1. The EU Business Lobby Dr David Coen University College London School of Public Policy

2. Questions Has a EU business-government relationship developed. If so what are implications for firms’ preferences for direct and collective business-government arrangements. How firms have developed a government affairs function - best practice in Brussels. What are the implications European Public Policy.

3. The Firms’ Political Preferences

4. Evolution of Business Interests Pre-SEA 1953-1985 - Corportatist attempt. SEA - 1985-1992 - Open Pluralist system. Single Market - 1992-2000- Elite pluralism - Forums and Alliance politics.

5. SEA - Lobbying Boom Time 200 firms open offices - 1000 lobbyists Economic boundaries change. Business Issues change - 300 Directives QMV

6. 1990s Competitive Lobbying Proactive - learned from US firms.- Professional Brussels Offices. Direct lobbying of Commission and EP. - focused on decision makers - establish relationships over time Focused use of Federations - share policy leads and information. Lobbying- faster and effective. New political identities for firms.

7. Environment created: For Firms ------ For Commission Credibility. Wider Constituency - Trust. European Identity. Goodwill Quick and Reliable information Constituency. Implementers Mediators

8. New EU Government-Business Relationship and Integration. Elite pluralism - Forum politics - Alliances. EC can pull in firms. - Band wagon effect.- Invite leaders to participate and rivals will restructure lobbying to also participate. Europeanise the domestic public policy system? Some but gradual - not SMEs.

9. National Changes in Brussels Britain: MNs arrived early/US lobby experience. - Global perspective - UK “Company State” Model with DTI/Agencies - Similar skills in Brussels, but note increasing use of reformed European Federations. France: Slow to arrive in Brussels. QMV, Convergence criteria, Europeanisation of activity and Liberalisation changed focus. - learned to be proactive. But still a domestic focus 1st and EU 2nd - the Eurostar problem!! Germany: Some of biggest policy players in Brussels. Corporatism under pressure but strong (biggest threat is capital market) - Competitive forces have driven firms to Brussels. Different perspective on how institutions should develop - ie favour increasing use of EU Competition law.

10. Conclusion. National differences will continue - but some issues will be European/Globalized. More strategic in alliances and new institutional allegiances - primary focuses. But firms are still risk adverse and slow to change political behaviour. Hence, duality of approach. In times of recession will reduce political affairs and look to trusted/low cost routes.