By Will Tanner
What does the government claim it wants to do?
A key plank of the renegotiation effort is supposed to be about reducing the European Union regulatory burden on business. In his 2013 Bloomberg speech, David Cameron said that Britain must be ‘free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe’s competitiveness.’ The push to reduce ‘spurious regulation’ will be focused on helping small businesses. Some regulation has doubtless inconvenienced British business – such as the bureaucracy involved for companies in sending workers to other EU countries in the posting of Workers’ Enforcement Directive, or the lack of clarity on paid leave in the Working Time Directive. However, the restrictiveness of ‘EU bureaucracy’ is overstated; the Institute of Directors concluded in a report this year that ‘far too many UK governments have hidden their own regulatory zeal behind a “fig leaf” of enforced European requirements.’
What does this really mean?
This is the least dramatic aspect of the renegotiation. The government is not particularly looking for opt-outs, but for better and lighter regulation from Brussels. This will require more focus on the traditional way of getting things done – working with allies, pushing the European institutions – because progress depends on the institutions, especially the European commission. The commission has a monopoly on proposing legislation. The United Kingdom needs to further support the REFIT programme, which undertakes yearly ‘simplification initiatives’ to look into the practical working of EU legislation and alter or repeal poorly crafted or poorly implemented directives and regulations.
What would achieving this mean for the UK?
Brussels could certainly regulate better. The Juncker commission has made a good start, in withdrawing 80 legislative proposals. Proposals pulled include a regulation on horse mackerel stocks and a directive on aviation security charges. Britain’s commissioner, Jonathan Hill, will roll back some financial regulation as part of creating a single capital market. The UK will now push the commission for better impact assessments, building on the continuous impact assessments pioneered through the capital markets union project and a more joined-up way of working between the commission, the European parliament and the member states.
What would achieving this mean for the EU?
Cutting red tape will not transform the British or European economies, but it should make them slightly more competitive by reducing compliance costs.
What should Labour do about it?
Labour should support this general principle, while reserving the right to oppose measures that could damage workers’ rights, health and safety or the environment. An example of this would be the commission’s decision to pull a proposal on registration for businesses carrying toxic waste. While doubtless welcomed by small and medium enterprises, some might have concerns about the possibly impact on the environment.
———————————
Will Tanner is vice-chair of Business for New Europe. He tweets @WillTanner1
———————————