Today we shall point out certain developments in European affairs that open up favourable prospects. Nothing earthshaking to announce, and yet… Let's have a look together.
How to respond to unreasonable calculations by certain UN departments. One of the objectives of the Lisbon Summit has the merit of being subscribed to wholehartedly, over and above doctrinal and political differences: the goal of increasing the rate of employment This technical term simply refers to the ratio of the working age population to the part of the population actually working.
In the EU, the rate of employment stands at 61% today. According to the European Commission's basic document for the summit ("An Agenda for Economic and Social Renewal for Europe"), this rate must rise "to more than 65% by 2005 and to a rate as close as possible to 70% by 2010". To understand the significance of this objective, there is a need to consider that in the United States the rate of employment is close to 74% and that the Commission has estimated that if the Union as a whole reached the American rate, "there would be another 30 million people working, i.e. double the working age population presently on unemployment".
These figures prove the job potential Europe still shows and demonstrates the unreasonable nature of the calculations by a UN department which, in estimating the demographic curve of the population in Europe, calmly announced last month that the EU would need in the coming years some 180 million immigrants (or even more, I don't remember exactly). These figures have no meaning; they are the monstrous result of soulless machines, developed by a few bureaucrats with little more soul, for whom the civilisation that gave humanity Dante, Shakespeare and Bach is not worth being protected and defended. They should not be taken seriously: the UN's wild imaginings should be given no more attention than the society pages of newspapers, i.e. a quick look and then straight into the bin. But the abbreviation "UN" still produces a certain effect (and excellent results, about which we shall speak another time): the press discusses them, with one paper taking them seriously and another voicing indignation.
The European Commission's figures point the way to dealing with Europe's demographic problems. The increase in the rate of employment must become the priority objective because, if attained, it will mean that immigration can remain normal and controlled, that the problem of unemployment will have been solved and that the pension dilemma can be more easily solved through an increase in the number of workers contributing to the social security system. Given the favourable prospects for the economy, for the first time in years the term "full employment" is used in official Community documents, and it is not incongruous.
It is obvious that setting out the objective is only a first step: the main thing is the definition of strategies for attaining it and implementation. Raising the rate of employment to 70% will involve an impressive number of measures. The sectors with potential for creating jobs are well known, but the EU has to give itself the means of transforming virtual jobs into real ones (through training, scientific progress, general access to Internet), of making it easier for women to work… It is not worth continuing, because pursuing this enumeration would mean repeating the entire Lisbon programme. We shall limit ourselves today to adding the consideration outlined above to those that form the doctrinal foundations of this programme, namely that a higher rate of employment would put the lie to the eccentric UN figures, putting Europeans in a position to save their civilisation themselves, along with the social model that is part of it.
Austrian clarifications, Belgian pettiness. Last week's meeting between the European Commission and Austrian President Thomas Klestil brought some clarification to the sensitive and embarrassing matter of relations between the current Austrian Government, the governments of the other Member States and the Community authorities. To avoid being repetitive, we take the liberty of referring readers to the report on the Prodi/Klestil press conference (in EUROPE of 9 March, pp. 3-4). Romano Prodi confirmed his support for the position of the Fourteen on bilateral relations, while reiterating that the Commission has the duty of guaranteeing the operation of the institutions and that Austria would be judged solely on its acts. The Commission will be inflexible with any violations of Europe's values but will make a point at the same time of guaranteeing the rights of Austrian citizens and enterprises, protecting them from discrimination.
This last sentence could mainly refer to certain kinds of behaviour noted in Belgium, where some censors do not give the impression they wish to take their distance with regard to political ideas and movements that are inadmissible in our Europe, but that they wish to curse a people and a civilisation. How should one define the fact that the Austrian tourism body is excluded from the "Salon du tourisme" in Brussels? That, in the capital of Europe, taxi rides towards the Austrian Embassy and Permanent Representation are refused? That skiing holidays in Austria for Wallonia school children are cancelled? Such "pettiness" (to use the above term, with the feeling that it is too kind) does not even pose a case of personal conscience for me. I have a 5-year old nephew who loves animals: Will I still be able to take him to Antwerp Zoo, given that the Vlaams Blok won 28% of the votes in this town, more than Mr Haider's party in Austria? Or should I fear that he may be contaminated? Is there not a risk that the animals in the zoo are just as dangerous for the political health of our children as the Austrian snow for the children of Wallonia?
You will perhaps have understood that I only moderately appreciate the attitudes which - given the electoral trials and tribulations which, in just a few years' time, will have been completely forgotten - bring the soul of Austria into question, as well as its civilisation, its traditions, and the welcome given to its inhabitants. As soon as I have time to do so, I plan to go to Vienna, not for meetings or ceremonies but for a sort of pilgrimage of what remains of memories of Franz Schubert, the most adorable and fraternal of musical geniuses. And to bring about the failure of Mr Haider and of his ideas, I would certainly not follow the "Belgian recipe", but I would put my trust in Europe for this. Yes, in Europe, whose pressure has already made the Austrian government formally sign a declaration that must satisfy all the democrats and all the pro-Europeans, and has made Mr Haider himself renounce the leadership of his party. No racist and anti-democratic act is possible today on the part of the Austrian government, on pain of losing its voting rights within Community institutions. This is the real guarantee. And as far as elections are concerned, it is up to the democratic parties to be sufficiently attractive and sensitive to the aspirations of the people to progressively reduce the percentage of FPÖ voters from 27% to around 10% (which corresponds to the percentage of real extremists in Europe). This will happen within a reasonable number of years, if the democrats and pro-Europeans do what they have to do. Mr Klestil announced that, in the last ballot, two thirds of the Austrians said they were in favour of Europe (despite the efforts by certain Belgians and some others to make them change their minds). Why not have confidence in the meaning of European unity and in European values?
Now that the White Paper on Commission reform is here … It is with relief that I welcome the approval by the Commission of its White Paper on internal reform. Relief because of everything positive that the reform may bring, but also because this aspect may in future take up a little less place in Community affairs.
I have from the very outset felt that the hullabaloo made around certain cases of corruption and insensitivity among European officials was excessive. Some behaviour was reprehensible, sometimes even unspeakable, and those responsible for the same deserve no indulgence. In the same way, it is fortunate that events made the Commission conceive the ambition of making the Community administration the best administration in the world. But, at a given moment, public opinion received an outrageous image of Brussels reality, presented as a sort of kingdom of wealth and malpractice, a lazy group of people who takes over the fruit produced by the European peoples to their own advantage. In reality, even the famous "independent experts" had, in their second report, stressed that the Eurocracy was part of the Union heritage, precious because it is useful, and something Europe should be proud of.
The language used by the Commission to announce its intentions of reform sometimes gave the impression of echoing the twisted image of the reality of a European public service. Its language had something apocalyptic about it, announcing a palingenesis and purification, as if there was only ignominy before. Reform was presented as a priority task for the new era, as redemption. I sometimes quite simply wondered whether someone in the upper spheres had not been reading a certain English or German press too much.
At present, reform is on its way, and it will take three years to complete. We can hope that its place in the affairs of Europe will become more balanced. Important, but reasonable? The interests and the aspirations of Europeans, the role of Europe in the world, the safeguarding of Europe's values and of its social model: this is what matters. In order to move forward in these fields, an effective Commission and a European partially revised public service are essential, I agree. But we must not invert the order of priorities.
Ferdinando Riccardi