03/10/2013
A stunningly superficial piece from the
Telegraph about Barroso's
REFIT programme, sets the tone for a trickle of ill-informed comment, illustrating the scale of the comprehension mountain that we have to climb.
It was
The Boiling Frog who most recently complained of the tendency of people to believe what they read in the newspapers, and this tendency you see in spades in the
Telegraph piece. Commenters are largely taking what is reported at face value.
Perversely, you would already have to be well-informed to know that the
Telegraph article was about
REFIT, for nowhere in the copy is this mentioned. Instead, the programme is given the simplistic and misleading description of "plans to scrap EU red tape".
Even at its own valuation, that is not the main element of the Commission's initiative, and the element of deregulation that is included is ambiguous in its intent. It has more of the character of the Commission getting rid of the low-grade dross, such as whether hairdressers can wear high heels under health and safety law. After all, when you are building a world government, who wants to be bothered with such trivia?
That is where the
Telegraph misses the plot, so lucidly described by
Autonomous Mind last week, where we see that the EU has shifted its horizons from being a lowly Regional Integration Organisation to becoming an active player in global governance.
But so obsessed is the
Telegraph with the "little Europe" of the European Union in its historic form, and constrained by the editorial policy of looking at the EU from a narrow British perspective (planting the flag) â together with the emphasis on personality politics â that it cannot even begin to report the big picture.
From its blinkered perspective, all it can see is Barroso disagreeing with the Cameron over his "strategy" of clawing back "competences". Thus does the paper stay within its comfort zone, painting a picture of an argument between the British Prime Minister and the Commission President â the sort of "biff-bam" politics it so adores.
The alternative way to "reform" the EU we are told, is to review the
acquis on a case-by-case basis. "There are two ways", says Barroso is cited as saying. "One is the pragmatic reasonable approach, seeing case by case whether legislation is needed or not." The other, " is to have a fundamental discussion about the competences of the EU, even in terms of renationalisation".
By thus framing its own story so narrowly, the
Telegraph has sold the pass. To be fair, though, it has that in common with the rest of the legacy media, including
The Times. Peeping from behind its paywall, the Murdoch rag tells us that "hairdressers across Europe can carry on wearing high heels and jewellery in a move designed to satisfy demands from David Cameron and other leaders for less rule-making by Brussels".
In further analysis of REFIT, however, I now see not three components, as
discussed earlier, but four â the last one hinted at in the closing paragraph. Yet this multi-faceted nature of the Commission's initiative is being completely missed.
About the first element, "simplification", the Commission is entirely open. This is an ongoing process that does what it says on the tin. Legislation is being progressively simplified, mainly through the process of consolidation, but also by amalgamating different regulations into sector instruments.
Instead of, for instance, having separate regulations covering the marketing of carrots, onions and peas, and all the other main vegetables, these can be combined into one regulation covering the marketing of vegetables, as a generic.
This process should not be confused with "deregulation", although it is often sold as such. One can end up with a reduced number of regulations, as separate documents, but the outcome can be a volume of a hundred pages replacing dozens of slimmer documents. The process can even conceal the insertion of more rigorous and expensive controls.
But what is also happening here is that "legislative upgrade" is also being used to obscure the steady march of globalisation, with the opportunities afforded by rewriting regulation used to insert the requirements of global standard-setting bodies. Sometimes, this is not disclosed, as we saw with the
COOL regulations but sometimes it is visible, as in the
flight time limits regulations, although you still have to know what you are looking for.
The third element is the deregulation aspect, although I am more inclined to think of this as the redistribution of a few marginal powers. Tactically, it makes good sense for the Commission to throw a few small chunks of meat off the sledge, to keep the withdrawalists at bay.
The more profound motivation, however, is probably the realisation in the Commission that it can't be bothered with the dross. In the same way that Whitehall can't be bothered to reach down and tell Councils which parks should have dog-poo regulations, and is content to leave this to by-laws, so the Commission has realised that it doesn't need to tell hairdressers what shoes to wear. Mr Cameron can do this, if it keeps him happy.
But the fourth element is also one that also needs watching. We bumped into this when looking at the EU's
flight rules, where post-Lisbon "basic acts" give the Commission powers to make delegated regulations without the inconvenience of a Council or European Parliament veto. Some 300 or so "basic acts" now need to be "modernised" to remove that pesky veto provision, the process of which can be fitted neatly into the REFIT programme.
On its completion, we will see a development similar to that which we have have in the UK, where the executive has progressively acquired lawmaking powers through the use of Statutory Instruments (SIs). Here, though, the Commission has learned well from its British Civil Service tutors, going one stage further and removing any external oversight is what is an extraordinary centralisation of power.
Thus, in this Commission programme, we see complexity and subtlety â four elements in one: simplification, globalisation, redistribution [of powers, aka deregulation], and centralisation. To an extent also we see inherent contradictions and incompatibility, especially between the so-called deregulation and centralisation.
This is not that uncommon with EU politics. It is more rare than common for agendas to be openly declared, and most often there are ulterior motives. EU politics is nothing if not multi-dimensional, and because we treat initiatives at face value is why we so often get taken to the cleaners. Barroso doesn't want Cameron to go for the wholesale repatriation of powers, but he does need REFIT, and by selling his programme as "cutting red tape", he hopes to get support for what is in fact a major power-grab.
You would think, though, with all the experience we have of European integration, and the politics involved, that we could get to grips with some of the complexities, and see past the biff-bam pastiche that the legacy media has on offer. Sadly though, some readers seem only too willing to buy into the pap. No wonder it is so difficult to progress the debate.
COMMENT: GLOBAL GOVERNANCE THREAD
