The EU better regulation agenda is being reviewed by the European Commission, with the aim of improving its effectiveness with respect to the quality of EU legislation. This paper takes stock on the results achieved so far and points at a number of issues that could be tackled in Brussels in the years to come to improve the design of the better regulation system at the EU level. Measures are proposed to strengthen the accountability of the Commission in the selection of proposals that should undergo impact assessment, and in the application of the principle of proportionate analysis. In addition, this paper tackles the delicate issue of oversight - i.e., who should control the quality of IAs produced by Commission DGs - and discusses potential solutions to the current failure of the Common Approach to impact assessment. Moreover, the paper looks at the difficult co-existence of the impact assessment model with the Standard Cost Model currently being used to measure and eventually reduce administrative burdens. Finally, the paper proposes a number of changes in the role of IA and the SCM in the policy cycle. Some of the key insights of the paper are that: (i) the choice to perform IA on given proposals should be more effectively targeted at addressing key strategic priorities identified by the Council every year; (ii) that the Commission should be called to perform IA on any major amendment proposed by the Parliament and the Council during the co-decision procedure; (iii) that the SCM should be applied on any new Commission proposal, regardless of whether the proposal is subject to IA or not, and should also be updated after co-decision; and (iv) that given the stronger role played by the Commission in selecting and scrutinising proposals until they become legislation, there would be a strong need for some form of external oversight, limited to proposals that are awarded priority in the EU agenda.