Blogging Europe

There’s a widely spread belief in the US and UK that the EU is a vast, all-devouring Socialist Moloch.

That may be the impression in the US. (I don’t know.) But the somewhat different impression in the UK is that the EU is a vast, all-devouring bureaucratic, regulatory Moloch.

So, for example, Tony Blair in a recent speech:

It seems to be part of the DNA of regulatory bodies that they acquire their own interests and begin to grow. Max Weber famously noted the tendency of bureaucracies to tidiness.

Today, a lot of this is reinforced by what arises from Europe. About 50% of regulations with a significant impact on business now emanate from the EU. And it often seems to want to regulate too heavily without sufficient cause. The EU vitamins directive is a good example. There may be a case for ensuring the public are properly informed and that some rules and order are brought to what is today a major industry. But the way it has been done is wholly out of proportion to the risks run.

This impression is reinforced by sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Adam Smith Institute report to which you link.

Can I make the obvious comment that giving more power to the European Parliament is not /necessarily/ a good thing?

To give just a single specific example: a large plurality, perhaps a majority, of the Parliament was in favor of putting Croatia’s admission to the EU back on track, and never mind this nonsense about war criminals.

I mention it because it’s an episode I’m personally familiar with. But it’s IMO a good example of the Parliament behaving badly (short-sighted, petulant, and easily influenced by treacly appeals to nebulous “national sentiment”). The Commission, OTOH, did exactly the right thing — told the Croats they’d have to hand over their war criminals, or progress towards accession would simply stop. Which it did, with salutary effects all across the region.

I’m not so familiar with Parliament’s work generally. But having watched them get that one grotesquely wrong, I’m now inclined to be a bit more skeptical about handing them more power.

Doug M.

“There’s a widely spread belief in the US and UK that the EU is a vast, all-devouring Socialist Moloch.”

The more accurate (and more common) complaint is that the EU is addicted to mega-regulation and policy conformity even in areas than many federal states dont bother with central policies and where the cross-border externality is obviously exiguous. Viz, cracking down on public subdidies of e.g. the Amsterdam Zoo, Europe-wide regulations for the registration of electricians, common regulation on access to the legal profession and universities, etc etc etc. Not one of these has any place in e.g. US federal public policy making.

And in terms of mega-regulation, the proposal to require testing all of chemicals currently in commercial use, around 10,000 or so, at the costs of billions and billions of Euros, in the so-called REACH directive, is regulation of an ambition which no other polity in the world attempts. You can like it or not, but there’s no doubting that mega-regulation at the EU level, and not just the dismantling of national regulation, is what the EU does day and night.

“often, in so doing, weakening the ability of member states to maintain traditional forms of social-democratic control of the market”

It would be nice to see an example of this. The really social democratic countries like Denmark or Sweden seem to have no problem maintaining their distinctive labour market systems or their tax base. All the EU labour market rules have been about increasing the rights of employees vis a vis employers: there’s not been one example of the reverse. UK right-wing opposition to EU policy-making in this area is entirely justified.

Fritz Scharpf claims that the EU undermines social democracy in a particular way: not that it affects the unionised workers in tradeable goods like cars, but that it has acted to introduce competition in areas like telecoms and utilities which provided rent-seeking employees with jobs sheltered from pressure for productivity or efficiency (think old style BT) and were a crucial part of social democratic political coalitions. Now this is a miserable view of the basis of social democratic politics, but all the same, it may be that the EU has had some effect in this area (Scharpf provides no concrete examples). Even here, the criticism that the EU is a uniquely ideological regulator taking action even in areas of very limited cross-border externality, in both market and justifiably non-market situations, might be the critique most coherent with the EU’s general practice.

“Your comment is awaiting moderation”

Are all comments on CT now “moderated”?

Well, goesh, I certainly don’t want to give up my 35-hour one. It allows for a much richer life than I had in the US. Health better, stress lower, relationships stronger – I may even be more interesting and better informed now that I work less, and god knows I need all the help I can get in those departments. And if my partner and I have kids, I suspect I’ll be a much better dad for not spending an extra 5-15 hours a week on the job.

(That’s not to say that I would have voted against the constitution on the grounds you cite.)

It’s nice to see a post at CT that acknowledges good reasons for the ‘no’ vote.

“Your comment is awaiting moderation”

Or maybe it’s just long comments!

It’s a bit pointless to write a comment which will be moderated, since it can take several hours before it’s posted, and then it’s posted far up the thread where it won’t be noticed by many people. So could you let us know what we need to do in order to avoid having perfectly legitimate comments moderated? (I wouldn’t have bothered to write my comment #1 above if I had known it would be “moderated” in this fashion.)

oops – accidentally posted halfway through –

my apologies … here is what I intended to add above:

I meant to say that while Brussels does not impose laws, there ARE domains where the Commission “tells” member states what to do – notably trade and competition – precisely because Member States have chosen to allow Brussels to police a jointly agreed set of rules (eg for anti-trust).

