The term 'single defence market' may sound harmless, even seductive. In reality, it carries a serious misunderstanding of what defence is — and what it is not. Behind promises of competitiveness, harmony and prosperity lies a drift that risks weakening Europe rather than strengthening it. This concept, now gaining ground within European institutions, reflects a confusion between two fundamentally different domains: sovereignty and commerce.
Applying the single-market model to defence is not only inappropriate; it runs counter to the EU's founding treaties. Articles 4 of the Treaty on European Union and 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union clearly state that defence remains a national domain. And rightly so. Defence concerns the life of nations, the control of sensitive technologies as well as national security and diplomacy. It cannot be governed by market mechanisms.
Yet several recent initiatives in the European Parliament attempt to force this logic. One of these reports is expected to be voted on in 2025, and two more early next year. Each, under the guise of industrial rationalisation, pursues the same federalist ambition. But their real effect would be to give the European Commission an expanding role — first coordination, then regulating, and eventually steering the entire defence sector. What looks like technical progress is, in fact, a major political shift.
Europe does not need a single defence market. It needs a European defence that is co-ordinated, interoperable and capable of producing, procuring and acting together when circumstances require — without sacrificing national sovereignty. Turning a strategic mission into a market product is a profound error.
Let us not forget that the single market rests on five interlinked principles: the free movement of goods, harmonised standards, competition control by the European Commission, qualified majority voting, and export regulation.
Transposed to defence, each becomes problematic — even dangerous. The free movement of armaments weakens sovereign control over strategic transfers. Full harmonisation of military standards risks imposing norms detached from operational needs and constraining the innovation needed to face evolving threats. Commission competition oversight undermines national champions and restricts state aid in its current form for reasons of national security. Qualified majority voting jeopardises the veto rights of member states. And a supranational export regime would stifle both diplomatic flexibility and industrial autonomy.
This drift is all the more worrying as it comes wrapped in an appealing narrative: the promises of jobs, 'European industrial champions,' competitiveness and even 'collective sovereignty.' But this federalist dream, sold as a miracle cure, could well produce division and mistrust. In seeking to strengthen Europe, it may accelerate its fragmentation.
A more grounded approach is needed. Rather than forcing a single defence market, Europe should develop an intergovernmental defence market built on voluntary cooperation, supported by stronger coordination at EU level. Such a model would foster mobility, standardisation and mutualisation, and reduce fragmentation — without erasing national sovereignties.
Words matter. Confusing defence with the single market is to betray the very foundations of the European project. Our predecessors fought to preserve national competence in matters of defence, precisely to protect both our unity and our freedom.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.