What the ‘Brexistential’ shock means for EU product policies
From 29 June 2016 (we’re migrating the best of our blog from coolproducts.eu)
British media attacks on EU product policies did much to put a golden energy efficiency policy area on ice. Now the Brits are sailing away, is the coast clear for Europe to ramp up ambition? The answer depends on how the European institutions respond to the unfolding ‘Brexistential’ crisis and the rise of populism. Embracing a deregulation agenda may be instinctive, to do less of what can hurt, but this is a kind of mini-Brexit in its own right, walking away from the argument. A better solution would be to better justify to voters how and why these sensible policies exist.
BusinessEurope issued a reaction to Brexit that made some logical observations but an empty solution — deregulation. Green groups are pointing out that the big business lobby was a gift to the pro-Brexit Leave camp. Its agenda alienates voters. Nigel Farage made the same point in an acidic post-Brexit speech to the European Parliament. Donald Trump has it in for neo-liberal trade deals. Environmental policies, on the other hand, are popular. So, the EU needs to embark on transformational change to putting the interests of people and planet first in everything it does.
For product policies, the European Commission’s approach to date swings both ways. Commissioners agreed (minutes) in April to be more mindful around communications, which we hope means giving product policies a PR boost. But in the face of a Brexit vote, their instinct was to hide the policy, not justify it, and new measures were shelved. The situation will thaw in October, we hear, when the red light changes to green. But corridor talk has it that today’s painfully slow policy process will be stepped down a gear; political punishment for being caught up in populist attacks against the EU, perhaps.
Hiding or slowing the product policy problem does not solve it. The idea of keeping Ecodesign as a ‘submarine policy’ worked for years, but was always an invitation for trouble and, with populism on the rise, is becoming less viable. A fresh approach is needed and would be timely. Conventional wisdom has it that when people take time to understand EU product policies, they support them, Mr Timmermans being a case in point. Let’s put that theory into practice on a much larger scale. The institutions and national governments should increase their PR outreach to explain this policy, starting in Germany, Denmark and other countries muttering about their own referendums.
Green and consumer groups stand ready to help, and indeed should be more on the front foot than in the past. National governments and their media experts should get involved too, galvanised by the European Commission. Independent voices, such as fuel poverty campaigners or national power grid operators, should be persuaded to defend these helpful policies. It should not be too difficult to prevent a populist Brexit mentality that sees EU legislation of products as mad, and move public opinion from ignorance to support for plain, common sense measures that help everyone.
It should not be a hard sell. Product standards are awesome for consumers, environment, industry and jobs; they are important for other EU and national objectives, like energiewende; and lets remember that recent media attacks were overwhelmingly confined to the UK. Most importantly, as leaders face their Brexistential challenge, this, like mobile roaming charges, is surely an area where they can point to everyday practical benefits for citizens of EU membership, something voters can relate to.
