Isabel Yglesias has been, for four years, director of European Affairs of the Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE), the permanent delegate of big business in Brussels. The interview, however, takes place in Madrid.
Yglesias is visiting Spain this week, as part of an intense agenda of meetings with institutions --including the Vice-President of the Commission herself, the Spaniard Teresa Ribera--. He receives Demócrata at the employers' headquarters in Madrid, on Diego de León street.
This specialist in competition law and state aid pilots the interests of Spanish business in Brussels at a time when the Commission is proposing its redefinition. A topic that she is passionate about and, as she herself admits, pursues her.
QUESTION: The delay in transposing directives has always been a cause for concern in Spain, which is now going through a moment of legislative paralysis due to the blockade in Congress. What is your assessment?
RESPONSE: It is a problem identified in many Member States, it is not only a problem for Spain, although delays have been increasing in recent years. It worries us, not only because it generates an obvious inequality in the single market, but because it generates legal uncertainty for companies.
We are very concerned about something our legislator is accustomed to doing, going beyond what a directive foresees. Many times too many loose ends are left for Member States to elaborate and add regulatory burden. That is why we are pleased that the Commission speaks of simplification in its proposal on improving legislation.
We also see how regulations gain weight over directives, something that the business sector supports for clarity and speed. But we are concerned that loose ends will be left open that then have to be closed with delegated acts, a less transparent instrument with less dialogue and participation. We are in a transition phase in the European way of legislating that will later be reproduced at the national level.
"To ensure the success of Spanish companies it is important that we all play as one"
Q: What issues are of particular concern to you now in the European sphere? You have spoken of simplification and the Regime 28 comes to mind…
A: The agenda for moving from the Single Market to the One Market is exciting. The Commission, Parliament, and Council are committed to accelerating decision-making on key issues for European competitiveness. There is a part of single market integration that will involve improving the freedom to provide services and, among them, as you say, Regime 28, a simple and unified regime for company creation that we support from Business Europe.
The Commission's proposal is very ambitious. We are working on our positioning, both through Business Europe and in the European Economic and Social Committee, where there is already considerable opposition. There are issues such as labor or fiscal matters that will be difficult, but it is a test of the Member States' commitment to this competitiveness agenda. If we do not manage to move this project forward in this geopolitical situation, it will be a major setback, because it is one of the Commission's major projects.
Q: How do you assess the shift in recent years towards strategic autonomy?
A: We are working on the concept of open strategic autonomy. It is in the EU's DNA to continue to be so. We now have two proposals on the table that test us in defining how far the EU wants to go in, I wouldn't call it protection, but strengthening its industries: the Industry Acceleration Act and the review of public procurement directives. There is conflict there because some states see it as an almost unnatural move for them, but I believe consensus positions will be reached. They will not be what is in the Commission's proposal, but there will be movement.
"The Commission says it only prohibits 2-3% of merger operations, but there are many that do not even get born because companies do not even consider them"
Q: Why do you say they are 'unnatural' proposals?
A: Well, there are member states that are very much opposed because they are absolutely pro market opening. It's almost a philosophical question.
Q: A historical position, so to speak.
A: Yes. It is assumed that in this One Market agenda and in the latest Council meetings there is a commitment for the industry acceleration law to be adopted before the end of the year. We are in May, we do not believe we are going to make it. It is very difficult for the proposal, which is technically very difficult, to be balanced and implementable.
Q: Hasn't this debate arrived too late, especially on issues of a technological nature or those that could put Europe's security or sovereignty at risk?
A: I believe the European Union has been very comfortable in well-established relationships of trust, and that in no case had we put ourselves in a situation like the current one. It was almost impossible to foresee. There is a recurring and very true phrase: the European Union takes giant steps in its integration during crises.
We are facing a catalyst to unite us on issues that were latent and to promote technologies that we already have. We have spent a few years forgetting or inflicting guilt and pain on ourselves, when in reality we are a pool of talent and technology. We have super cutting-edge companies. We just have to let them develop and pave the way, and that is what the Commission intends with proposals such as the E-Market, with some adjustments in public procurement that do not exclude third countries, nor certainly the neighboring country.
"We are not the easiest country in terms of unity of action, but we remain committed to achieving it"
Q: What concerns you in the Industry Acceleration Law?
A: A: We are still developing the position. It is very complex, because within the value chains that are identified there are different positions within the same sector. The issue of permits for industrial projects does concern us. The law proposes the simplification and acceleration of permits, and we find it difficult to see how it will be implemented in a State as decentralized as ours. There is much talk of European preference, but the draft regulation has other things, such as permits or industrial acceleration zones, which could serve as a model for other proposals in the future.