But the general rule is that all new policy goes through the same institutional process, and is essentially decided by member states. In some areas this is by majority voting, in others by full consensus (notably tax, fiscal issues generally, energy policy , and a number of other sensitive topics).

So while it is very easy to point at Brussels and criticise ‘ludicrous’ rules created by us bureaucrats, it is worth remembering that it is Member States that actually in the end redraft, negotiate and agree laws.

In terms of the substance of policy I intended to say that things are a bit of a mixed bag. There ARE things that can only be done effectively at EU level (tackling acid rain, for example). And if there was no EU we would have to invent something to do this.

On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that there are policy areas where (some) Member States (and some officials) would like to take things much further than could be justified on the basis of a strict analysis of external effects. Though I think this tendency is much less marked now than even ten years ago.

And to muddy the waters we have some policies which are relics of the past – notably the CAP – which have no place in the modern world, but that are rather difficult to reform because vested interests have been created that are difficult to unwind.

The difficulty is, that in such an organisation where decisions are, in the end, made by Member States negotiating round a table, you have a certain inertia or immobilisme. Things move very slowly, because of the diversity of interests involved.

You also have a simple diversity of views between member states. The british have one view – a big free trade zone, with a few add ons. The french have another (greater france ? :) . the germans another… and the east europeans another.

It is also worth pointing out that brussels does partly have a bad press because it is rather useful for national politicians to use us as the lightning conductor. Berlusconi is doing it right now. Apparently the Italian economy’s problem are the fault of the EU. Right. National politicians use this argument ad infinitum – those pesky bureaucrats in Brussels “made” us do it.

But it is a fact that all – including 10 new member – still find some collective interest in sitting round a table and negotiating. Moreover, a number of other states are clamouring to join.

(As an aside – one of the big plusses is that the EU has been able to use the carrot of membership to push reforms in a large number of former soviet blocs countries to help anchor democratic institutions. As happen in Spain and Portugal which both joined only a few years after losing their dictators. This influence is now working in romania, bulgaria, possibly croatia and turkey).

I could go on, but I don’t want to bore. Some final thoughts:

The EU performs some valuable functions and if it didn’t exist it would probably have to be invented. The EU is not a superstate, nor is it quite as scary as people like to make out.

On the other hand, it is complex, and difficult to understand. It has some policies that are out of date. It works slowly, and there is sometimes disagreement about what it should and should not do.

The real need therefore is to have a clearer view about what the EU should and should not do, to define or limit its scope more clearly, to improve the institutional mechanisms, and improve their transparency.

This was indeed the point of the draft constitution. The no votes in France and the Netherlands – on the one hand – have probly thrown out a Treaty that was in many ways better than what we have at present.

On the other hand, if all this leads to a wider debate on what the EU is and should do, then that’s a good thing. The problem is – I don’t think the debate in either france odr the netherlands was terribly rational.

My reading of the debate around the constitution in both france and the netherlands is that the gap between perception and reality as concerns the EU is very wide. And this is a problem. A big one.

I think part of the problem is that the EU consists of, or at least used to consist of, countries that were already heavily regulated. It’s hard to see just how useless and wasteful a bureaurocracy if you’re already used to it and if it does it’s job well. That was my experience when I spent a year in my native Germany after living in the US for 6 years. I had 8 visits to 6 different government offices during that year and I didn’t even own a car then. In my 12 years in the US I had 6 visits to the DMV, that’s it.

The German offices I did visit, though, all did their job very well, the employees were competent, mostly friendly and efficient.

Otto,

a few responses:

on the reduction in centralising tendency – several ways to explain this – enlargement is one – it’s a big shift;

secondly – there IS internal reaction to criticism – nowadays, for example, there is much more emphasis on doing impact analyses of
regulation; as an economist I’ve been fairly close to this process;

it is for example pretty much obligatory that all items of significance on the annual work programme under a proper economic impact analysis – this process is not perfect – but my point is its an improvement , and relatively recent

there is, I will agree, not enough emphasis on subsidiarity; I find this amazing myself, as personally it is the first question I ask when thinking about policy here

some of us officials actually care about this and are trying to actually shape policy with a much keener eye on this – hard as you may find that to believe; it is a mistake to see the instituion as a single personality – it is an administration within which there is internal debate

on my reading of the referendum : my point is that the result is not so easy to read. I think the results reflect an amalgam of sentiments:

general economic malaise, disenchantment with politics – both european and domestic –

but i think it is fair to say that the coalition of note votes did not represent a unified viewpoint – a wide spectrum from far right to far left ;

additionally, I would offer the argument that some of the positions on the constitution simply made factual mistakes –

like the woman i heard interviewed on french radio who opposed the constition because it allowed free movement of capital; I think you can see the problem there

I heard many other examplpes , and read in both the french and british press (not dutch though)

But – I do agree the results reflect at least in part a serious disenchantment with the specific way the EU functions – there is no doubt of that

