International

At the moment Brussels is sending out extremely mixed signals. Commissioner Rehn, a.k.a. the Commission’s Budget Tsar, remains strict in relation to countries such as the Netherlands: we shall and must come under the maximum budgetary deficit of 3% by 2013, or there’ll be the devil to pay. At the same time Brussels is saddling national governments with expensive projects and continues to dream up programmes which will cost us all deep in the purse, yet whose added value is far from clear. High time that we in the SP European Parliament team put such inconsistencies on the agenda.

That’s why I have also been pleased to accept an invitation from the main Dutch employers’ organisation, VNO-NCW , to speak at a conference organised by them on the subject of Brussels’ mania for organisation, rules and regulation. Just as I noticed at the recent Dutch retail industry conference in Rotterdam, I think that in relation to such matters we can manage to get the employers, and especially small businesses, on our side. Together we can stand up more strongly to Brussels bureaucracy, and that’s a gain.

Just a few examples of these expensive plans that Brussels has: in the European Parliament’s Internal Market Committee we are discussing a system which has been christened ‘eCall’, involving an apparatus in your car which would automatically find the emergency services as soon as something goes wrong, such as your being involved in an accident. In itself not a bad idea, but what isn’t clear is precisely what the technology will cost and whether all national emergency services will have to be adapted to fulfil the new technical demands and those posed by a new set of languages. The Commission wants to make the system compulsory by 2015 and has no sympathy whatsoever for member states which say they can’t afford this.

Not only that, but the Commission has a passion for surveillance. There will now be inspectors to keep an eye on tendering, as well as for new, compulsory systems for alternative dispute settlement. Consider the dispute settlement bodies that you have for numerous products and services. If you want to establish a serious system of inspection, this will cost a great deal of money. Why can this not be left to the usual political and judicial test procedures?

At the same time the Commission keeps setting up new programmes. Recently these have been designed to favour small and medium-sized businesses. Nice thought, but for many small firms Brussels is simply too far away and the paper-chase surrounding the distribution of subsidies is a nightmare. Why is this money not spent by the member states, which are much closer by and have also a better understanding of what their small firms need.

So, those are just a few examples. They may seem innocent enough, but I have heard frequently from fellow MEPs that it’s a fine thing if the member states cut spending and Brussels increases its investment. That is certainly not innocent, but a hidden, further transfer of powers. Make the member states poor and Brussels rich is their thinking. We must not allow that to happen, and so I shall be continually doing what I can to put the brakes on individual dossiers such as eCall as well as the call for ever more inspectors. For this a broad coalition is needed both within and outside the European Parliament. Support from the employers’ organisation for our Brussels frugality is for that reason more than welcome.