P/E/25. European regulation and investigation of how supermarkets responded on regulatory change.

Conclusion
The supermarket sector is regulated by a great many factions and organizations all of which have different interests and agendas. As a result the development of regulation is often an expensive, burecratic and time consuming process. This is due to the nature of Europe s dispersed democratic structure. Democracy itself could be held largely responsible, because it allows the formulation of an unlimited number of interest groups, which with enough members and campaigns are capable of becoming players in the development of regulation. The situation is intensified further because of the U.K relationship with Europe . On many occasions this relationship has resulted in conflict of interests and defiance of E.U law. There are various ways these problems can be countered though none at present appear to be favoured by the majority of the British public. The options available are 1. Sever all links with the E.U. This would give the British government complete control of regulatory policy meaning decisions would be quicker as the E.U would have no control over regulation. However this decision could result in a significant reduction of trade with E.U nations. This would most likely leave the U.K economy unstable. Another option would be to give greater power to the E.U this would allow compatibility amongst E.U states and would result in greater compliance with E.U regulation. (This appears to be the direction the British government favours. This is illustrated by Mr Blairs readiness to hold a referendum as concerns the single European currency. At present opinion polls suggest this is not favoured by the British Public, however it is highly possible that opinion will change in response to Blairs impending pro euro campaign.)