Q: The industrial sector is precisely one of the most affected by Donald Trump's tariff policy. What measures can be adopted to strengthen European industrial capacity?
A: We must distinguish between temporary measures focused on current crises and long-term ones. A cross-cutting concern for European industry and businesses is energy prices. The Commission has just presented a new package of state aid for the most affected sectors, which includes the flexibility of the aid system, a topic that always concerns us due to the unequal fiscal capacity among Member States and the distortions it can generate in price setting. Regarding structural aspects, the Industrial Acceleration Act proposes reaching 20% of European GDP generated by industry. This has always been among the historical priorities of CEOE, and we can only support it, provided that the specificities and needs of each sector are respected.
Q: Another tariff issue, this one in the opposite direction, is the recent agreement with Mercosur. Do you view with concern the warnings issued about its effects on the primary sector? Do you believe the controls that have been promised are sufficient?
R: We have always defended that agreement, not only for its commercial importance but also for its geopolitical link, in a very important area for Spain due to the bridging role it must and is already playing. We have always listened to the concerns of the primary sector. The important thing is that the safeguards that have been introduced are applied decisively. Sufficient resources are needed for border control, and this is something that concerns us in Mercosur but also in other areas.
Q: The review of competition rules in the Union is also on the table. What is CEOE's position? How do you see the debate that is taking place?
A: It is an issue that the Draghi and Letta reports had put on the table, talking about these European champions. I think it is a term that does not help and distracts from what the European Union really has to do to advance in competitiveness. It is not a question of having European champions, but of advancing all the proposals that are coming from the Clean Industrial Deal and others. It is a terminology that I do not like to use.
These guidelines are an opportunity to streamline and modernize the examination of merger operations, giving more weight to criteria such as innovation, sustainability, resilience… Many large sectors are called to a certain level of consolidation to invest in these criteria and it seems that the guidelines leave behind a perhaps more short-term examination, which focused on immediate prices. We hope so.
The European Commission always says that 90% of merger operations are approved in three weeks, that only 2-3% of operations are prohibited. But there are operations that are withdrawn and many that do not come to fruition because companies do not even consider them.
Q: What role does CEOE play in Brussels? What is the relationship with the rest of employers' groups and the influence ecosystem?
A: In recent years, we have been reinforcing our presence in Brussels, with a reinforcement of the human team. We are a team of nine people, but our team is nothing without Madrid, where positions are worked on and where our associates come to convey their concerns. We work a lot in Business Europe to lead issues and act as the fourth economy in the EU. And we also reinforce our work with the rest of the national employers' associations. With those in the Mediterranean, we are emulating a format that exists at the governmental level to add the business vision to all that work. In recent years, business interest and representation in Brussels have grown enormously, and that is a pleasure and a source of pride because it gives us substance. There is now a boom in the defense sector, and CEOE has created a specific commission.
Q: Do you think there is a defense of the national interest as there is in other countries, or do you miss that a bit from Spain?
R: We are not the easiest country in terms of unity of action. There are many great former ambassadors who have written books and articles about it. But we remain committed to it. Not only business unity of action, but unity of action as a country to be able to be coordinated, to go as one as others do and to be able to take the role that corresponds to us as the fourth economy in the euro. To be able to ensure the success of Spanish companies and the success of Spain, it is very important that we all play as one; but in all areas, including the European Parliament.
"To ensure the success of Spanish companies it is important that we all play as one"
Q: She is vice-president of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). What is the dialogue with European trade unions like? Do you find differences compared to what there might be in Spain?
R: As it is based on consensus, it is a completely different dynamic from other areas. It is very positive and constructive, from the first draft we are focused on ensuring that all groups – employers, unions, and civil society organizations—are comfortable. There are points of disagreement, but it is very intense work and it is a place with people with a lot of experience and knowledge and in which the Spanish representation is very strong. We are a super respected delegation and the relationship is very good.
Q: Fewer domestic disputes are taken to Europe than other areas…
R: Exactly. Because there, we work with another perspective and with the perspective that the position of the Economic and Social Committee has been taken into account by the institutions in the legislative process.
Q: How do you see Spanish representation in European institutions? Do you think the trend is positive?
A: Spain has always had very important decision-making positions because, among other things, we have great jurists, great economists… Perhaps in recent years it may seem that we do not have the major portfolios, but we continue to have a dynasty of directors of the Legal Service of the Commission. We have a hyperactive Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice. We also have very expert and very good people in many of the Commission's cabinets. For a time, we had the three chief economists in the major directorates-general for business: Competition, Single Market, and Energy. A very high level of professionalization has been reached. We are very respected.