BFBEnergyPaper

Recommendations

Info

4.3Short term fixes not requiring Treaty change“The EU has a massive paperwork administration problem in that it is unableto control its thousands of various departments in acting as one for the sakeof common sense. This in effect means that we are regularly subjected toa massive tide of written legislation and red tape that very often makes nosense whatsoever.”- Owner of a medium-sized manufacturing business based in East EnglandAs this paper has shown, expensive European regulation has become a serious problem forBritish businesses; the £86 billion cost of these laws (see Section 2.4) is clear evidence of theneed for powers to return to the member states. Because these costs are being felt today,it is important that action is taken as soon as possible. Fortunately, there are actions thatthe EU can and should take immediately, actions which would reassure the EIIs thinking ofmoving overseas and would, at least in the short term, reduce the number of European lawsgoing on the statute books.The changes discussed in this section are described as ‘short term’ because they can besecured within the current Treaties; these changes involve the EU changing its internalpractices, reviewing current policies and encouraging the UK to make better use of existingopt-out clauses. Without the longer term changes described below the policies detailed inthis section are not sufficient, but they would represent a good start for any renegotiation.First there needs to be much more scrutiny of proposed EU laws. The appointment of a newEuropean Commission is a golden opportunity to reassess how regulations are determinedat the European level. The EU needs to fundamentally change its approach, in the wordsof the British Ceramic Confederation: “there are issues with the approach of the EU whichshould be addressed in order to improve performance and outcomes.” 164 In particular, thenew Commission needs to introduce a more critical approach to new proposals, an approachwhich clearly and explicitly takes the concerns of businesses more into consideration.One immediate step that the Commission could take is to improve the quality of its impactassessments when proposing new laws. When the EU proposes new laws the proposalshould show how the Commission has considered the impact that each law will have onbusinesses in each member state. There is a pressing need for each new European proposalto i) show how the proposal will facilitate cross border trade and ii) show that it has takeninto account business opinion. In short EU lawmakers need to show that they are usingevidence when they are devising policy and demonstrate that, for all future energy policyproposals, the EU is considering affordability, international competitiveness and security ofsupply, not just sustainability. This should be true of both original Commission proposalsand any subsequent amendments made to that proposal by the European Parliament.Energy Policyand the EU164 British Ceramic Confederation, Submission to the Balance of Competences50
The EU should also make it clear that there will be no new renewables targets for themember states and should make clear that future targets will concentrate only on reducingemissions overall. This can be done by reassessing the 2030 framework of climate changeand replacing the EU’s myriad of renewables and energy targets with one emissions target,a policy that has the support of the British Government.“[We need] an opportunity to simplify the existing targets regime from threetargets to one. This will reduce unnecessary costs that our embattled energysector is currently bearing.”- David Cameron, Letter to the European Commission 165The EU needs to show a greater willingness to reassess existing laws by offering morefrequent reviews and responding more positively to member states parliament’s requestsfor new proposals, or a reassessment of existing laws.In addition the EU has a tendency to bundle policies together in packages, forcing memberstates to accept certain policies that they may disagree with or risk losing the whole package.This problem was well articulated by the European Commission when discussing why itis not possible to change biofuel targets: “You can’t change a political objective withoutrisking a debate on all the other objectives”. 166 This is not a sensible way to determine oradminister energy policy: member states should not be ‘locked in’ to policies which arecausing economic harm. Energy issues are subject to rapid change; it is an area where policymakers want as much discretion as possible to adapt policy to changing circumstances and,when necessarily, discard bad ideas. Detailed scrutiny of each proposal, on-going analysisand revision of energy policy should be encouraged, not avoided. Future policies shouldnot be presented or voted on as bundles, but as individual proposals, assessed on their ownmerits.At the UK level there also needs to be much greater use of ‘opt out’ clauses. It should beassumed as default that the UK will make use of any opt out clauses unless there is a verygood reason not to and should seek, whenever possible, to implement EU regulationswithout goldplating.While these changes, if enacted properly, would go a long way towards reducing theburden of the EU’s laws, it clearly offers no long term protections for the UK or the othermember states. As shown above (Section 2), the EU had a historic tendency to regulate onenergy policy even before it had been given the explicit right to do so. As a result it wouldbe a mistake to solely rely on the changes described above. The existing laws need to bereviewed, powers need to return to the member states, and safeguards are needed to ensurethat the EU cannot pass new harmful laws. These sorts of changes can only be secured viaTreaty change, something that would take a longer time to secure, but something that isessential.165 Letter from D. Cameron to J.M. Barroso, 4 December 2013166 Open Europe, The EU Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package, October 2008, found at 51
Page 2: Business for Britain exists to give
Page 9: In a recent letter to the President
Page 14 and 15: in the US. While this would be conc
Page 16 and 17: This divergence is not confined to
Page 18 and 19: Commission has itself acknowledged
Page 20 and 21: 2.4The rising costs of EU energy re
Page 22 and 23: It is important to note that many o
Page 24 and 25: 3.1The impact of high energy costs
Page 26 and 27: MetalsTOTAL UK EMPLOYMENT471,000 in
Page 28: Chemicals and chemical productsTOTA
Page 31 and 32: INDUSTRY CASE STUDY 3.1.3Figure 14:
Page 39 and 40: “Energy discussions play a major
Page 41 and 42: were also closing faster than expec
Page 43 and 44: Increased energy dependence3.6Anoth
Page 45 and 46: Despite these problems, the EU’s
Page 47 and 48: 41 per cent of British manufacturer
Page 49: genuine, efficient and effective in
Page 53 and 54: should be considered: were the UK t
Page 55 and 56: Conclusion5The EU’s energy policy
Page 57 and 58: Table 8: All energy Impact Assessme
Page 59 and 60: IA TitleImpact Assessment: Amendmen
Page 61: “Energy Policy and the EU is a ti

BFBEnergyPaper

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?