Progress that arouses little enthusiasm. Respecting a programme on the whole whilst attaining one's established objectives does not seem to be a winning formula in the world of politics. No surprises, no dramatic turn of events… Summarising the mood prevailing at the Barcelona Summit, a Brussels daily printed the following headline: "Pale summit and dazzling demonstration". So what made the biggest impression was not the EU's progress towards the European model of society and the 2010 deadline, but the parades and slogans. And yet it is obvious that it is the decisions or policies defined by the Community institutions and endorsed by the Heads of Government that will have an impact on the daily life of Europeans, on the future of our society and on Europe's role in the world. In some cases, these represented the result of months or even years of preparatory work by the authorities, political parties and the social partners. They open important perspectives and confirm the effort Europe is making to strike a balance between open markets and guarantees for workers and consumers. But it was the slogans, often vague or contradictory, that appear to have stolen centre stage.
This is normal and even positive inasmuch as the steadily growing number of demonstrations at EU summits proves that people are starting to understand the importance of Europe. The parades and "shows" that go along with them, when they do not lead to violence, can even be quite pleasant. But I can never accept confusion between democratic mechanisms (which give all citizens equal status, the same rights and the same voting power, and which also enable civil society to participate directly in the exercise of authority) and street demonstrations, where it is the loudest (or sometimes, unfortunately, those who hit hardest) who rule.
A calm evaluation. Why do I take the view that the Barcelona European Council fulfilled its contract? First, because I do not disregard its significance. The "spring summit" was added to the normal calendar two years ago not for the purpose of taking spectacular policy decisions nor for speaking out on new treaties, but to review the economic situation and especially the implementation of the Lisbon strategy, which must lead Europe, by 2010, to full employment, an economy based on knowledge and innovation, and balanced public finances. This programme experienced some delays and obstacles, which is normal given the tragic events and financial crises occurring in the world; it was time to relaunch it, clarify certain objectives and above all protect and even strengthen the balance among its different components: economic, social and environmental. The result was positive on the whole. Of course, no political group or tendency succeeded in getting everything it wanted and no one will claim to be entirely satisfied. But a brief reminder of the results achieved and their significance can go a long way towards a more objective and calm evaluation.
Economic policy. The Heads of Government instructed the Commission to come forward before the Spring Summit in 2003 with proposals for better coordination of economic policies. At last, a door has been opened to balance between the monetary and economic aspects of EMU. The principle alone is now a certainty, but this first step is fundamental, considering how long this lack of balance has been decried. And the circumstances now seem fairly favourable to stronger coordination of economic policies, at least in the euro area.
Sustainable development. Several political forces and pressure groups had denounced, throughout the preparatory work prior to the summit, the insufficient importance being attached to this aspect of European action, an aspect added to the Lisbon strategy last year and for which Europe wishes to represent a planetary model. These objectives were confirmed in Barcelona and some one-off initiatives were added to the programme, two of which are worth underlining: a) transport pricing, which will better reflect the costs of the different modes of transport for society; b) adoption of the directive on energy taxation by next December, a significant achievement considering the many obstacles in the path of this project up until yesterday.
Market opening. The total opening up of the electricity and gas markets from 2004 for all consumers other than households is now a certainty and, after the dramatisation of the lack of agreement last year, the true worth of this step forward should be recognised. According to the experts, the entire European economy has a lot to gain from this measure. In my view, the absence of a date for full liberalisation of the market for domestic consumers is not as important as some may claim, because the choice of a new supplier by households will always be more theoretical than real.
The conclusions on financial markets are no surprise. Since the European Parliament opened the door (see this column dated 16 February), the principles have been agreed, the Commission has already presented the basic proposals and now the decision-making machinery - Council and Parliament - has to start operating.
Services of general economic interest. Those who still remember the battles and controversies of the past over the very nature of these services, and the impossibility of agreeing on even skeleton European guidelines in this area, understand the importance of the Barcelona conclusions on this subject. In practice, the quality of public services is recognised as an element of the European model of society for citizens and for purposes of territorial and social cohesion alike, and the Commission is invited to propose a framework directive outlining principles. Universal service and quality public services: the rules governing the services available to the less-favoured segments of the population will be set at European level.
Galileo. Europe will make a reality of this satellite observation system; the operational decisions for phase two will be taken next week, in spite of the opposition of the United States. It is time to put an end to the unpleasant little game of weeping and lamentations whenever a project seems to be foundering, denouncing Europe's inefficacy and woes, and of conveniently not noticing when Europe overcomes objections and decides to move forward. The announcement of the decision deserves at least as much ado as that of the American effort to prevent it.
Employment. The Barcelona conclusions reiterate the principle of appropriate balance between flexibility and security. An assertion of principle is not enough in itself to reassure the trade unions: ongoing monitoring will be required and they can be trusted to see to this task. But they will not be alone in doing so because several governments and political forces support them. Several one-off measures taken or announced at the summit are a step in the right direction: mobility, recognition of qualifications, training for women and a European sickness insurance card. And I consider reasonable and timely the objective set in Barcelona in terms of retirement age: a "progressive increase of about five years in the effective average age at which people stop working in the European Union should be sought by 2010". I have already stated in this column (8 March) how unhealthy the present situation seems: employment in the 55-64 age range is ridiculously low in several Member States, insufficient in others, and satisfactory only in Sweden, Denmark and (almost) the United Kingdom. On average, Europeans retire at age 58. The large group of retired persons aged 55 represents a tremendous waste of skill, is a heavy burden on the cost of pensions and distorts evaluations of the desired level of immigration from third countries.
Equally justified are the objectives touching upon employment indirectly, such as: by 2010, care structures throughout the EU for at least 90% of children between the ages of 3 and compulsory schooling age, and for at least 33% of children under age 3 (to eliminate obstacles to women's employment); availability in all schools of at least one computer connected to Internet for every 15 pupils (notably so as to increase the employability of the new generations).
On top of these measures come some less expected but no less welcome recommendations, such as: a) the invitation to the Council to adopt in May its final position on the public procurement package with a view to Parliament's second reading and a final decision at an early date; b) the call for the adoption before year's end of the new legislative framework for competition policy, desired in particular by one Member State (like the level of electricity interconnection, which must reach 10% of generation capacity in each Member State, of particular interest to Spain, which Mr Aznar referred to as an "energy island" also hoping to be linked to the gas pipeline network extending all the way to Siberia).
I hope that this overview highlighting some of the operational results of the summit will prove useful, because, once again, the official conclusions seem a little too fragmented, with too many useless or banal sentences in which the real results get a bit lost. Some sentences seem unbelievably naive ("an active welfare state should encourage people to work "), others are incomprehensible to the public ("the Council attaches priority to ... the development of Internet protocol IPv6"), others are not concrete (the Council is invited to "examine the possibility of creating a group of wise men" (since the use of such groups has already been interpreted as a way of postponing decisions, examining the possibility of creating one takes non-decision a step further). The report by Javier Solana on reform of the Council (a model of texts to be submitted to Heads of Government, if one expects them to be read) suggests, among other things, replacing conclusions with a brief enumeration of the decisions adopted and the strategic guidelines agreed. My apologies for having tried to anticipate at least partially this reform.
(F.R.)