Romano Prod's warning is justified. It was at a very appropriate time that the Commission president drew the attention of Council President Louis Michel, European Parliament President Nicole Fontaine and of all the Heads of Government individually on the delays that have come about in implementing the "Lisbon strategy", specified exactly one year later with the "Stockholm priorities" and completed in Gothenburg by the sustainable development strategy. Who had not given enthusiastic applause to such ambitions? The aims set out were the most ambitious ever defined - creating in Europe the most dynamic and competitive economy in the world, placing employment issues on the same level, changing the aims and the modalities of growth. But how do things stand for the implementation of all this?
The delays compared to the timetable set are accumulating. Mr Prodi stressed the "notable successes" already achieved but also that "key parts of the strategy get bogged down in Council and the European Parliament". He was right to state that "political declarations are not enough in their own". He believes the "credibility of the whole strategy and with it the European Council will be called into question if we cannot make progress on certain key decisions". In his letter to the Heads of Government, the Commission President invites them to ensure that their ministers make a direct contribution to seeking an agreement on priority measures. Also, in the letter to Nicole Fontaine and to Louis Michel, he explicitly cites four issues that should be brought out of deadlock as a matter of urgency: a) the Community Patent, b) the regulation of public procurement, c) key elements of the Financial Services Action Plan (cross-border payments, pension funds, prospectuses, collateral, etc.), and d) the proposals on the distance marketing of financial services and on UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities). He added the removal of the last obstacles to achieving the final adoption of the Telecoms Package. In addition, he does not believe that bringing controversial points before the heads of Government is a good solution, and says: "Pushing decisions on often highly technical files up to the European Council itself is not in my view a credible or effective option".
General Affairs Council must play its role. The Internal Market Council this week was able in principle to give its majority stance on a significant aspect of the points cited by Romano Prodi: that concerning cross-border payments (sub-point C, psychologically very important because of its link with changeover to the euro). He discussed at length on the subject of the Community Patent, but without result. Regarding public procurement, he simply noted the state of progress of work (as, in any case, he must wait for the European Parliament's opinion). So that is how things stand for now. It may be useful to go beyond just giving the list of "priority measures" and try to understand the nature of the obstacles that stand in the way. As I see it, in the two most important matters - the Community Patent and the Procurement Package - blocking is not, as Mr Prodi seems to consider, of a technical nature but rather of a political kind, at least for some aspects, and it is doubtful that the ministers responsible for the internal market will be able to overcome it (at the session this week, there were more secretaries of State than ministers). It is at this point that the General Affairs Council should play its role of arbitration and coordination.
Prestige against efficacy? Regarding the Community Patent, the political obstacle is that of language. The importance of this patent for the European economy is recognised everywhere and by all, but the rule has been confirmed: every time a linguistic problem is raised, the issue is blocked. I am deeply convinced such questions are of great importance as they affect the very soul of the various peoples, civilisation, history, and traditions. The problem is to understand in what cases firmness is needed, on behalf of the fundamental principle whereby European integration safeguards and protects national identities, and in what cases the stakes are only economic.
In practice, as far as patents are concerned, almost all users use the English language, but, for Europe, one language is not enough (all the more as the domination of English is due more to the influence of the United States than of the United Kingdom). The problem is that, if we go on to three languages (English, French and German), then Spain, Italy and the other countries will rebel and reject the cost argument (if the cost is the only criterion to be considered, then, according to the Italian minister, only one language should be used). If this obstacle is overcome, the other differences remaining will no doubt be overcome quite swiftly. Commissioner Bolkestein denounces the inability of the Member States to give priority to long term interests, mainly from the point of view of its competitiveness compared to its major international competitors on "short term considerations of national pride". The The solution can only come from a political compromise at the appropriate level, as otherwise the deadline set for the end of the year by the Heads of Government will not be respected (see for the technical aspects of the dossier our bulletin of 23 November, p.8, and for the result of the Internal Market Council that of 28e November, p.6).
