Nipping potential misunderstandings in the bud. The importance of the European Commission's document on the “2020 Strategy” for the European Union cannot be denied. Everyone's talking about it and it will be the focus of the 25 and 26 March 2010 sitting of the European Council, but I believe that some initial comments are required to nip any misunderstandings and mistakes in the bud.
The “2020 Strategy” is not the same as the Lisbon Treaty. My first comment is, admittedly, rather superficial. The new document did not come out of the blue and has often been described as following on from the “Lisbon Strategy” but this could generate misunderstanding among public opinion and even in the minds of some analysts. The Portuguese capital is now inextricably linked with the Lisbon Treaty but in European circles, this is often abbreviated in speech to the name of the city, so people use the word “Lisbon” as shorthand for “the Lisbon Treaty”. The problem is, the same word is also used to refer to the “Lisbon Strategy”' so when people hear comments like “Lisbon has been a failure”, they may well think that what is being referred to is the Lisbon Treaty rather than the Lisbon Strategy (people can be unaware of or have simply forgotten that the Lisbon Strategy ever existed). The Lisbon Treaty and the Lisbon Strategy are as distinct as chalk and cheese. There are things in the Lisbon Treaty that could restore the public's confidence in the future of Europe, that can generate hope and optimism and, let's face it, even some enthusiasm. The Lisbon Strategy, however, has been roundly described as a failure despite a few positive aspects and the fact that it has given rise to useful momentum. The most commonly quoted aim of the Lisbon Strategy was to turn Europe into the “world's most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy” but the target date for achieving this was 2010 and so the strategy is viewed with a degree of irony because Europe does not yet come anywhere near achieving this. Unveiling the new 2020 Strategy, the president of the European Commission even pointed out that there has been a complete change in mindset: “This is no longer about a grandiose idea of being world number one, but rather of getting out of the crisis and preparing for the future by setting a limited number of objectives, while nobody even remembers the number of objectives in the Lisbon Strategy…” His first comment is pure semantics - leave the word “Lisbon” out of it because it is has now given its name to the Lisbon Treaty and therefore expresses confidence in the future. The full title of the new strategy document is “EUROPE 2020 - a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”. We should use the term “2020 Strategy” and save the word Lisbon for the Lisbon Treaty, the treaty of hope.
Detailed targets are to be taken with a pinch of salt. My second comment is about the meaning and importance of detailed targets (see issue 10090 of this newsletter). Deadlines are useful politically and psychologically, and are crucial to mobilise forces and provide reference points, but it is clear that the 2020 deadline cannot be achieved for all aspects of the strategy. I am not writing this out of any sense of pessimism because it is perfectly possible that some objectives will be achieved ahead of plan and each member state will proceed at a slightly different speed, but the media have naturally enough highlighted the five deadlines, some of which are bound to be missed - a job for 75% of the working population (20 to 64 year olds); 3% of EU GDP being spent on R&D; meeting the 20/20/20 % reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; reducing school drop-out rates to fewer than 10% of children and ensuring at least 40% of young people get a higher education diploma; and cutting the risk of poverty to under 20% of the EU population. The danger is some of these targets will not be met by 2020 and people will therefore call it a failure for Europe. Many of the targets have already been achieved in some member states, however. How can they be turned into national targets, with which the countries in question identify? And how can one make it recognised that the new 2020 Strategy will only work if it is a genuinely European strategy rather than an optional extra for individual member states (the way the old Lisbon Strategy was seen)?
The Commission has wisely focused on the content of the new policies rather than the deadlines, highlighting the need for the necessary action to be put in place immediately, for example genuine economic governance in Europe, new financial regulations, the EU patent and greener growth. Barroso has stressed the scope of the Lisbon Treaty's new instruments and the fact that action can be taken against wayward member states if necessary (political warnings rather than fines).
The document is described by some political forces as not going far enough and this was only to be expected. The ball is now in the court of the European Council. The show is on the road.
(F.R./transl.fl)