Artikel 8: Nabotjek af EU-regler - Det er ikke overimplementering, der er problemet

For english see below

Der er en populær fortælling om, at de fleste byrder på erhvervslivet kommer fra EU – og at en pæn del af dem skyldes overimplementering. Det er et budskab, vi hos Bridge Consulting mener tåler at blive både udfordret og nuanceret.

For det første er vi som land en del af EU, fordi vi har valgt at bekende os til en ide om, at det giver mening at flertallet af europæiske lande skaber fælles rammer for vores erhvervsliv, og – i et vist omfang – for vores hverdagsliv. Vi tror på det indre marked som noget, der gavner os alle sammen. Så når vi siger, at Bruxelles er roden til alt ondt, så peger pilen (også) på os selv. Vi er medlem af EU. Vi er en del af Bruxelles. Der er ikke et ”os” og ”dem”. Der er kun et stort ”OS”. (Ellers ender vi i Tainters profeti om komplekse samfunds kollaps – se Artikel #1: ”Hvorfor brød Romerriget sammen?”).

For det andet er overimplementering – altså det, at man nationalt går videre, end EU-reglerne foreskriver – ikke hovedårsagen til unødvendige byrder fra EU-regulering. I forbindelse med Stoiber-udvalgets arbejde for 15 år siden, hvor Paul Mollerup fra Bridge Consulting sad med, blev det dokumenteret, at hovedårsagen til byrder fra erhvervsrettet EU-regulering ikke stammer fra reglerne i sig selv, men fra den måde de konkret implementeres på i det enkelte medlemsland. Data fra de analyser, der blev gennemført under Stoiber-udvalgets arbejde, viste, at byrderne ville kunne reduceres med 32 pct., hvis alle lande – regel for regel – implementerede reglerne på samme måde, som de, der havde implementeret mest effektivt. Af disse 32 pct. kunne de 28 pct.-enheder tilskrives uhensigtsmæssig implementering, mens kun 4 pct.-enheder kunne tilskrives overimplementering.

Derfor giver det rigtigt meget mening at være nysgerrig på, hvordan konkrete regler fra EU implementeres i andre lande. Og derfor anbefaler Regelforum ofte, at der gennemføres nabotjek af konkrete regler. Erfaringen er nemlig, at der tit er et andet medlemsland, som har fundet en smartere måde at gøre det på end os – og det er helt gratis at ”låne” deres metode. Denne erfaringsudveksling sker alt for lidt, og modstanden synes rodfæstet i – tjaaa – ”det-kan-vi-ikke- lige-overskue, og der-er-sikkert-ikke-nogen, der-er-klogere-end-os” argumenter.

Ideelt set skulle denne erfaringsudveksling finde sted allerede, når man er i færd med at implementere reglerne, og EU Kommissionen burde sætte sig i spidsen for langt flere implementerings-workshops, hvor repræsentanter fra medlemslandene i detaljer drøfter, hvordan en regel afsnit for afsnit, paragraf for paragraf kan implementeres på en god måde. Det er lettere at forebygge end at bygge om – også når det kommer til regler.

Article 8: Neighbor check of EU rules - Gold plating is not the problem

There is a popular narrative that most of the burdens on business come from the EU – and that a significant proportion of these are due to gold plating. At Bridge Consulting, we believe that this message needs to be challenged and nuanced.

Firstly, as a country, we are part of the EU because we have chosen to commit to the idea that it makes sense for the majority of European countries to create a common framework for our business community and, to a certain extent, for our everyday lives. We believe in the single market as something that benefits us all. So when we say that Brussels is the root of all evil, the finger is (also) pointing at us. We are members of the EU. We are part of Brussels. There is no "us" and "them." There is only one big "US." (Otherwise, we will end up in Tainter's prophecy about the collapse of complex societies—see Article #1: "Why did the Roman Empire collapse?" ).

Secondly, gold plating – i.e. going further than EU rules require at national level – is not the main cause of unnecessary burdens from EU regulation. In connection with the work of the Stoiber Committee 15 years ago, in which Paul Mollerup from Bridge Consulting participated, it was documented that the main cause of burdens from business-related EU regulation does not stem from the rules themselves, but from the way they are implemented in practice in the individual member states. Data from the analyses carried out during the Stoiber Committee's work showed that the burdens could be reduced by 32% if all countries – rule by rule – implemented the rules in the same way as those that had implemented them most effectively. Of this 32%, 28% could be attributed to inappropriate implementation, while only 4% could be attributed to gold plating.

It therefore makes a lot of sense to be curious about how specific EU rules are implemented in other countries. That is why the Danish Business Regulation Forum often recommends that specific rules be subject to neighbor checks. Experience shows that there is often another Member State that has found a smarter way of doing things than we have – and it costs nothing to "borrow" their method. This exchange of best practice happens far too little, and resistance seems to be rooted in – well – "we can't quite figure it out, and there's probably no one smarter than us" arguments.

Ideally, this exchange of best practice should take place as soon as the rules are implemented, and the EU Commission should take the lead in organizing far more implementation workshops where representatives from the member states discuss in detail how a rule can be implemented effectively, section by section, paragraph by paragraph. It is easier to prevent than to cure – and that also applies to rules.