is more cautious about creating a closed EU system. Its manufacturing economy is embedded in supply chains extending across Europe and into neighbouring markets, including Britain and Turkey. Berlin has therefore argued for a “made with EU” approach under which trusted trade partners could participate if their markets also provide reciprocal access to European industry.

That disagreement has become increasingly important for Britain. British manufacturers, particularly in the automotive sector, remain closely integrated into continental production networks despite Brexit.

A strict EU27 definition could therefore produce situations in which components made in Britain count as foreign content even when they are incorporated into vehicles assembled inside the Union.

France and Germany had appeared to be moving towards a broader industrial compromise last week. Their negotiations combined the “Made in Europe” question with disagreements over vehicle-emission rules and the future treatment of combustion-engine technology. The latest discussions show that one of the hardest questions remains unresolved.

There is also concern among some EU governments that an overly broad system could create routes for companies from countries such as China to obtain favourable treatment indirectly.

The argument mirrors a wider change in EU economic policy. Supply disruptions, Russia’s war against Ukraine and China’s dominance of several strategic manufacturing sectors have pushed Brussels towards a more interventionist approach.

France sees public purchasing power as an instrument for rebuilding production specifically within the Union. Germany is seeking greater flexibility for supply chains involving trusted partners and appears more concerned about the trade consequences of drawing the boundary too tightly.

For Brussels, the problem is now practical rather than theoretical. The narrower the definition, the more industrial support remains inside the EU; the broader it becomes, the easier it is to preserve existing supply chains and relations with allies.

France and Germany are moving towards a possible compromise over the future of Europe’s automotive industry, linking negotiations over EU vehicle-emission rules with a separate dispute over how strongly European-made products should be favoured in subsidies and public procurement.

The negotiations bring together two issues that have divided Paris and Berlin: Germany’s demand for greater flexibility in rules governing combustion-engine vehicles and France’s campaign for stronger “Made in Europe” requirements in EU industrial policy.

Officials involved in the discussions believe a broader Franco-German agreement may now be possible, although differences remain over how European content should be defined and whether products made in countries with EU free-trade agreements should receive similar treatment.

The automotive dispute follows the Commission’s decision in December 2025 to propose significant changes to rules that had originally required a 100 per cent reduction in tailpipe CO₂ emissions from new cars from 2035.

Under the revised automotive package, manufacturers would instead face a 90 per cent tailpipe-emissions reduction requirement from 2035.

The remaining 10 per cent could be compensated through mechanisms linked to low-carbon steel produced in the EU and the use of e-fuels and biofuels.

EU Today reported before the Commission presented the package that pressure from Germany, Italy and European manufacturers was forcing Brussels to reconsider the original 2035 framework.

The subsequent proposal confirmed the shift.

In March, EU Today also examined the Commission’s decision to link low-carbon European steel directly to vehicle-emissions compliance, creating a connection between automotive climate rules and support for Europe’s heavy industry.

Germany has continued to argue for a technology-neutral approach.

Berlin wants legislation to leave scope for combustion engines operating on renewable or low-carbon fuels rather than treating battery-electric vehicles as the only route towards lower emissions.

That position is particularly important for Germany because of the scale of its automotive sector and the large industrial supply chain built around combustion-engine technology.

France’s priority is different.

Paris wants EU industrial policy to ensure that public subsidies and procurement increasingly support products manufactured inside Europe.

The argument centres on the Commission’s Industrial Accelerator Act, proposed in March as part of a wider strategy to strengthen European manufacturing.

The legislation introduces “Made in EU” and low-carbon requirements for public procurement and public support schemes covering strategic sectors including automotive manufacturing, steel, cement and aluminium.

The dispute is over what “European” should mean.

France favours a relatively strict definition focused principally on production inside the EU’s 27 member states.

Germany has advocated what Economy Minister Katherina Reiche has described as a “Made with Europe” approach, under which some products from close trading partners could qualify if those countries provide equivalent market access to European companies.

That could potentially include states such as Norway and Switzerland and partners including Canada.

Spain has been among countries seeking a middle position between the French and German approaches.

The issue matters because modern automotive supply chains do not stop at the EU’s external border.

Battery materials, semiconductors, electric motors and other components can pass through several countries before final assembly, while Britain and Turkey remain deeply integrated into European vehicle production.

The EU-UK relationship is particularly sensitive because stricter rules of origin for electric vehicles are due to apply from 2027.

EU Today previously reported that European and British manufacturers were seeking another delay to those rules because the regional battery supply chain had not developed as quickly as originally expected.

At the same time, the EU is attempting to reduce dependence on Chinese electric vehicles, batteries and critical inputs.

The Commission has committed €1.8 billion to a Battery Booster strategy intended to strengthen the European battery value chain.

European electric-vehicle demand is continuing to grow. A 16-market European survey examined by EU Today showed battery-electric cars taking more than a quarter of new registrations in July, although large differences remain between national markets.

Manufacturers must therefore make investment decisions while several important elements of the regulatory framework remain under negotiation.

Factory conversion, battery plants and new vehicle platforms require investments planned years in advance. The conditions applying after 2030 will directly affect where those investments are made.

A Franco-German understanding would not determine the final EU rules. The European Parliament, Commission and other member states remain part of both legislative negotiations.

It could, however, bridge two of the most important disputes: Germany’s demand for greater technological flexibility in the 2035 vehicle regime and France’s demand that public money be used more directly to support European production.

The negotiations now underway suggest Paris and Berlin are increasingly treating those questions as parts of the same industrial bargain.