Regulation involves compliance costs that large businesses can afford more readily than can small firms. Indeed, big business sometimes colludes with government and bureaucracy to have regulations that make market entry difficult for start-up and small competitors.
Regulation should be cost-effective, doing as little economic damage as possible, limiting competition or increasing prices as little as it can while achieving its objectives. Above every regulator's desk should be inscribed the words: "Competition is the best regulator," for it is the ability of the customer to go elsewhere that compels firms to keep their quality high and their prices low.
Above all, regulation should be sensible. Those who have no experience of business are unlikely to produce sensible regulations unless they consult with those who have. Part of the problem is that things change. New products and processes render old regulations irrelevant or inappropriate, and legislators struggle to add extra pages of detail to keep up with events. The pile of regulatory requirements grows higher.
One possible solution might be to draw on the tradition of English Common Law, relying on precedent rather than on closely-written requirements. For example, many pages of detail set out what toilet facilities employers have to provide for employees. A general requirement that employers should have to provide 'decent toilet facilities' immediately begs the question of "What counts as decent?" It could be determined by a series of decisions by juries and tribunals, so that an understanding of what was expected would soon emerge.
The advantage of this method is that it would incorporate the common sense of those sitting in judgement, and could adapt in response to changing times, just as Common Law does.
This is not the Continental tradition of statute law. Law there tends to be made by legislators and bureaucrats rather than by juries. The rules are written down in advance and in detail, rather than emerging from a series of decisions dealing with circumstances. EU regulations are made in this way, and there is little prospect of them changing.
Mr Cameron might make part of his EU negotiating stance that the 95% of UK firms which do not export to the EU should not be subject to EU regulations. A common law system of regulation could then be applied to them, making regulation more sympathetic and more flexible, lowering compliance costs and making it easier for new firms to start up. It would give a significant boost to the economy.