It was a hot day in August 2004, and I was sitting around a table munching seafood with a few journalists and the man who had just been appointed the next president of the European Commission. The meeting took place in a stuffy room on the first floor of an Italian restaurant, and was billed as Jose Manuel Barroso’s first meeting with the Brussels press.I remember that he barely touched his lightly-grilled squid, fish and prawns. Instead, he talked and talked - with confidence, drive and considerable eloquence - about his priorities as the new head of the EU executive. Again and again, Barroso insisted he would put economic reforms at the heart of his tenure, slash red tape and stimulate competition. He stressed the importance of the Lisbon Agenda - the ambitious reform package designed to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world by the end of the decade.

In one sentence: his would be a pro-business Commission.

By and large, Barroso has been good to his word. The Commission president has, above all, managed to instill much greater discipline into his apparatus. No longer does Brussels regulate first, and ask questions later. As a matter of principle, new laws are now examined carefully to find out whether (and how badly) they will affect businesses.

The business lobby - tired of having to comply with ever more rules and regulations from Brussels - has, on the whole, been happy with the work of the present Commission. The regulatory pause aside, the Barroso team has also largely shunned populist attacks on industry, and even managed to water down some of the cumbersome proposals of its predecessors.

Yet thinking back to last week’s fuss over carbon dioxide emissions from cars, I cannot help but wonder whether something has changed. True - as far as I can see, the proposed new caps for vehicle emissions strike a sensible balance. Both the car lobby and environmental groups complained loudly - which is always a promising sign.

But I still found the rush to legislate bewildering. There is no in-depth impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis. The Commission has no clue how exactly the emission cuts will be implemented. It does not even know whether it should build a sanctions mechanism into the new law.

In sum, the Commission has committed itself to a course of action without applying its much-trumpeted better-regulation principles. All this on a piece of legislation that will impose a significant new burden on one of the Union’s biggest and most important industries.

Nor is this an isolated case. Last year, the Commission infuriated the telecoms industry by proposing price caps on roaming charges. Again, businesses were angry that the Brussels executive appeared to have committed itself to a course of action before properly analysing the consequences of its proposal.

The two initiatives have another thing in common - they are popular. One is directed at fighting global warming, the other at helping consumers. The first strikes out at polluting car manufacturers, the second at rip-off telecoms giants. You get the idea.

There are other decision that have alarmed the business lobby. The Commission has done little, for example, to stimulate cross-border competition in the EU’s vast market for services. There is little or no progress on the Union’s patents policy. And Europe’s big energy companies feel - rightly - that the Commission is keen to crack down on their market power. (The latter policy is, of course, likely to benefit consumers and many other businesses.)

As so often in Brussels, there is no clear-cut picture. The Barroso Commission continues to pursue many policies which business leaders find helpful. But I still detect a slight shift in the Commission’s priorities - away from business-friendly initiatives towards proposals that seek to bolster consumer rights or achieve environmental and social goals.

Is this part of a wider trend? We will see. But business groups will watch the Commission’s next moves very carefully indeed.

February 12th, 2007 in Uncategorised | Permalink