The European Union will have the continent-wide standard for the buggy whip real soon now. That’s the logical conclusion to draw from that recent announcement about USB-C. 

For those who’ve not been following along at home the European Commission is very proud of itself. They’ve managed to pass a law mandating that USB-C (don’t worry, it’s a shape of cable) be the only flavour of connector now allowed within the EU. This has caused the less intellectual of our own rulers — St Stella for example — to just quiver, gasp, with excitement. This is proof of the ability of the collective bureaucracy to really stick one to The Man or something. A vast victory over Big Cable it seems.

Well, yes. Those with a little history to their name will know that the EU has been trying to do this for some time now. So much time that they’d originally intended to make Micro-USB the Europe-spanning insistence but it took them so long to make their rules that USB-C had already superseded it.

At which point we might draw a couple of conclusions. Even, suggest an insistence or two. That first insistence would be that a time of rapid technological change is really not quite le moment juste to be insisting upon only the one way of doing things. Because change, d’ye see? No, this is important for we know, absolutely, that there’re people out there just itching to insist upon the one connector for electric vehicles. Who would, in the name of a vapid uniformity, insist upon freezing technology at its current state rather than allow it to develop.

We could, should, also go on to insist that such a legal insistence on the only form allowed means that technological development cannot happen any more. For, in order to advance or even just change it will be necessary to change that law, that definition.

Legal changes in the European Union are not easy. Of course, the Parliament cannot do it — they are not allowed to even propose law changes, let alone enact them. It is necessary first to convince the European Commission of the need for a change. That means convincing the bureaucracy of course. Once that’s done it must pass the Council of Ministers, which is all the national governments. Parliament is then allowed to say yes. Then, and only then, would it be possible to put the new technology — say, a new cable — on the market.

The European system is one in which permission must be sought before trying

But the only method we’ve got of testing whether a new cable is better is by putting it on the market. That is — no, really — the only process by which we find out whether consumers desire this new cable with all its delights, at the price that suppliers are willing to make it. But in the European system they cannot undertake the basic usefulness test until they’ve convinced a continent full of politicians that the new is in fact necessary and compulsory.

This is not the way to have a thriving economy packed with technological advancement. And, sorry to have to break the news, but the speed of economic growth is, pretty much by definition, determined by the speed at which we adopt new technologies.

Which leads us further in our insistences. This political system is not one of those examples of evolution selecting for intelligence. Back when we sent people to Brussels, the people who tended to go were those who couldn’t hack the ferment of intellectual cut and thrust seen at Westminster. We selected against innovation. But the problem runs deeper than the individuals involved. The entire system operates on a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work. Markets thrive on experimentation: trying everything, keeping what works, and discarding what doesn’t. The European model, however, demands permission before trying anything at all. Worse, it often requires proof of safety, utility, and worth before even allowing an idea to be tested.

Instead “try everything” must be allowed. Further, that we must have that free part of free markets — we must be free to try. The European system is one in which permission must be sought before trying and, before we get too smug, our own system is infested by this stupidity too. Not just permission — the precautionary principle insists that it must be shown to be safe first. Even, in stricter versions, that it be worth doing before it is even tried.

But, as above, we don’t know what we can do until we try it out. We also don’t know whether anyone wants us to do it until we do it and they can pick and choose. Our only method of sorting between all those things that can be done and all those things wanting to be done is to do them and see. The insistence upon proof and permission first entirely short circuits the entire system itself.

This is more than just about charging cables. This is about the very development of the society itself. Whether it does develop or does not in fact. Doing so at the speed of the Brains of Brussels would be, let us say, less than optimal.

As for the buggy whip regulations, yes, a joke, of course, but only just:

On 14 March 2017 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on responsible ownership and care of equidae. In its resolution the European Parliament calls upon the Commission to develop European Guidelines on Good Practice in the equine sector for various users and specialists, drawn up in consultation with stakeholders and organisations from the equine sector and based on existing guides.