A Rush To Finnish
I read with surprise a note that a senior Commission official realised some proposals had been tabled too quickly and with too little discussion with those impacted.
This is a valuable lesson, although likely too late in the day.
There is enormous pressure to get as many files adopted by both the EP and Council before the June 2024 European Elections.
Technical trilogues are running at an unprecedented pace. Agreements are reached and then voted through by the Council and EP.
Indeed, the upcoming Belgium Presidency will run 24/7 until MEPs break for elections. The biggest problem will likely be finding rooms for all sides to sit down and finalise negotiations. Meetings will be going back to back.
It is like that both MEPs and Ministers have forgotten that they don’t have to agree at the first reading and have the chance to slow down and go into a 2nd and 3rd reading. I’m so old, I even remember doing them. Today, 100% of proposals are agreed to at 1st reading.
The Direct Consequence of a Political Commission
I hope the current Commission learn the lesson that quickly thought-out legislation is not necessarily good legislation.
Reality is against such wishes.
Under a ‘Political Commission’, there is an incentive to push out your new vision quickly and get it adopted into law. It is necessary that you table the within year 1 or 2, to ensure it gets on the statute book.
Politicians, in the form of Commissioner, or their Political Staff, in the form of Cabinets, don’t like to hear the words “it can’t be done so fast”. Cabinets are happy to lend a hand in drafting complex proposals late on a Sunday evening if needed.
And, even though when there is pushback from experienced hands Services and physical burnout from staff, the pressure to prepare more proposals does not drop. I’d be curious if a running tally of Commission official burn outs has been kept by this Commission. Maybe an MEP will ask.
The Case for the Return of a Technocratic Commission
This is all the direct consequence of a ‘Political’ Commission. A ‘technocratic’ Commission would know that a good proposal takes around 3 years to prepare.
In that time, evidence can be examined, solutions considered, and all interests thoroughly consulted. The Commission’s own Better Regulation regime is based on this form of participatory democracy.
In the 1990s, I worked on an air pollution legislation proposal, which was the product of such a system. 3 years of consultations led to all the complex and technical issues being aired out in public. By the time the politicians got to it, all that was left was genuine hard choices and trade-offs between public health and economic reality and some tweaks.
The over-eager may think this takes too much time. They are wrong. I’ve seen well prepared proposals are easier to get adopted. Interests have had their chance to air concerns, ask questions and provide evidence and solutions. If they turn up late in the day, well-intentioned parties ignore them.
More importantly, well-designed legislation stands a better chance of working on the ground and delivering on its objectives. In the environmental field, we face large-scale non-implementation by Member States (even though they voted for the proposal).
There are challenges to either system.
- A lot of people don’t want change. They’ll fight hard to maintain the status quo. They exist in the Commission, governments, industry and NGOs.
- If a system is broken it takes creative thinking to fix it. It usually does not involve tinkering with the broken system. But, the mindset and expertise to step outside and deliver real change is difficult. I recall a file I worked on where the Director-General and Commissioner ended up ignoring their own Directors and taking on board the advice of 2 people who helped deliver a successful system before entering the Commission. It seems it is impossible for most people to look at a matter afresh and design a better system. And, when a system is broken, tinkering does not help.
- Creative and imaginative thinking is frowned upon by many in government, industry and NGOs. There is an incentive to regurgitate well-worn slogans and non-solutions. The provision of timely open, real data and evidence is frowned upon. After all, the actual evidence may not back your case.
The advantage of the second deliberative and open system is that the chances of better ideas and solutions getting through are higher.