The eco-design work plan, published once every three years, usually only gets technicians in engineering companies excited. Lobbyists often leave it to their engineers to speak to Commission experts, as no amount of political experience can prepare you for a discussion based on long maths equations on ‘Compressors driven by three phase electric motors’.
The 37 Lots that the eco-design work plan is broken down into is deemed too much in the nitty-gritty for MEPs to get involved in, so they have by and large given the Commission discretion to go ahead and update it without them with minimal oversight.
Yet the work plan has been delayed, sitting completed in the Commission’s drawer since December. Companies are desperate to know what is going on and just seek some certainty. This may be small technical stuff for others, but product design is their bread and butter.
Yet, as with everything, it is political. And politics will ensure that that technical realities conform to political realities. The UK blocked the eco-design work plan’s publication owing to the fear that it will be deemed as further EU meddling ahead of the crucial Brexit vote on 23 June. As a result, it is being hidden away until the Autumn.
While Juncker might be trying to be big on the big things and small on the small things, the public and companies care about the small things most of all – they are the things that reflect the daily realities of life.
And it is not just technical requirements, mathematical formulas are also subject to negotiation following political concerns. Trade defence instruments are designed to calculate the damage done to the European economy by unfair trade practices – with China bearing the brunt of the EU’s focus. The Commission crunches the numbers according to a legal procedure to come up with a figure, before handing over to the secretive Council’s Trade Defence Committee.
Yet this mathematical formula comes up for debate according to familiar arguments of jobs, economy and historical traditions. It is not uncommon to see a figure of 20% being negotiated down to 5% according to a case well made. Again, all far too ‘technical’ for the Parliament to debate.
The Telegraph, the Express and other newspapers have leading articles claiming that kettles and toasters will be going the way of the vacuum cleaner two years ago – these are the small things that people care about.
This brings us to the only real topic in town in Brussels at the moment. Are those people being sceptic of government meddling in the minutiae of life because they are sceptical of the EU, or are they being sceptic because they are sceptical of government intervention – whether it is at a national or EU level? Do the powers that be recognise this, and will hiding a proposal in Autumn after the referendum, or conducting closed door debates on topics that people care about help or hinder in the long term? It may not be practical to debate everything in Parliament or in the open in Council, but assuming that they are too technical for transparent political debate will not help in the long run.