Three cheers for Europe: allowing cross border payment of fines and ignoring its own better regulation principles completely !

Just stumbled across a brief message on the Eu rep website in the Netherlands. Which outlined that speeding tickets will now be formally cashed across all EU borders. The Dutch cashing agency for the government, CJIB, has strong powers to debit accounts and get information on names/account numbers. And what has happened is that as of december 1, all local CJIB's are now legally connected, meaning that some beautiful days of corss border speeding are over. Belgian speed tickets will just as harshly be debited (with the same debtor procedure) as te Dutch ones.

That is also one of the benefits of Europe, but why doesn't this appear in Barroso's single market review paper? He apparently only wants to stress things that look good to the consumer, rather than the burdensome stuff. And what looks good...? Well bashing banks is always popular, so that's one of the obvious goodies that one can use to sell Europe to the citizen. And indeed, that is what is happening now in the single market review.

This recent single market review is interesting, given that the Commission literally ignores its own better regulation principles. And seriously I'm getting a bit fed up with this complete disrespect for the concerns of all taxpayers (including companies and banks). Let's relook the earlier committments of mr mccreevy:
Ladies and Gentleman, this Commission is taking a more variable, more modern approach to regulation. Strict adherence to better regulation principles. Wide consultation. Full impact assessments to ensure that initiatives are fully thought through. Legislation only where clear benefits are apparent.

And let's examine this beautiful committment against a real-life case of user mobility in the retail financial services area.

1. In the white paper on financial services, the Commission set up an expert group to discuss user mobility.
2. After one years work, the group concluded that there was no evidence base and no agreement between different stakeholders on the issue: is there a problem or not.
3. Then, the commission sent out a (coloured) consultation on the report, which already had a spin on it; assuming that there was a user mobility problem. But, the positive news still was that the Commission claimed to adhere to better regulation:
In line with Better Regulation principles and as a follow-up to the Group's work, the Commission is opening a public consultation on the Group's report. Stakeholders are invited to comment by 1 September 2007. Comments should also address the impact of the Group's recommendations and suggest any other ways to improve customer mobility in relation to bank accounts.
4. To top it of however, without awaiting the results of the consultation, without doing any impact assessment whatsoever, the single market review heads for a specific direction (asking the industry to do national things on switching services)
that should normally be the result of the analysis in the impact assessment.
5. Given that the results of this expert group do not at all come in handy (as it acknowledges the need for a solid evidence base), the work of the expert group is completely left unmentioned.
6. So now the Commission moves ahead, will undoubtedly publish a press release to take things a further step forward ('inviting the industry to come up with national solutions to switching') without due consideration to the real facts and developments in the market.

Interestingly: if the analysis is that switching is not a pan European issue, it's not up to the Commission to act. Similarly, if there is no impact assessment, it's not up to the Commission to do anything else than make one. But then again, the Commission seems to think: a scare tactic always seems to work with banks, so let's see if we can move them in a direction by threatening, even if we completely ignore our own principles and follow gut-feeling rather than facts and due process.

Unfortunately this fits nicely into an earlier grim picture that I sketched on the true better regulation approach of the Commission. Which essentially was that the Commissions respectful approach of better regulation has a closer esemblance to using paper in a particular small room to remove and flush the remainders of last nights dinner, rather than really trying to use paper in a European context to improve the quality of regulation, credibility and law-making.