Login

Forgot your password?
Not a member yet?Registration
IRRN Forums   Regulatory Reform Programs   EU Better Regulation   Strategic goals of the BR Strategy - Improve the quality of transposition in the Member States

Thema: Strategic goals of the BR Strategy - Improve the quality of transposition in the Member States

Author Message
04/20/2009 15:39:01
Subject: Strategic goals of the BR Strategy - Improve the quality of transposition in the Member States
[Quote] [Report abuse]
picture of expert
Webteam, Team 
Almost one quarter of the aquis communautaire is made up of directives; European regulation that specifies policy objectives, but leaves the regularity implementation up to the Member States. 1.6% of European directives are not or insufficiently transposed into national law, impairing the functioning of the single market and, ultimately, the principle of legal certainty. Also, the quality of implementation varies significantly among the Member States. The Better Regulation Strategy should aim at improving both the level and quality of transposition in the Member States.


The respective wiki article that is referred to is found here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 04/20/2009 15:41:25
04/20/2009 15:40:02
Subject: Re:Strategic goals of the BR Strategy - Improve the quality of transposition in the Member States
[Quote] [Report abuse]
picture of expert
Webteam, Team 





 		Maximilian Freier answered Oct 05, 2008 19:56:

The discussion focuses almost exclusively on the administrative burden caused for business. However, a significant part of the cost of European Union regulation falls on the public administration in the Member States. Is this a factor that has been neglected for too long?
04/20/2009 15:40:49
Subject: Re:Strategic goals of the BR Strategy - Improve the quality of transposition in the Member States
[Quote] [Report abuse]
picture of expert
Webteam, Team 





 		Erik Akse answered Oct 09, 2008 13:59:

Yes and no at the same time.

No because the focus business provides is clear cut and I would advocate politically neutral when it is indeed about unnecessary burdens. The work needed to get reductions for businesses going should not be made more complicated by discussions about how to deal with admin burdens for administrations.

And at the same time yes: one can use the SCM to track and reduce burdens between administrations. Why should there be no unnecessary burdens between EU and MS, between MS and regions/municipalities and the like. The philosophy behind this would be completely different from reducing burdens for business and it would link into a discussion about what should be done by administrations and what not (and would turn political very quick, I suppose). Plus it would trigger the discussion about what to do with the savings. And are the savings indeed real or a good indication (like the SCM provides)?
Go to: