The European Union is betting on leaner regulation and modern digital tools to fix its lawmaking machinery. Yet policy analysts caution that fuzzy deadlines, wide-ranging urgency exemptions, and thinly staffed national governments could leave the reform effort stranded.
This past April, the European Commission unveiled a policy paper titled “A Simpler, Clearer and Better Enforced EU Rulebook.” The compact document lays out a plan to raise the standard of EU legislation, boost transparency, widen the role of stakeholders, purge outdated and redundant laws, and rein in the practice of national governments adding extra requirements — or skipping the transposition of EU rules altogether.
The proposals capture several genuinely useful reforms, but critics argue the agenda could be far bolder and more forward-looking — particularly at a moment when the Commission is holding wide-ranging internal talks about operational efficiency and preparing its institutions for the age of artificial intelligence.
A recent analysis by the Consumer Choice Center Europe, titled “Wiser regulation,” reviews the same Commission communication, pinpoints structural weaknesses in the current legislative and consultation systems, and puts forward concrete, technology-oriented proposals for both EU bodies and national administrations.
What the plan gets right
One notable improvement is the Commission’s pledge to openly document and disclose any procedural exceptions within its explanatory notes. In practice, that should give both legislators and the public visibility into how frequently — and for what reasons — shortcuts around the Better Regulation Guidelines take place.
The paper also commits to alerting stakeholders directly once consultation summaries appear on the “Have Your Say” portal. It sounds minor, but until now this step has not been standard practice.
Finally, the Commission wants to harness newer technology by rolling out a fresh IT system to organize EU legislation, monitor implementing measures, and flag regulatory overlap and unnecessary complexity. Analysts argue this ambition deserves to sit at the very top of the priority list, since it could untangle many of the problems rooted in the EU’s sprawling institutional structure and competing interests.
Where the plan comes up short
An earlier Commission request for input on better regulation attracted heavy criticism over how stakeholders were engaged. Many participants called for more balanced consultation formats and more realistic windows for responding.
Despite that, the new document sidesteps the design of public consultations and offers only a loose commitment to avoid scheduling them over holiday periods “whenever possible” — while still keeping the option to shrink the usual 12-week consultation period down to six.
The Commission also offers limited self-assessment of its own performance and few specific fixes. Past instances of ignoring the Better Regulation principles show that simply writing down principles is not enough; they must be actively tracked, enforced across institutions, and ultimately baked into the organization’s culture.
The urgency procedure — the very mechanism that drew scrutiny from the European Ombudsman — remains loosely defined. The Commission recognizes four grounds for invoking it: crises or shocks, serious harm from inaction, legal deadlines, and a “political context creating a need for urgent action.” While the first two are reasonable, critics warn the last two are broad enough to justify almost any procedural shortcut and should be treated cautiously and revisited over time.
Recommendations for Brussels and national capitals
The Consumer Choice Center Europe report sets out practical steps for the Commission aimed at sharpening lawmaking, strengthening institutional capacity, and using technology to make EU rules clearer and easier to follow — while improving accountability and building broader buy-in across the Brussels policy community.
It also addresses individual member states, which are struggling to match the EU’s legislative tempo and therefore participate less in shaping policy. Although the Commission is reportedly weighing whether to deploy additional staff to national capitals, those capitals are frequently understaffed themselves — unable to respond quickly, let alone advance their own priorities.
Why it matters
Mario Draghi recently argued that the EU must transform itself into a pragmatic federation if it hopes to stay globally competitive. But deeper integration will meet resistance unless national governments and outside stakeholders feel genuinely included and place real trust in the EU’s institutions, and unless European businesses choose to operate within Europe rather than around it.
Improving how Europe makes its laws is central to earning that trust and deserves serious attention from every part of European society, regardless of political affiliation. Failing to improve — not only in speed but in quality — risks deepening internal divisions, feeding political populism, and hardening anti-EU sentiment.
