Too many documents, but there is one guideline. The Stockholm Summit is important for all Europeans. The avalanche of preparatory documents and the technical and at times daunting nature of some of the them risks confusing the one thread that unites them. But the multiplicity of topics must not lead us to lose sight of that agreed goal, which is to take a further step in what the EU set itself in Lisbon last year: transform the European Union, by 2010, into an "the most competitive knowledge-based and dynamic economy in the world". Even if not taken to the letter, this slogan implies the notion of improving the living and working conditions of all, the return to full employment (notion that, for the first time in a long while, has been reintroduced in the EU's programme), and the possibility of launching a genuine policy of sustainable development. It's a mad ambition; but doesn't Europe need such grand ambitions? In Lisbon, the Heads of Government decided on the goal. They have now to deliver, examine and assess to what extent the programme has been respected, set out and possibly complement certain aspects.
It's no electoral programme. The Twelve months that have passed since the Lisbon Summit have shown that the goal set involves an almost incalculable number of elements, each with their obstacles and complications. The Commission considers that the first assessment is on the whole positive, as progress has been achieved in almost all fields; but, at the same time, it has denounced certain delays and even, in some cases, "a lack of political will". Whence the importance of the talks of the Heads of State and Government, which could give rise to a comprehensive political impetus, as well as sorting out a few, and at times serious, differences that remain. It would be going overboard to claim that public opinion has been galvanized, but organisations representing both workers and employers certainly have been: the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and UNICE are multiplying their demands and stances. The one essential characteristic of the "Lisbon Strategy" resides in the close interaction between what is economic and that that is social: the creation of the most competitive economy in the world has to go hand in hand with "a quantitative and qualitative improvement of employment and greater social cohesion", and that in the context of "sustainable economic growth" (thus, compatible with the unavoidable demands of the environment). Thus presented, the goal of Lisbon could have dangerous similarities with certain electoral programmes; but the difference resides precisely in the number and concrete nature of the programmes and action plans, which multiply the number of documents that in themselves demonstrate the ambitions. Let's be clear: nobody, or almost, will read all the texts on the table for Stockholm, and certainly not the Heads of Government. But by approving them, the Summit will provide precise indications to the different specialised Councils, responsible for implementing them.
Those aspects on which there is no agreement among the Fifteen or that are the subject of differences between the Council and Commission, and at times the European Parliament, all have considerable economic scope and some of them involve delicate institutional issues. Let's look at the main ones.
Urgency of an integrated European financial market. Politicians, economic circles and experts all agree: the fragmentation of financial markets has a cost in terms of growth and jobs. Everyone thus agrees on the need to respect the action plan that should, in 2005, lead to a single financial market. But the Commission and the European Central Bank consider that this opening needs to be accompanied by a review of the legislative and regulatory tools so that decision-taking may be flexible and swift, in accordance with the conclusions of the Lamfalussy Group. And yet, this review could alter the balance of powers between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and logically each institution is concerned with safeguarding its own powers. The workings and powers of the new "European securities committee" must respect the balance between a more flexible decision-making procedure and the retention of democratic control over operational decisions. The EP demands that its power of co-decision not be gnawed away: this concern is legitimate. The EcoFin Council did not succeed last week in finding a satisfactory formula and is to meet again on the fringe of the Stockholm Summit. There remains a large number of measures to take (the action plan comprises 43), some of which are very delicate, like the one relating to pension funds.
The Community patent is there, but… A single patent covering the whole EU area is essential as it enables innovation to be encouraged and provides impetus to company competitiveness (especially in fields of the future: high-tech and bio-technology) and effectively supports job-creation.
The project's there, but Parliament has still not decided, and on four aspects the stances of the Fifteen differ. The Commission's President said this was a situation "of concern", and placed emphasis on a decision being reached by the end of the year..
"Galileo" has broken down. Romano Prodi has strongly denounced European dependence on the American satellite navigation system, stressing that "when this system is closed down for military reasons, European companies are forced to suspend many of their activities". This situation is unacceptable and unworthy of Europe, and some observers wonder whether this reluctance (on the part of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in particular) does not mean a basic scepticism regarding European autonomy in relation to the United States in this vital field. Reluctant Member States explain their reservations through the lack of commitment on the part of the private sector to the project; the Commission replies that private investors are precisely awaiting the political decision before coming forward, and points to the economic and social fallout (140,000 high-level scientific jobs).
The shortcoming remaining in the "European company". The compromise achieved at the end of last year on the "European company" was rightly presented as a major success story (after some thirty years of trying), but tax provisions are still lacking, and this shortcoming could in practice - according to the circles concerned - render the whole edifice erected with such difficulty unusable.
The European Parliament disputes some of the Commission's choices. The Brussels' timetable for the liberalisation of the postal services and options for takeover bids were practically rejected in Strasbourg, leading to particularly strong reactions on the part of Commissioner Bolkestein. The conflict is not over some detail or other, but over the very goals; regarding the postal service, the EP is against the scale and timetable of the liberalisation decided in Brussels: as for takeover bids, the Commission gives priority to the rights of shareholders, the EP to the possibilities of firms attacked being able to defend themselves. Compromises are difficult because the differences concern principles. To what extent is the Commission behind Bolkestein's stances? The future and position of the Council will tell us.
From electricity to the environment. Some differences are delaying the reform of the rules on public procurement (the importance of which is well known) and the opening up of the transport market, others concern several aspects of the social chapter (pensions reform and that of social security systems, adjustment of the cost of work to productivity differentials according to regions, etc.). It is too early to assess how Ms. de Palacio's initiative for the total liberalisation, in 2005, of electricity and gas markets will be received (France has already announced reservations). In addition, this and that Commission document has been criticised. According to Ms. Guigou, the one on employment lacks ambition, it is not sufficiently tied to the Social Agenda adopted in Nice; it should comprise a hierarchy of priorities to be more concrete, a timetable and indicators allowing for the situation and its developments to be assessed. Ms. Wallstrom replies that the general guidelines will take the form of operational measures through an action programme. The Summit will deal with the issue in Gothenburg in June, nothing should be expected in Stockholm.
At times differing national priorities. For the other essential aspects of the Lisbon Strategy, there do not seem to be differences of principle or doctrine, but importance is not given in a uniform manner to the different aspects. One Member State would like to speed up the liberalisation of the electricity and postal services markets even beyond what the Commission is proposing. Another places emphasis on a common European sky, a third on the capitals market or business environment, a fourth on quantified intermediary objectives for the rate of employment. The Commission's proposals cover an impressive range of fields, and are especially detailed on the "information society" aspects (where progress has been considerable but not as yet sufficient) placing emphasis on the legislative and regulatory chapters and on linking up SMEs and schools to the Internet, on telework, on the computerization of administrations, on on-line commerce.
Industrialists and trade unions galvanised. Industrialists (UNICE) and trade unions (ETUC) also have their urgencies and priorities, and are putting pressure on the decision-makers. UNICE's memorandum places emphasis on both general goals (good start for the euro, completing the single market) and a certain number of actions that are primarily of interest to company bosses. ETUC places emphasis on one fundamental point: progress in areas relating to economic growth, on the one hand, and employment, on the other, must go hand in hand: competitiveness and at the same time cohesion; liberalisation of the postal services, transport but also of the labour market. For financial markets, the goal has not to be deregulation but "appropriate regulation". This balance is demanded by the European model of society.
(F.R.)