Two of The Currency’s columnists shared diametrically opposite views of European regulation in the past week. 

Both are private sector professionals advising businesses in an environment increasingly shaped by EU law. Yet, they had different readings of the drive that has undoubtedly seen Brussels tighten its regulatory grip on the economy in areas ranging from environmental standards to the obligations of financial institutions, data-driven multinationals and cross-border employers.

On Friday, Tara Shine, from her perspective as an environmental consultant with her company Change by Degrees, deplored the latest stumbling block that emerged last week on the seemingly interminable road towards the adoption of the EU’s Nature Restoration Law.

The scientific consensus on the need for urgent action on biodiversity conservation is undeniable. “At the heart of the issue is the fact that three-quarters of habitats assessed in the EU have poor or bad conservation status,” Tara wrote. Yet, EU institutions have been unable to agree on a way forward on the demands to be placed on member states, businesses, farmers and individuals in addressing nature degradation.

On Wednesday, our international finance columnist, Peter Kinsella, who writes from a private banking background at Switzerland’s Union Bancaire Privée, argued that the problem stems from “Europe’s regulation fetish having gone too far”.

Peter took the example of the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), which he assessed has increased costs and reduced the availability of market research for the customers of financial institutions by enforcing a separation between asset management and research.

He also brought in GDPR to develop the growing opinion that over-burdening regulation is now stifling investment and innovation in Europe. By contrast, a recent trip to the Middle East convinced him that the region was striving to grow its attractiveness in these areas, posing a serious challenge to Europe when it comes to growing companies and incentivising capital to back them.

This is not the first time this debate has played out on The Currency. Earlier this year, my colleague Sean Keyes and I shared opposite views on the EU’s new Digital Markets Act. I highlighted the benefits to consumers and start-ups of measures forcing digital giants to open their proprietary platforms, such as operating systems, app stores and messaging services, to competitors without built-in incumbent advantages. Sean warned of the risks to the security, quality, variety and cost of services digital multinationals would offer to their European customers if they were forced to become more open.

In the case of the Nature Restoration Law, the European Commission’s original text was substantially amended in negotiations with the 27 countries represented on the Council and adopted by the European Parliament. This happened after the largest group of MEPs, the European People’s Party including Fine Gael, fought for a softer version. This included a commitment that rewetting drained peatlands, the most challenging action for Irish agriculture, would remain voluntary for farmers and private landowners.

Yet, it was shot down at the final adoption stage by a coalition of countries in the European Council, which suddenly grew to include Hungary (Ireland supported the final text). The move was part of a pattern that has seen Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán seize any opportunity to force a wedge between other member states in his long-standing row with Brussels over the freezing of EU funding for Hungary in response to violations of the rule of law by his far-right government.

Farmers’ protests

There is, however, a deeper trend showing here. As a new wave of farmers’ protests spread through Europe in the past week, EU institutions began to row back on the obligations attached to farm payments. Politicians across the bloc are showing worry that the backlash against regulation at the corporate level expressed by Peter in his article last week is bleeding into the wider electorate.

The issues at stake are complex and increasingly blend practical and ideological considerations, with a potential layer of foreign interference added as illustrated by the interventions of pro-Russian Orbán. The more informed the debate about the role of EU regulation before the next elections to the European Parliament in June, the better.

Irish voters turned away from the polls in 2019 when fewer than half of them showed up to elect MEPs. Yet, the Parliament elects the president of the European Commission and vets all commissioners before they can embark on their role in drafting new legislation. Since the Lisbon Treaty, MEPs have also had a vote on such legislation before it enters into force, on an equal footing with the national governments represented at the Council.

As the example of the Nature Restoration Law shows, MEPs have been increasingly assertive in shaping the legislation initially drafted by the Commission.

Anyone who has a view on whether and how Irish bogs should be rewetted, how EU financial institutions should be regulated, or how easy it should be to bypass their smartphone manufacturer’s app store and at what cost, has a powerful way of making it known: Vote on June 7.

*****

Elsewhere last week, as Dublin Airport’s car parks became fully sold out for the Easter weekend, Niall explored an alternative: available spaces at neighbouring hotels. Their use is at the centre of an escalating planning dispute.

Kate interviewed Monaghan-born, New York-based Orla Maguire, who has transformed her experience of working on fashion shoots for magazines around the world into a fast-growing specialist business, Lash Star Beauty.

Apple released accounts for the international business it has based in Cork, which accounts for nearly 60 per cent of its global revenue and even more of its profits. I detailed how the Californian giant has cemented the second generation of its pioneering green jersey transatlantic structure, and what it means for the corporation tax flowing into Irish State coffers.

Finally, Sinead’s column explained that US voters obsess about the stock market because their pension depends on it, just like Irish ones do about house prices – and she warned of the political consequences.