Views: 45
Over two years ago, Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta – both the former Italian Prime Ministers – composed two reports on European competitiveness issues; the reports have since been repeatedly cited and heavily criticized lately. Besides, the reports outcomes have been recently consolidated into the so-called omnibus packages aimed at removing main regulatory stumbling blocks hindering the European competitiveness.
Market vs. regulations
The former Italian prime ministers have been unanimous in revealing “alarming reports” at the end of 2024; the two reports, respectively, one on the state of the single market and on the other on the EU-wide competitiveness controversies. The two statesmen both pointed not only excessive regulatory burdens but as well the bureaucracy and the red tape as major obstacles to the continental growth and innovation.
Besides, they noted that the EU authorities – while having many ambitious goals – did not believe they could explore “apparent things” available in the Eu-wide free market to fulfill them.
Additional info on the reports in: https://www.integrin.dk/2024/09/09/eu-wide-competitiveness-challenges-and-perspectives-in-draghi-report/; and in: https://www.integrin.dk/2026/02/04/modern-eu-competition-issues-new-reports-indicators/
The European situation contrasts starkly with the outlook in the other external partners, like the United States, where President Donald Trump even has had an idea (but dropped soon after) by appointing a tech-billionaire Elon Musk to “dismantle government bureaucracy and slash excess regulations”. That mandate to cut red tape goes hand-in-hand with an ideological desire to simply deregulate and leave more to the market.
Although corporate lobbyists in the EU sometimes also use the “too much red tape” argument as a veiled appeal for self-regulation, there is no yet strong and effective momentum in the EU for a “Trump-style libertarian approach”; it seems that the EU leaders are not actually heading in that “deregulating direction” yet.
Just an example: the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which was introduced in 1962, and is still a quite complex and complicated EU-wide agro-policy facet with numerous exemptions. The policy is reviewed every seven years, and during these periods, farmers and politicians alike have been claiming for fundamental simplification.
The next agro-review is expected in 2027; but already presently, the EU member states’ agriculture ministers started complaining about the “unnecessary administrative burdens”.
Source: https://www.ftm.eu/articles/why-the-eu-is-failing-to-cut-red-tape?share=9qSZcXJ0TYoKa9eAI7k%2BP6mPJnfBrAggZJfiwkcN8Y4fLWZdcQfJj3nMAboerqY%3D
The so-called “magic Mario’s trick” in his report on simplification’s attractiveness was that regarding the “following and discovering” the outcomes of a new research investigation by the Follow the Money group, which revealed that the key data underpinning the Draghi’s report was inaccurate, with evidences selectively “cherry-picked” to support its conclusions while contradictory findings were excluded.
More in the “Follow the Money” website, i.e. the investigative news outlet for radically independent journalism, in: https://www.ftm.eu/newsletters/draghis-data-whatever-it-takes?mc_cid=d6590e1b15
The Draghi’s report lacs some evidences…
Already during 2025, the researchers and the academic community were criticising former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta for the lack of sourcing in his influential report on the EU’s internal market. His approach contrasted sharply with that of his colleague, Mario Draghi, whose report on EU competitiveness seemed more rigorous, featuring both footnotes and endnotes.
… and so is the Letta’s report
But on closer inspection, some of the claims in Draghi’s paper also appear problematic. After reading the existing follow-ups about Letta’s lack of sources, Jonathan Zeitlin, professor emeritus of public policy and governance at the University of Amsterdam, had found an “egregious” example of Draghi presenting a figure in a “misleading” way.
He also noted that the Eurobarometer figure was an EU average, with a wide variety between countries. In Estonia, only 22% of SMEs said red tape was an obstacle, as opposed to 79% in Czechia. According to Zeitlin, the variation suggests companies are more concerned with national rules than EU ones, which are largely the same across countries.
However, the European Commission’s head promising the red tape “simplification revolution”, has regularly quoted the 55% figure when justifying his proposals for changes in the EU rules. Some though argued, that it was “highly misleading”: thus, the confusion over what exactly is the so-called “regulatory pressure” has been an important argument in the European Commission’s efforts to proceed with the “reducing administrative burdens” for decades.
More on “simplification revolution”, which involves “ensuring a clear, simple and smart regulatory framework for businesses and drastically reducing administrative, regulatory and reporting burdens, in particular for SMEs”, in the European Council’s website at: https://www.ftm.eu/articles/why-the-eu-is-failing-to-cut-red-tape?share=9qSZcXJ0TYoKa9eAI7k%2BP6mPJnfBrAggZJfiwkcN8Y4fLWZdcQfJj3nMAboerqY%3D; and in: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ac_24_5786
Proven criticism…
In 2025, the “Folow the Money” newsletter highlighted that Letta’s influential report on the EU single market did not contain a single footnote, which was actually making it difficult to find sources for many -if not all – of his bold claims.
Some say that it is now “clear whom to blame” for the misleading occasions: i.e. the Belgian economy ministry made some suggestions; it acted on behalf of the EU-27 in the lead up to its term holding the EU Council presidency in 2024.
Citations from:
https://www.ftm.eu/newsletters/bureau-brussels-follow-the-money-i-cannot-do-that-without-sources?share=lD4Bai%2BdjJGeNKgiWCjnVZflmjwN90%2BhGud2dDx3zTNOMkDdoDCr972ag5j7l1Q%3D
The Belgian ministry’s top civil servant, Séverine Waterbley, gave public access to the contract that it signed with the Delors Institute; she confirmed existing observations regarding “nonexistent rules on sourcing”. None were included in Letta’s report, she confirmed, not by oversight, but because sourcing was never considered necessary in the first place. “This was not an academic work,” she finally added.
Source and citations from: https://www.ftm.eu/newsletters/newsletter-documents-reveal-tony-blair-lobbied-eu-to-join-trumps-board-of-peace
Omnibus in the EU’s digital package
The review of the Cybersecurity Act and simplification of cybersecurity legislation will ensure simplified and more agile means to facilitate multiple-purpose reporting to avoid duplications. This idea has formed a vital part of the broader assessment during the first year of the Commission’s mandate: i.e. of whether the expanded EU digital legislation could “adequately reflect” the needs and constraints of businesses such as SMEs and small mid-caps, going beyond necessary guidance and standards that facilitate compliance and competition.
Among others, a European Data Union Strategy was going to address existing data rules to ensure a simplified, clear and coherent legal framework for businesses and administrations to share data seamlessly and at scale, while respecting high privacy and security standards.
Reference to: https://www.integrin.dk/2026/01/07/contemporary-european-simplification-agenda-strategies-and-implementation/
Conclusion
Recent evidences have revealed -specifically, in the mentioned reports and research web-link – an important issue of “de=regulation’s” trend in corporate community: thus, if SMEs did not call for deregulation, and neither did civil society, citizens, the scientific community or academia, then who would dear to?
These suggested sweeping measures have largely benefited major polluters and lagging industries, while creating legal uncertainty for those companies and industries that acted early.
In the end, the EU-wide simplification looks more like “deregulation of the protections that safeguard public health and the environment”, that the EU-27 is heavily relying on.
And more: why would anyone trust a genuine simplification effort in the future under such pretext?
First two omnibus packages revealed in the beginning of 2025, marked “a strong start to delivering EU’s simplification agenda”. Besides, a conservative estimate puts the annual savings stemming from the already two initial omnibus packages at €6.3 billion.
More on “omnibus proposals” to simplify EU rules (February 2025) in: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_25_629
thank you