That there is a need for an improvement in competitivity by cutting on the bureaucratic measures with which businesses need to comply has become a leading issue. Such measures are creating delays, impose complicated procedures that are not universally understood, plus duplication of work practices topped up by greater expenses. They inhibit efficiency and clog investments.
Practically all private sectors of the economy have been making complaints about this problem for a long time, on national and European levels. In fact the clamour against bureaucracy actually gets trasformed as well into a call against excessive rgulation. Right wing demochristian and liberal parties have made the cry against excessive bureaucracy a central theme of their political message. That's the way, they claim, by which efficiency can be promoted to curb what has been damping it.
Such aims deserve full support. Only quite frequently, the suspicion arises that behind them there are also another intentions - that of stopping in their tracks new or recent provisions introduced to enhance social justice, greater protection of workers and consumers, and environmental safeguards.
***
RECURRENT
Whenever budget day approaches, everyone's attention (or almost) gets focussed on what's going to be "new" or shown as "new" in the announcements that are made, both by way of initiatives that are truly new and are being launched by the budget, or with the removal of existing measures or their amendment. The areas of interest about this cover taxation, social benefits, employment conditions for workers, and incentives... but not only.
Still, an essential point regarding any budget is that an enormous percentage of its content is easy to predict - indeed is known beforehand and accepted as inevitable. The government's recurrent expenditures for services it provides (education, health...), social benefits (pensions, subsidies...) and wages (for government employees...) among others, are determined in advance and carry no suprises. But I'm always surprised that from budget to budget, there's so little discussion about whether it makes sense to consider how feasible it is - and what scope there is - to cut recurrent expenditures.
***
NGOS
A valid principle in EU governance emphasizes the need for civil society to be continually informed and consulted about how policies in the different fields of action are being developed. But how should this process be organized?
The practice is for so-called NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in various sectors to be considered as representatives of civil society. Now, there exist different methods by which such recognition is extended. However neither the European Commission nor the the member states themselves show consistency when they apply this recognition. Could it be that certain NGOs are given preferential consideration because they're known to follow a given line of action?
This is not a trivial query. The EU itself via the European Commission finances NGOs. Between 2021 and 2023 the Union funded NGOs involved in internal European policy sectors to the tune of 4.8 billion euros. A recent report by the European Court of Auditors revealed that there was no appropriate transparency and accountability checks regarding how these funds were distributed.