To what extent should public procurement be open to European competition? In the public procurement issue, the political obstacle concerns the thresholds of application of the European norms. The reform of regulation in this field will, once in force, have prime economic importance for public works companies, for the environment, for the soundness of public finance and for the quality of infrastructures, etc. The interests at stake are enormous, and the pressure surrounding the project proportionally so, which is in addition to its technical complexity. Almost 500 amendments are being discussed at the European Parliament! But the political knot is simple: from what value, in millions of euros, should a public market be subject to Community procedures?
The relevant Parliamentary committee has (against the opinion of its rapporteur) increased by 50% and sometimes even doubled the thresholds proposed by the European Commission, which would be tantamount to radically reducing the number of markets effectively open to Community competition. The new regulation would only concern a limited number of markets, of interest to a handful of very large companies. Even the major works carried out in Berlin would have been excluded from this. Most of the markets would be attributed according to national or regional procedures, in conformity with demands made by the German Länder and other regional or local entities. One can understand the political stakes at play, in the context of the polemic and projects relating to the sharing of competences between the European, national and regional levels. The parliamentary debate in January (or February) next will be instructive.
The battle is at the EP. At least for the time-being, this battle only concerns the European Parliament, whereas, in the context of the Council, several technical issues remain outstanding. However, the "threshold" aspect of the Commission proposal (which is, moreover, conform to the international commitments subscribed to by the Union in Marrakesh in the context of the WTO) has not been challenged. In Parliament, the thresholds were not been put up for discussion by Rapporteur Stefano Zappalà (EPP-Ed), but within the legal and internal market committee. A majority voice was raised in favour of increasing the thresholds after a very close vote, so that the amended report was only approved by 14 votes to 11 and 4 abstentions (see our bulletin of 20 October, p.11). Those in favour of the higher thresholds explain their attitude by their concern to avoid significant administrative costs and unwieldy bureaucratic procedures for markets which, in their view, will not attract international competition in any case. The supporters of the thresholds proposed by the Commission affirm that, if they are excessively increased, the aim of creating a real single European market in this field will not be reached. According to the Deputy Director General at the European Commission, Mr Adolfo Mattera, the increases requested would empty the directive of its impact and even make it quite pointless. In addition, a change in the thresholds decided in a unilateral way would expose the EU to sanctions at international level.
The number of amendments presented with a view to the plenary discussion (several hundred) has caused the debate to slide to the beginning of next year. Amendments obviously cover a whole panoply of subjects, touching upon ecological and social criteria, the ban of any link between tenderers and organised crime, etc. Rapporteur Zappalà is endeavouring to define a compromise that would reduce the number of amendments on the table. Despite the importance of other points, only that relating to thresholds seems to have true political and institutional meaning. It will be interesting at the end of the day to see what the majority of the Parliament finally decides. Then it will be up to the Council to give its stance, according to codecision procedure.
Lisbon, reactivation announced. The Community Patent and public procurement are only a small part of the Lisbon Strategy, but I have the impression that things are beginning to move on the whole. The European Commission has just published in the Official Journal n.C/333 of 28 November, its communication on the possibility of integrating social aspects in the law applying to public procurement contracts (with explicit reference to the Lisbon Strategy), and in its new report on liberalisation of telecommunications it stresses that the negotiations between the EP and the Council on the new regulatory framework are at a crucial stage. In addition, the Commission expects that the Council will take a stance on reform of competition policy applying to agreements and monopolies (which should make this policy more effective and more targeted to harmful cartels) and it is preparing its so very delicate projects on State aid to companies entrusted with the task of providing services of general interest. Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar, for his part, announced his government plans to relaunch the Lisbon strategy in five sectors when it holds the Council Presidency from January 2002. These sectors are: job creation, the single energy market, transport and communications, the unified financial market, and lifelong education. (F.R.)