I personally think more transparency, better justification of policy , wider consultation .. all these things matter – you brush them off too lightly ; should I have not mentioned them?

but I also do think that given the complexity of EU policy (often necessarily) and the complexity of institions there is a terrible barrier to communication as to what is going on.

for this reason I believe EU policy making should actually have to meet higher standards of consensus and justification than national policy where people are closer to decision making – because – try as we might – it will never be simple

(think WTO, UN.. do people generally understand these institutions? their function? who takes decisions? how transparent can we make them ? )

incidentally I DID not argue that all criticism was irrational or simple – minded – the tone of both this and – perhaps to lesser degree – should have been adequate evidence of that

the more interesting point is whether or not there is a permanent centralising bias. this is a very interesting question; I’m not convinced there is… why ?

– with so many member states finding agreement is very tough, even where there are common interests – as the detail is complex and involves all sorts of asymmetry of costs and benefits (winners and losers may not be the same)

– while there is some extension of QMV there are many national vetoes (tax , energy, enlargement… )

– while the Commission has right of initiative, nowadays it is the European council that sets the agenda – the heads of state – so the impetus from the buraucracy is less ;

So I think one issue here is whether and/or why there is a general tendency for heads of state to want to push integration – an interesting point; I’m not sure there is – the group is too big and diverse – both politically but also in terms of level of economic development

As for the unecessary ad hom … ” no US official would have your attitude or would keep his job if they did…” … you are simply being very presumptious; it’s an unnecessary cheap shot

Brussels may be a closed world to some extent (washington is different you think? dream on) – but there is plenty of variety here – think 25 member states. I work with Finns, germans, belgians, polish, and portuguese in my unit – and have worked with austrians, swedes , latvians, french, dutch and danish colleagues elsewhere – you think that leads to a unity of viewpoint?

but sure – we all all bureaucrats – I confess; think it’s the ad hom fallacy though

but yes – all institutions breed a sense of insularity ; the EU is not unique in that sense though; it’s true of parts of the private sector, the church, the educational establishment, the military, and others

maybe it’s worse here – I dunno – not sure how one measures that. Any ideas?

A few comments:
1. You agree that there is underemphasis on subsidiarity (or better, the EU not doing anything unless there is a very significant cross-border externality, since many in the EU translate the subsidiarity into a centralising principle). You are amazed by this lack of attention to subsidiarity. This lack of attention is permanent and far reaching, in the DNA of the EU system. I invite you to vote No (should your government be kind enough to offer you the choice) on these grounds alone…
2. Comments on the constitution simply made factual mistakes: Sure! Including on the Yes side. Indeed the whole notion for example that the treaty was going to reinforce the role for national parliaments was factual error from start to finish.
3. “I personally think more transparency, better justification of policy , wider consultation .. all these things matter – you brush them off too lightly ; should I have not mentioned them?”. You should be aware how little these things matter in terms of democratic control. Consultation procedures where the overall project is already decided on, but where interest groups can buy influence on the details by rhetorically supporting policies even if they dont like them at all is a common place of European politics. What the EU lacks is not this sort of hierarchical consultation process, but a real political structure where interests and civil society which oppose EU level policy can stop them from happening unless there is substantial mobilisation on the other side. Simply put, you could not say to a US interest that they should forget about Congress because the bureaucracy ‘consults’ before making rules. The bureaucrats only listen to the consultation because Congress reflects organised civil society (yes, with all its biases) and sanctions bureaucrats who push projects with no civil society support. The EP, permanently captured by MEPs who want more Europe on every issue area, does not. Hierarchical consultation offers no subsitute for control.
4. On centralisation, I note that you do not address any of the examples I gave, nor dispute that there is no sign of retreat in any of the areas already centralised. Furthermore, the treaty with its reduction in the majority needed for QMV and the move of more issue ares from unanimity to QMV would only have increased centralisation.
5. You don’t like my comments comparing EU bureaucrats with those elsewhere, eg. in US. You said: “The problem is – I don’t think the debate in either france or the netherlands was terribly rational. My reading of the debate around the constitution in both france and the netherlands is that the gap between perception and reality as concerns the EU is very wide.”. Millions of people vote against a political proposal in the EU, in large part as a reaction to over-centralisation of policy-making by permanent officials, and the permanent official’s considered conclusion is that something is wrong … with the voters! When you make this sort of remark, you are going to get some ridicule coming back your way. Having spent many years in both the EU and in the US working with politicians and bureaucrats, I think I can say that I have never spent a conversation with an EU official where they have not complained in a self-pitying way about public ignorance and irrationality, often completely clueless about why anyone could be unhappy with them (beyond the admission of unspecified lack of perfection, and the bizarre view that only further centralisation of power will make the EU closer to the people). At some Brussels dinner parties, it’s almost all they talk about. It really isn’t the same in the US, where Congress, and the voters and civil society via Congress, are much more important and the officials much much less (and they know it).