"A gap exists between rhetoric and reality". Through its communication denouncing the delays and shortcomings in implementing the strategy for the Internal Market (see out bulletin of 18 April, p.9), the European Commission placed emphasis on one essential point: there is no point in launching and approving ambitious programmes and ranting on about the impact they will have, if then these programmes are not respected. Commissioner Frits Bolkestein is far from satisfied. His comments are bitter: "it is particularly disappointing to see such poor performance in the first year since the Lisbon Strategy was agreed. This shows that commitments made at European Summits are not always translated into concrete action. A gap exists between rhetoric and reality"

If the Commissioner's aim was to whip the authorities, both national and Community, into action, the scathing tone of his statement is justified. It does, however, call for three remarks:

The Lisbon Strategy provides for the completion of 36 target actions for June of this year. According to the Commission's forecasts, 20 will in fact be completed in the time laid down. Of the 12 actions considered as being priorities, 8 will be completed in time. This is no amazing score but nor is it a failure; Europe has known worse failures in the past. On the whole, the importance of this strategy and the need for it to be respected are recognised both a political level and among economic and social circles. The Lisbon Strategy is lagging behind, but is not bankrupt.

The Bolkestein document lists the results, positive and not, without analysing the reasons for the delays observed. These are political at times: for example, the "Community patent" is in deadlock because of Spain over the linguistic regime, releasing that deadlock depends one country. The Gibraltar affair is another example of one of the deadlocks not caused by the contents of the projects. In other cases, the deadlock depends on differences either between the institutions, or between Member states. It's the European Parliament that is blocking the project over the new phase of liberalisation of the postal services, considering that the project currently on the table goes too far. It's France that is against an accelerated timetable for an additional opening up of the gas and electricity markets. Differences relate to very important questions of principle. Frits Bolkestein cannot a priori claim that his position must always be accepted. The institutional game means that Parliament may sometimes have different views. Other major projects are, moreover, under discussion, concerning, for example, biotechnology and financial services; progress has been good, but the subjects are so vast and controversial that it is not reasonable to expect the rigorous respect of the timetable in all cases. I do not perceive a generalised ill-will regarding the Lisbon Strategy.

The Commission has itself profoundly amended the list of target actions, reducing them from 130 to less than 80. It has introduced new ones, at times of foremost importance, like prudential surveillance of complementary pension funds, new rules of aid to research, the total liberalisation of the railways, the opening up of the gas and electricity markets, the adoption of the new regulation for competition. In these fields too, certain major choices have not yet been made and debates continue.

Concluding, Frtis Bolkestein is right in stressing to what extent the structural reforms and the smooth running of the Internal Market are essential for the goal of becoming, in ten years, the most dynamic economy in the world to be achieved; but he must also accept institutional dialectic. (F.R.).