European Neighbourhood Monitor

Online magazine highlighting research, news and analysis covering the European Neighbourhood

The European Commission: Out of Touch with Reality and Democracy

/ Environment, Trade / By

By Pieter Cleppe, editor-in-chief, BrusselsReport.eu

As the European Commission charges ahead with a new climate ambition—cutting emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels—it seems determined to ignore both economic warning signs and the political will of European citizens. Despite a clear electoral setback for green parties in the 2024 European Parliament elections, Brussels presses on with policies that have the backing of only six member states—representing less than 20% of the EU population.

Among those firmly supporting the proposal are Denmark, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Slovenia. But elsewhere, skepticism reigns. Italy wants the target lowered. The Czech Republic is wary. Other governments are demanding concessions in exchange for any support. This deep divide underscores a broader democratic problem: climate policy is increasingly driven by unelected technocrats, rather than by the will of voters.

Nowhere is this tension more visible than in the Netherlands. Despite Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom leaving the governing coalition, the Dutch bureaucracy appears to be moving full steam ahead with climate goals. The Dutch EU Commissioner for climate policy, Wopke Hoekstra, remains a key figure in this push. Ironically, Hoekstra, a former McKinsey consultant, was expected to be economically pragmatic. Instead, he has championed rigid climate measures, offering only limited concessions to countries voicing legitimate concerns.

“A resilient, secure and sustainable Europe depends on ambitious climate policies,” Hoekstra has declared, doubling down on Brussels’ approach.

But what about the economic cost of these ambitions? Europe’s energy-intensive industries—especially the chemical sector—are already paying a steep price. High energy costs, made worse by the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), have triggered a wave of disinvestment. ETS, a de facto carbon tax, now burdens businesses with higher costs than the actual price of natural gas in the United States.

Take the case of Ineos and its founder, Jim Ratcliffe. The company recently abandoned plans to build a billion-euro ethane cracker in Antwerp, citing the ETS and Europe’s escalating energy prices. “Half of the industry here will be gone within ten years,” warned Ratcliffe, lamenting that funds once earmarked for innovation are now spent on carbon compliance. “While China industrializes and the U.S. responds with tariffs, Europe de-industrializes,” he added.

Yet, instead of rethinking this course, the European Commission is expanding ETS to new sectors like road transport and housing—measures that will directly hit ordinary households with hundreds of euros in additional costs per year. Still, there has been virtually no political appetite in Brussels to reconsider or roll back the scheme.

Higher taxes

If climate policy is one area where the Commission seems disconnected from citizens, tobacco regulation is another. A new proposal to raise tobacco excise taxes is under consideration, and reports suggest the Commission wants to make cigarettes at least 20% more expensive. But what’s more controversial is the inclusion of less harmful alternatives—like e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches—under the same punitive regime.

At a European Parliament hearing in February 2025, Commissioner Hoekstra bluntly declared: “Smoking kills, vaping kills.” The statement stands in stark contrast with the UK Department of Health’s conclusion that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking. Many public health experts advocate for harm reduction—offering smokers safer alternatives rather than banning or taxing them out of reach.

Sweden offers a powerful case study. Thanks to its exception on the sale of snus—a smokeless tobacco product outlawed in the rest of the EU—Sweden boasts the EU’s lowest smoking rates. While nearly half of Swedish men smoked in the 1960s, that figure has dropped to just 5% today. Smoking-related diseases are significantly lower as well. Sweden’s experience suggests that sensible regulation, not outright prohibition, delivers better health outcomes.

Meanwhile, countries like France and the Netherlands, which have pursued high tobacco taxes and bans on alternatives like nicotine pouches, are seeing unintended consequences: growing black markets, cross-border shopping, and rising use of untaxed or illicit cigarettes. Between 2020 and 2024, the share of untaxed cigarette consumption in the Netherlands jumped from 15% to 25%.

The irony is that Hoekstra, as a member of the Dutch cabinet, once approved a full ban on nicotine pouches—products that don’t even contain tobacco. These policies, while supposedly aimed at protecting public health, seem to be fueling organized crime instead.

The Dutch government’s overbearing, hyper-regulatory stance on nicotine products—spearheaded by figures like Wopke Hoekstra—was intended to pressure consumers into compliance. Instead, it achieved the opposite. Rather than quitting, Dutch consumers simply turned to cheaper, unregulated alternatives. This shift didn’t reduce nicotine use; it fueled a thriving black market. Between 2020 and 2024, the share of untaxed cigarettes in the Netherlands surged from 15% to 25%. The result: law enforcement overstretched, criminal syndicates emboldened, and consumers increasingly exposed to untested and often hazardous substances found in illicit products.

And the consequences don’t stop with tobacco. The same criminal enterprises profiting from this shadow market have expanded into broader illegal trade. According to a recent OECD report, the Netherlands became the EU’s top destination for counterfeit goods between 2020 and 2021, including everything from knock-off watches and luxury bags to fake pharmaceuticals.

Given the clear failure of this crackdown strategy, one might expect the EU to take the Dutch experience as a warning. Some member states have drawn that conclusion—others, like France, seem determined to repeat the same mistakes. This not only raises public health concerns but also threatens the EU’s economic stability and internal security.

What makes Hoekstra’s stance even more jarring is how starkly it contradicts widespread calls across Europe—from industry, policymakers, and civil society—for a reduction in regulatory overreach. While the European Commission has floated various initiatives aimed at simplification, it continues to churn out new restrictions, tighter controls, and yes, additional tax burdens. Despite his corporate background, Hoekstra has aligned himself with the bureaucratic status quo: a class of policymakers who double down on regulation regardless of the consequences. For anyone who cares about innovation, entrepreneurship, or pragmatic public health, such allies do more harm than any declared opponent ever could.

Pushback

Thankfully, some EU governments are pushing back. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani has urged Brussels not to treat alternative nicotine products the same way as cigarettes. A Southern European diplomat has similarly criticized the Dutch and French approach, warning that they are encouraging the rest of the EU to replicate a policy failure.

In response to mounting criticism, the Commission has launched a “simplification” drive, unveiling several packages meant to streamline regulations. But minor procedural tweaks aren’t enough. What’s needed is true deregulation—rolling back layers of redundant, expensive, and unaccountable rule-making.

Back in 2014, then-Commissioner Frans Timmermans tried to inject realism into Brussels with a “Better Regulation” agenda that included sunset clauses and limits on “gold plating” by national governments. But little came of it. A later assessment by the ECIPE think tank found that regulatory impact analyses still routinely ignore long-term and indirect costs.

Europe’s problem is not simply overregulation—it’s that the regulatory machinery rarely stops to ask whether it’s doing more harm than good. With climate targets that outpace political support, taxes that ignore science, and regulation that feeds illicit trade, Brussels is in desperate need of a course correction.

Before proposing new rules and new taxes, the European Commission should hit pause. It’s time to stop the damage before pretending to repair it.

Copyright picture: Wopke Hoekstra (Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU 2024 from Belgium, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

© 2022 Copyright – All Rights Reserved by European Neighbourhood Monitor. – About | Privacy Policy