International

The big corporations and the SP appear to have at least one thing in common: we aren’t fond of petty Brussels rules. Of course, that isn’t the whole story. The big corporations are bothered mainly by concerns about rules which increase costs or which set limits to the market. They have set themselves squarely, for example, in favour of Brussels rules which have handed postal services over to the market. They also support the passion for spending cuts in the framework of European economic governance and all of the new rules linked to this. Naturally the SP is also utterly opposed to rules which serve no good purpose but which lead to an increase in administrative burdens. Regulation which sets a level under which the minimum wage or taxes levied on big corporations cannot fall would, however, get a hearty welcome for us. The big firms don’t want such things at all. Although therefore we are both against unnecessary rules, we differ rather a lot in opinion when it comes to the question of what is unnecessary. So it’s not easy to admit to the conclusion that, nevertheless, a grand coalition is indeed absolutely necessary to combat Brussels’ passion for regulation.

An example of an area where the SP and the VNO-NCW - the organisation which represents the Netherlands’ major corporations – are indeed in accord is the bevy of rules surrounding tendering and concessions. The European Parliament is at the present time extremely occupied with this issue as new proposals have been presented by the Commission. The proposal on public procurement tenders is not all that bad: the Commission is really trying to reduce the paperwork attached to the process, as well as making it easier to accept something other than the lowest bid and take into account, for example, environmental matters and other considerations of quality.

The proposal on concessions is another story. This concerns services which the public authorities have carried out by a private firm so that in principle the associated costs and profits accrue to that firm. Consider the construction and management of a toll-road. The firm pays the costs of laying and maintaining the road, and if all goes well the road makes a decent profit. The risks lie with the corporation in question throughout, even if the income falls. On this matter there are no prescribed Brussels rules, and questions regarding what demands may be made to do with VAT transparency and fairness of the procedure for granting concessions were long ago dealt with by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). On this all parties were actually in agreement: new rules aren’t needed. But then came a hard-working official who happens to be responsible for this subject, and who presented his ambitious European Commissioner with a legislative proposal running into dozens of pages. And despite the fact that in the EP most agree that it’s unnecessary, we have now nevertheless made a start on dealing with the resultant proposal, and are thus on the way to further unnecessary European rules. As far as I’m concerned we should send the entire proposal back to the Commission, but I’m seeing support for such a radical approach dwindle ever further amongst my fellow MEPs.

These are examples of a culture in Brussels whereby the Commission, while it may if you put a knife to its throat be willing to scrap or simplify one petty rule, at the same time has a new rule up its sleeve. As long as this continues the gulf between Brussels and the ordinary man or woman will exist, annoyed as they are by the lust for regulation in the EU institutions. It’s high time for a ‘grand coalition’ against this passion for petty rules.