After the terrorist attack in Madrid 2004, the discussion on the possible future role for the EU regarding critical infrastructure protection (CIP) gained momentum. This study compares the proposals discussed within the EU with Swedish policy. An important part of the report is the development of tentative, comparative factors. Two alternative, possible future roles for the EU regarding CIP can be discerned from the EU documents: Either a system controlled by the Commission, quite centralised and with a top down process to identify, analyse and protect critical infrastructure, or a decentralised system where the role of the EU rather is to encourage and support the development of common views, coordination and cooperation but where the control remains with the Member States. In this report it is noted that from a Swedish perspective, not least due to the increased trans-nationalisation and multi-nationalisation of critical infrastructures, an enhanced role for the EU would have advantages. However, an EU system, especially a more centralised one, will also have consequences for the Swedish system, which is based on a bottom-up approach with independent agencies. Hence there is a number of questions that have to be analysed urgently, for instance concerning the Swedish structure of agencies, the delineation between what should be defined as national and European infrastructure and how Swedish CIP-priorities could be affected by an EU critical infrastructure protection policy.