EU Consultation Favors Robust Transparency Over Regulatory Speed

Brussels, Belgium – The European Commission's recent foray into "Better Regulation" has illuminated a significant divide in opinion, with the overwhelming majority of respondents to a public consultation urging the preservation of strong impact assessments and consultation tools. The consultation, which closed on February 4th, saw 286 participants voice their perspectives, with a clear mandate emerging: speed should not come at the expense of transparency in the regulatory process.

The initiative, aimed at streamlining and improving the EU's legislative framework, appears to have struck a chord with stakeholders who fear that a push for greater efficiency might inadvertently erode the foundational principles of good governance. According to the details of the consultation, a substantial proportion of the 286 respondents expressed a desire to maintain and even strengthen the existing mechanisms for scrutinizing proposed legislation. This includes a continued reliance on comprehensive impact assessments, which are designed to evaluate the potential economic, social, and environmental consequences of new rules, and robust public consultation processes, which allow for diverse voices to be heard before policies are finalized.

The implications of this feedback are considerable for the Commission as it seeks to balance the need for agile policymaking with the imperative for well-considered and democratically sound legislation. The principle of "Better Regulation" itself is not new; it has been a recurring theme in EU policymaking for years, aiming to reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses and citizens while ensuring that regulations are effective and proportionate. However, the method by which "better" is achieved remains a point of contention. Critics have often voiced concerns that a singular focus on speed could lead to superficial analysis and a diminished role for public input, potentially resulting in unintended negative consequences.

The strong stance taken by the consultation respondents underscores a deep-seated commitment to a regulatory environment that is not only efficient but also accountable and inclusive. Impact assessments, in particular, serve as crucial analytical tools, providing policymakers with evidence-based insights into the likely effects of proposed measures. They are designed to identify potential risks and benefits, compare different policy options, and ensure that regulations are evidence-led. Similarly, consultation tools are vital for democratic legitimacy, offering stakeholders – including businesses, civil society organizations, and individual citizens – the opportunity to contribute their expertise and concerns, thereby shaping more practical and widely accepted legislation.

The feedback suggests that the participants view these processes not as bureaucratic hurdles, but as essential safeguards that contribute to the quality and legitimacy of EU law. The fear is that a drive for speed could lead to a "tick-box" approach, where the substance of analysis and consultation is sacrificed for the sake of rapid implementation. This could, in turn, undermine public trust in the EU's legislative machinery and lead to policies that are less effective in achieving their intended goals or even detrimental to certain sectors or groups.

As the Commission digests the outcomes of this consultation, it faces the challenge of refining its "Better Regulation" agenda in a way that honors the expressed desire for transparency and thoroughness. The findings serve as a clear signal that the path forward must involve a careful calibration, ensuring that efforts to expedite legislative procedures do not compromise the integrity and democratic validity of the policymaking process. The future of EU regulation may well depend on finding this delicate balance, where efficiency is a welcomed outcome of robust, transparent, and inclusive governance, rather than a substitute for it.