The Agenda for a sustainable dismantling of bureaucracy at the EU level of Germany’s Christian democratic party, the Union (as the CDU and CSU are known), is a political manifesto that seeks to alter the DNA of the European Union as we know it. Under the premise that the EU suffers from “hyper-regulation” that smothers competitiveness, Germany’s conservative motor is proposing shock therapy: a leap from “simplification” to radical “dismantling”.
Behind the proposal’s cost-cutting figures lies the question that will shape the European project over the next decade: can Brussels prune the EU’s regulatory excesses without cutting off the branches that sustain the social, environmental and rights-based model that defines the identity of the European club?
In response to this narrative of “hyper-regulation”, the European Commission has called for a different approach. As Ana Gallego, director-general for Justice and Consumers at the Commission, argued in Agenda Pública, “We are not deregulating – we are learning to regulate better,” further stressing that the objective is not to eliminate regulations but to make them more effective and proportionate.
The German deregulation offensive and the social impact
The Union’s proposal breaks with the timidity of prior legislatures. Its star measure – transforming the principle of “One in, one out” into an aggressive “One in, two out” – would force the European Commission to eliminate two existing regulations for every new burden it introduces.
This would represent a paradigm shift, because Brussels would cease to be a factory for setting global standards – the famous “Brussels Effect”. The party of Chancellor Merz argues that this is the only way Europe can survive in the geopolitical competition against the United States and China, where agility takes precedence over caution.
The Christian Democrats also take aim at regulations that constitute pillars of the European model of life. Particularly controversial is the call to revise the EU’s Pay Transparency Directive. For the German Christian Democrats, this regulation creates “additional bureaucratic burdens” that hinder competitiveness.
“Should the German vision prevail, what Madrid celebrates as an advance in rights would begin to be viewed in Brussels exclusively as a ‘cost of compliance’ to be eliminated”For Spain, this is a major sticking point. The Spanish government has made the fight against the gender gap a banner of its national and European policies. Should the German vision prevail, what Madrid celebrates as an advance in rights would begin to be viewed in Brussels exclusively as a “cost of compliance” to be eliminated. This is where the questions start: is equal pay a standard of living or a dispensable bureaucratic procedure? The response from Berlin seems to lean toward the latter.
However, this perspective clashes with the reading in Brussels. At the heart of the European machinery, there is an insistence that many of these rules are not a burden, but a guarantee. In the words of Ana Gallego, the key is to “better assess the impact of laws and simplify them when necessary, without abandoning their objective” – especially in areas such as equality and consumer protection.
The Green Deal at the crossroads and bright points for Spain’s economy
Another pillar coming under attack is the green agenda. The Union calls for a “critique of the regulatory logic” derived from the Green Deal, arguing that it intervenes excessively in both business decisions and private life. The proposal to entirely repeal the Nature Restoration Act, which already had a very hard time gaining approval in the European Parliament, is the most extreme example of this trend.
Spain, a country that disproportionately suffers the effects of climate change – from droughts to DANAs such as those in Valencia and Andalusia – depends on these European frameworks to ensure the long-term viability of its natural resources. Dismantling these laws under the banner of business praxis might afford some short-term relief for certain sectors, but at the cost of degrading the physical environment that underpins the southern European model of life.
Not everything in the document represents a threat to Spanish interests; in some areas, German realism could act as a balm. For example, the proposal to reduce the administrative burden for SMEs by 35% would directly address one of the Spanish economy’s biggest problems. Spain’s business fabric, comprised mostly of micro-enterprises, suffers disproportionately when forced to navigate the complex sea of EU regulations.
“The report contends that the latest reform of the CAP significantly increased burdens on farmers, which Spain’s primary sector has denounced in the streets”Likewise, the call for a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that is less bureaucratic and “close to practice” would resonate strongly in the fields of Andalusia, Extremadura and Castilla. The report contends that the latest reform of the CAP significantly increased burdens on farmers, which Spain’s primary sector has denounced in the streets. In this sense, the dismantling of bureaucracy does appear to align with the preservation of the rural model of life. Although it should also be noted, as Brussels correspondent Nacho Alarcón points out, that the Germans, together with the Dutch, have called for reducing CAP funds.
Mistrust and balances
On another level, the German Christian Democrats propose a series of control mechanisms that would institutionalize a preventive logic toward any new regulation. These range from the creation of a bureaucratic veto, through a central office capable of blocking new legislative initiatives, to the introduction of a Notbremsmechanismus – an emergency brake mechanism that would allow processes to be halted if compliance costs skyrocket – as well as a Länder- und Verbändeanhörung. The latter would be a mandatory consultation with federated states and associations even before the Commission publishes a draft, forcing Brussels to confront criticism from minute one.
As could hardly be otherwise, these mechanisms would affect the very nature of the European Commission. From being the engine of integration, it would become an institution under surveillance, where the priority is not “what still needs to be regulated to improve Europe” but “how to prevent Europe from regulating.”
This “Agenda 2026” suggests that the European model of life is, to a large extent, the cause of its own economic decline. Its argument seeks to explain that only through “modern and lean legislation” will it be possible to maintain the resources needed for a strong welfare state.
“European standards on food safety, data privacy and labour rights are not just ‘costs’; they are competitive advantages of a society that aspires to be more than just a market”However, the risk of this logic is reductionism. If every regulation is subjected solely to a financial stress test or a tally of “hours of administrative work”, we lose sight of the public value of regulation. European standards on food safety, data privacy (the report mentions a Digital Fairness Act that should be an omnibus of simplification) and labour rights are not just “costs”; they are competitive advantages of a society that aspires to be more than just a market.
The CDU/CSU’s message leaves no room for doubt. In its view, Europe cannot afford to be a social rights theme park surrounded by dynamic economies that do not play by the same rules. For Spain, this plan represents a golden opportunity to modernize its administration and unleash the potential of its SMEs, but it also carries the risk of being left unprotected in critical areas such as equality and the environment.
Dismantling useless bureaucracy is an urgent necessity for the survival of the Union. But dismantling the standards that define us under the guise of bureaucracy would amount to a Pyrrhic victory. The challenge for European leaders – and for the Spanish government in its dialogue with Berlin – will be to distinguish between excessive paperwork and excessive protection. The former makes us slow; the latter makes us European.
In this context, the Commission is trying to position itself somewhere in the middle. “Better regulation also means listening more and legislating with more evidence,” Ana Gallego has argued, in an attempt to prevent the debate from drifting into a simplistic dichotomy between bureaucracy and competitiveness.
The Agenda 2026 is already on the table. The battle for the soul of European regulation has begun, and Spain must decide whether it wants to be the architect of a more efficient Europe or the guardian of a Europe with certain values. As always in Brussels, balance will be the only way out, although this document makes clear that Germany is losing patience with the status quo.