The language used – describing the regulations as “torturous” and “ridiculous”, and threshold values as “ludicrously low” – is a departure from the more diplomatic terms that groups lobbying for reform usually use when trying to bring about a change in their favour.
The timing too is a little odd, given the European Commission has already published its plan for reform. If the LGA felt this strongly, it would have been more sensible to express it before. The opportunity for reform is now far more limited. With no major opposition (as the reforms are not particularly contentious, even if some don’t believe they go far enough) member states will only be arguing over minor amendments and MEPs are likely to rubber-stamp changes to the directive. (more…)