Agenda for a Sustainable Dismantling of Bureaucracy at the EU Level of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union and its sister party, the Union (the CDU/CSU), 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 a “hyper-regulation” that stifles competitiveness, Germany’s conservative engine proposes a shock therapy: shift from “simplification” to radical “dismantling.”
Behind the figures showing cost reductions, the question that will define the next decade of the European project becomes crystal clear: can Brussels prune the excess regulatory burden without severing the branches that support 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 itself defends 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”, emphasizing that the goal is not to eliminate rules, but to make them more effective and proportionate.
The German Deregulation Offensive and Its Social Impact
The Union’s proposal breaks with the timidity of earlier legislatures. Its flagship move, transforming the principle of One in, one out into an aggressive One in, two out, would compel the European Commission to eliminate two existing regulations for every new burden it introduces.
This represents a paradigm shift because Brussels would cease to be the global standards factory —the famous “Brussels effect.” The party backing Chancellor Merz argues that this is the only path for Europe to survive in geopolitical competition with the United States and China, where agility takes precedence over caution.
Furthermore, the Christian Democrats set their sights on rules that are pillars of the European way of life. In this regard, the call to revisit the EU’s Salary Transparency Directive is especially controversial. For the Germans, this rule generates “additional bureaucratic burdens” that hinder competitiveness.
“What Madrid celebrates as a step forward in rights would, in Brussels, be counted exclusively as a compliance cost to be eliminated”
Yet for Spain, this is a significant flashpoint. The government has made fighting the gender gap a banner of both its national and European policy. If the German vision prevails, what Madrid sees as a step forward in rights would be counted in Brussels merely as a “compliance cost” to be eliminated. Here the first questions arise: is wage equality a standard of living or a dispensable bureaucratic hassle? The response coming from Berlin appears to tilt toward the latter.
Nevertheless, this view clashes with Brussels’ reading. At the heart of the European framework, the message remains that many of these rules are not a burden but a guarantee. The European Commission explains that the key is to evaluate the impact of laws more thoroughly and simplify when needed, without sacrificing their objective, especially in areas such as equality or consumer protection.
The Crossing of the Green Deal and the Prospects for the Spanish Economy
Another pillar under attack is the green agenda. The Union calls for a critical examination of regulatory logic derived from the Green Deal, arguing that it interferes too much in business decisions and private life. The proposal to repeal entirely the Nature Restoration Law, which was already difficult to push through the European Parliament, stands as the most extreme example of this tendency.
Spain, a country that bears the disproportionate brunt of climate change—ranging from droughts to torrential events such as those in Valencia and Andalusia—depends on these European frameworks to guarantee the long-term viability of its natural resources. Dismantling these laws under the banner of business pragmatism could provide 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 is a threat to Spanish interests; there are areas where German realism could be a balm. For instance, the proposal to cut administrative burdens on SMEs by 35% would directly address one of the Spanish economy’s biggest problems. Spain’s business fabric, composed mainly of micro-enterprises, bears a disproportionate burden when navigating the complex sea of European regulations.
“The report notes that the latest reform of the CAP significantly increased burdens on farmers, something the Spanish primary sector has protested in the streets”
Likewise, the call for a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that is less bureaucratic and “practical” would resonate strongly in the fields of Andalusia, Extremadura, or Castile. The report notes that the latest CAP reform significantly increased burdens for farmers, something the Spanish primary sector has protested in the streets. In this sense, dismantling bureaucracy does seem aligned with preserving the rural lifestyle. It is also worth noting, as Brussels correspondent Nacho Alarcón points out, that Germans, together with the Dutch, have urged reducing CAP funds.
Mistrust and Balances
On another plane, the German Christian Democrats propose a series of control mechanisms that institutionalize a preventive logic toward any new regulation. These include everything from creating a bureaucratic veto via a central office empowered to block new legislative initiatives, to the introduction of a Notbremsmechanismus —an emergency brake that would allow halting processes if compliance costs skyrocket—, and a Länder- und Verbändeanhörung (consultation with federal states and associations). The latter would be a mandatory consultation even before the Commission publishes a draft, forcing Brussels to face criticisms from the outset.
As one would expect, these mechanisms would affect the very nature of the European Commission. If it was the engine of integration, it would become a scrutinized institution where the priority is no longer “what more should Europe regulate to improve it”, but “how to prevent Europe from regulating”.
This Agenda 2026 suggests that the European standard of living is, to a large extent, the cause of its own economic decline. With this line of reasoning, it argues that only through a modern and leaner” legislature can the resources needed for a strong welfare state be preserved.
“European standards in food safety, data privacy and workers’ rights are not just costs; they are competitive advantages”
However, the risk of this logic is reductionism. If every regulation is subjected solely to a financial stress test or an assessment of “administrative hours,” we lose sight of the public value of regulation. European standards in food safety, data privacy (the report mentions a Digital Fairness Act that should serve as an omnibus for simplification), and workers’ rights are not merely costs; they are competitive advantages of a society that seeks to be more than a marketplace.
The message from the CDU/CSU leaves little doubt. In their view, Europe cannot afford to be a theme park of social rights surrounded by dynamic economies that do not play by the same rules. For Spain, this plan presents a golden opportunity to modernize its administration and unlock the potential of its SMEs, but it also carries the risk of leaving it 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 pretext of bureaucracy would be 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 tries to position itself in a middle ground. “Regulating better also means listening more and legislating with more evidence”, argued Ana Gallego, in an attempt to prevent the debate from degenerating into a simplistic dichotomy between bureaucracy and competitiveness.
The Agenda 2026 of the CDU 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. The balance, as always in Brussels, will be the only possible way out, although this document makes clear that Germany is losing patience with the status quo.
