EU Leaders Call for “Regulatory Reset”, But It’s Just A Power Play

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The criticism of the European Union’s regulatory policies is growing louder. In a letter to Ursula von der Leyen, 19 EU heads of government demand the abolition of “superfluous and unbalanced regulations.”

It’s a grotesque political theater we are witnessing these days. Nineteen EU heads of government have signed a semi-public letter—obtained by Handelsblatt—demanding nothing less than a “regulatory reset” in Brussels. This comes after years of these same governments diligently building up the bloc’s eco-bureaucratic behemoth.

Merz Renews His Criticism

The letter follows just days after sharp remarks from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who criticized Brussels’ overregulation and the resulting bureaucratic burden—factors that have contributed significantly to Germany’s economic crisis.

Speaking at the SME Day of the Mittelstands- und Wirtschaftsunion in Cologne in September, Merz declared:

“Let me put it a bit more bluntly: we need to throw a stick into the spokes of this Brussels machine so it finally stops.”

He lambasted the EU legislative machine for continuing its regulatory work “on and on and on—completely independent of whether a new Parliament has been elected or not, whether a new Commission is in office or not.”

Tough words from a chancellor who, domestically, has so far failed to reform even a single aspect of Germany’s own regulatory overreach, sky-high tax burdens, or its bloated welfare state.

A Coordinated PR Offensive?

Merz’s words appear to have set the stage for a broader wave of criticism that has now culminated in the letter signed by 19 EU leaders. Alongside Merz, Emmanuel Macron and Giorgia Meloni have openly joined in the chorus against Brussels’ regulatory frenzy.

Their stated goal: to return Europe to a path of growth and competitiveness.

The letter calls for the elimination of “superfluous, excessive or unbalanced regulations.” A truism, perhaps—but in the face of Brussels’ sprawling regulatory apparatus, this reads like a maximalist demand, as real reform would also require dismantling parts of the bureaucracy itself.

The authors also demand relief for SMEs from reporting obligations—such as those contained in the planned supply chain law—and from absurd climate regulations like the EU deforestation regulation.

Subsidies, Once Again

More telling, however, are the letter’s final paragraphs. Here the true intentions are revealed: demands for eased rules on subsidies and corporate mergers. The scale of these subsidies is no mystery: they involve the enormous funds embedded in both the EU and national budgets for climate programs—and possibly for building a European war economy.

In other words, the transformation toward an increasingly centrally planned EU economy is supposed to run more smoothly. Merz’s recent call for a “European competitiveness pact” and his warnings about competition from Asia and the U.S. are not wrong per se—but the crucial question is how this challenge is interpreted, and how it’s addressed.

Notably, there was no mention whatsoever of lowering the bloc’s absurd CO2 taxes.

The Draghi Plan as a Blueprint

Brussels and EU capitals are now, in effect, aligning with the blueprint laid out by former Mario Draghi. He had called for an investment fund worth €800 billion annually for the Eurozone economy—flanked by deregulation where it suits Brussels’ interests.

In short: capital flows are to be channeled more directly into Brussels-preferred pipelines—fast, concentrated, and with minimal red tape. Policymakers hope this will trigger a kind of self-healing economic effect. But the crisis itself is largely the consequence of precisely this misallocation of capital and top-down overregulation.

Europe has clearly chosen the path of isolationism: centralization, debt pumping, and chronic deficit financing. It’s a dead end—and Brussels is its most visible manifestation.

Smoke Screens and Shadow Boxing

The fact that 19 EU leaders are now publicly criticizing Brussels’ regulatory politics is remarkable in two respects. First, it raises the question of whether Brussels has indeed become a bureaucratic spaceship—so detached from reality on the ground that its occupants no longer notice Europe’s accelerating economic decline.

Given the regulatory orgy of recent years, much of it justified by an apocalyptic framing of climate change, the answer is most likely yes.

Second, the semi-public way in which this criticism was presented—via selective leaks to outlets like Handelsblatt—was carefully chosen to create the impression that national governments are still sovereign, economically competent, and attuned to the concerns of their citizens.

In reality, it’s the same old shadowboxing between Brussels and increasingly powerless national governments. Apart from a few outliers like Hungary, Czech Republic or recently Poland, they all share the same ideological course.

Von der Leyen Firmly in Control

Von der Leyen may appear isolated, but she has already achieved her central objective: expanding the EU Commission’s budget for 2028–2034 to around €2 trillion. Roughly €750 billion—more than one-third—will be funneled into the drying channels of green cronyism. On top of this, massive national subsidy injections, such as Germany’s special funds, will flow.

Such state intervention cannot be implemented without additional regulation and an even larger bureaucracy.

So despite the lofty language in the letter to von der Leyen, there will be no real regulatory or administrative relief for businesses.

Ultimately, she should be judged not by her words—or those of her critics—but by her actions. And by that measure, this policy direction is already clear.

* *  *

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.