Commission-companion-full

BETTER REGULATION
To cut or not to cut?
The unveiling of the European
Commission’s 2015 work programme
was marred by a nasty fight with
MEPs over the planned withdrawal of two
proposals – one on air quality and another
on waste – that had already started making
their way through the legislative process.
They were just two of 80 pieces of draft
legislation in line to be axed.
The Commission was taken aback by the
ferocity of the opposition to its plan. But for
many MEPs the issue was symptomatic of a
larger problem: the Commission’s response
to the surge in Euroscepticism across
Europe, which is that citizens are unhappy
at the EU ‘meddling’ in people’s everyday
lives.
Frans Timmermans, the first vicepresident
in charge of ‘better regulation’,
has stressed that the EU should be big on
the big things and small on the small things.
But critics point out that there is a good
reason for some small things being dealt
with at a European level. They worry that a
deregulatory response to the rise in the
Eurosceptic vote does not address the real
problem – a lack of acceptance by the
public of the European project.
Sophie in ’t Veld, a Dutch Liberal MEP,
says the Commission is in danger of
deregulation for deregulation’s sake. “I
believe in smart trimming, not taking a
blunt axe to the base of the tree,” she told
Timmermans in December 2014. “The
Commission should not throw the baby out
with the bath­water by arbitrarily scrapping
laws.”
But Timmermans has sought to calm
MEPs’ fears by insisting that his agenda is
not to deregulate the EU. “Better
regulation does not mean no regulation or
deregulation,” he told MEPs. “We are not
compromising on the goals we want to
attain, we are looking critically at the
methods we want to use.”
Eventually, the Commission executed a
U­turn on its plan to withdraw and re­draft
the air­quality proposal, saying that it would
instead work with MEPs and member states
to adjust the plan as part of the normal
co­decision procedure. But it is sticking to
its guns on the waste proposal (known as
the ‘circular economy package’) and will put
forward a new version in late 2015.
Beyond the concerns about deregulation,
many in the Parliament and the Council of
Ministers have disputed the Commission’s
prerogative to ‘political discontinuity’ –
withdrawing proposals that have already
been adopted and started the legislative
process. Much of this battle is about
institutional power. Withdrawing the
proposals was seen as an affront to the
other two institutions.
Many of the 80 pieces of legislation listed
for withdrawal were chosen for reasons of
obsolescence or redundancy, and their
withdrawal was previewed by the ‘refit’
report issued in 2014 by José Manuel
Barroso, the then president of the
Commission. But 18 are being withdrawn
because the Commission has deemed that
no agreement is possible between member
states, or between member states and
MEPs. These include proposals for a
directive on the taxing of motor vehicles
that are moved from one country to
another, a decision on the financing of
nuclear power stations, a directive on rates
of excise duty for alcohol, and a directive
on medicinal prices.
A proposed fund to compensate people
who have suffered because of oil pollution
damage in European waters is listed for
withdrawal because “the impact
assessment and relevant analysis are now
out of date”.
A proposed directive on taxation of
energy products and electricity is listed for
withdrawal because “Council negotiations
have resulted in a draft compromise text
that has fully denatured the substance of
the Commission proposal”.
Timmermans has indicated that Jean­
Claude Juncker’s Commission will be more
aggressive about vetoing proposals if it
thinks they have changed substantially
during the legislative process.
Proposed new rules on the labelling of
organic products will be withdrawn unless
there is an agreement between MEPs and
member states within six months. A
directive on maternity leave will also be
withdrawn if there is no agreement within
six months, although the Commission says
that it would replace the latter with a new
proposal.
Over the course of 2015, MEPs will be
watching closely for signs that the
Commission intends to scale back
legislation. If this is indeed the
Commission’s strategy, it is unlikely to make
much difference to the Euroscepticism felt
in some parts of Europe.
See pages 24-26 for more on
the Commission’s work programme
13