Why we should worry about little-known 'crisis mechanism' in EU military industrial plan

One of the European Defence Industrial Programme’s least discussed but most alarming features is the creation of a special “crisis mechanism”.

Under this framework, basic protections set out in the EU’s Working Time Directive could be suspended, allowing for extended shifts and longer workweeks in arms production.

The Working Time Directive limits working time to 48 hours per week and 13 hours per day — limits already very lenient.

The EDIP’s crisis derogations would allow corporations to go beyond this, overriding existing protections in the name of “continuity of production”.

This proposal represents not only a frontal attack on workers’ rights, but also on health and safety.

Longer shifts mean more fatigue and especially in high-risk industries such as explosives and heavy manufacturing, where fatigue is a serious safety hazard.

EDIP reintroduces, through the back door, language that trade unions had successfully removed from earlier defence legislation, such as the Act to Support Ammunition Production.

So-called priority-rated orders, under which companies would prioritise defence-relevant production, under short deadlines, reinforce the potential impact on working life.

During Covid, the US government invoked similar provisions of its Defence Production Act to keep certain production facilities open even when there was a serious concern for workers’ health and safety with workers working in crowded conditions without adequate protection. 

The process affects far more than arms factories.

As most important defence products have components that are not themselves defence products, the measures touch upon whole sectors. Measures can be taken to divert resources from civilian to military purposes if a perceived bottleneck for defence products comes from components of civilian nature.

Nitrocellulose is essential in explosives, but also important in laboratories for biochemical research, is an example. Today, in the US, the DPA is invoked to counter a perceived lack of graphite production. 

To put a toxic cherry on the cake, the EDIP regulation also pushes for faster permits for related production facilities, including through non-respect of the Water Framework Directive.

Failure to achieve good groundwater status or prevent deterioration in the status of surface water or groundwater will be acceptable in the name of overriding public interest if a supply-crisis is declared.

At a time when Europe struggles with PFAS contamination and chronic groundwater pollution, such exceptions could have disastrous long-term consequences for public health, and literally kill.

Who gives the orders?

Moreover, industry, but not workers, will play an important role in the declaration and management of a crisis. The initiative to declare a security-of-supply crisis for example would come from a new — utterly non-transparent — Defence Security of Supply Board.

Next to member states and EU Commission representatives, the European Defence Agency will be represented on the board. The EDA considers serving as an interface to represent defence industry perspectives as one of its objectives.

In addition to their structural interaction with the commission and their influence on national governments, national defence industrial associations will be invited to the board at least once a year.

After the declaration of a crisis, EDIP also foresees the structural involvement of high-level industrial representatives. Workers, environmental groups, and civil society, however, have no guaranteed seat at the table.

This direct attack on workers’ rights compounds the other negative effects of militarisation on workers and industry.

Increased military spending entails significant opportunity costs by diverting resources away from more productive alternative investments.

While workers across Europe face mass factory closures, the redirection of public funds to already highly profitable arms manufacturers creates far fewer jobs than comparable investments in infrastructure, renewable energy such as wind and solar, education, or healthcare.

Studies — including those conducted by military think tanks — warn of a negative multiplier effect and an adverse impact on long-term economic growth.

The institutionalisation of EDIP would further erode social and democratic rights, damage our health and environment, and entrench a war-dependent economy. Europe must instead reinvest in people, public goods, technology, and peace.

Every month, hundreds of thousands of people read the journalism and opinion published by EUobserver. With your support, millions of others will as well.

If you're not already, become a supporting member today.