The European Parliament, in a debate on 17 June 2026 ahead of the European Council meeting, revealed a deep divide over EU-China economic relations and the bloc's strategic direction. EPP leader Manfred Weber called China's €360 billion trade deficit 'unacceptable', demanding reciprocity in public procurement and European sovereignty over 6G networks. S&D leader Iratxe García Pérez pushed back, warning against a simplistic 'China bad, US good' narrative and urging the Commission to tax windfall oil profits. The debate, which also covered Ukraine, the Middle East, MFF negotiations, competitiveness, migration, and security, saw no formal decisions; the Council will provide strategic guidance on 18-19 June.
Council President-in-Office Marilena Raouna outlined the agenda, while Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič reiterated the Commission's 'derisking, not decoupling' approach to China, stressing reciprocity and a level playing field. The debate split between those prioritising protectionism and sovereignty (EPP, ECR, PfE) and those advocating multilateralism and green investment (S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA). ECR's Nicola Procaccini demanded a decisive response to China's unfair competition and defended the new returns regulation as taking back control of borders. Patriots for Europe's Kinga Gál rejected MFF cuts to CAP and cohesion, opposed rule-of-law conditionality, and criticised Ukraine's accession talks as premature. Renew's Valérie Hayer urged European independence from both the US and China, focusing on technological sovereignty and competitiveness. Greens/EFA's Terry Reintke blamed fossil fuel dependency for crises and defended the Green Deal as key to sovereignty.
EU producers in manufacturing and tech could benefit from EPP's reciprocity demands, potentially reducing Chinese competition, but may face higher input costs if decoupling accelerates. EU consumers could see higher prices for electronics and goods if tariffs or restrictions increase. EU exporters to China risk retaliation if the EU adopts tougher measures. EU taxpayers may face higher costs for defence and technology sovereignty investments, while the Green Deal's green investment push could create jobs but require upfront spending.