After an initial comment highlighting the achievements of the Barcelona summit (see this column of 18/19 March), some aspects, related developments and certain comments deserve a postscript.
There is no "political division" in the EU. Some observers interpreted the outcome of the summit, and especially the discussions and controversy preceding it, in the light of a battle between governments in favour of liberalisation and those giving priority to solidarity. European Commission President Romano Prodi firmly rejected this idea, and in particular the assertion that the pro-liberalisation camp would prevail in Barcelona: "Europe has not regressed one iota in terms of defending workers' rights and asserting its model of society."
I believe the Commission President is right. The balance that underpins the Lisbon strategy was respected on the whole in Barcelona. Obviously, each government has its own priorities and preferences, but the theory of a division in the EU between two ideological camps is not an accurate picture of the reality. The papers issued jointly by two countries (or more) often brought together governments of different political colours. The paper supporting employment flexibility was signed by Socialist Tony Blair (together with Silvio Berlusconi), whereas that in favour of the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy was signed by a Liberal (Guy Verhofstadt) and a Christian Democrat (Jean Claude Juncker). Outlining the summit results to the House of Commons, Tony Blair stated that he had participated in joint initiatives with no fewer than seven countries, in accordance with his intention of placing the United Kingdom at the heart of all European debates. Balanced implementation of the Lisbon strategy is increasingly becoming a Community acquis, which must of course be confirmed and especially given real effect every day, but which is now a given, even if the Member States do not all have the same ideas on the best way of attaining common objectives. Electoral vicissitudes in one country or another may reorientate certain positions, but without changing the essentials of European choices. The positions on Europe voiced by candidates for national election are often very close, in spite of their efforts to prove the contrary.
The opening of markets is part of the logic of the single market... Misgivings over the opening of some markets (whether electricity or other products or services) tend to disregard an elementary consideration: such opening is simply part of the creation of the single European market. There is no choice to be made between sectors nor are any exclusions possible: the single market is a global concept, to the benefit of consumers and the economy. Debate and negotiation may not concern this elementary principle, but only the conditions that are a prerequisite to its realisation.
…and takes forward the "European model of society". But these prerequisite conditions are taking the EU forward, day after day, towards the "European model of society". Dialectical tricks used to deny the very existence of this model can do nothing to change this reality. Progress in the area of services of public interest has been spectacular, as those who have been following the issue since the beginning are well aware. Europe has moved from total incomprehension to the decision to adopt a framework directive defining uniform principles for these services. As usual when valid arguments are shared, the meeting point falls somewhere in the middle. France, and those who share its views, has accepted two essential principles: the introduction of competition, giving consumers the right to choose from among different suppliers, and equal treatment for public and private (or privatised) suppliers. In exchange, the supporters of market liberalisation have recognised the public service obligations imposed on all suppliers and which will be consolidated, so that all citizens will be placed on the same footing, even if they live in outlying regions, and the less advantaged segments of the population will be given special protection. Finalising the directive will be no easy task, but the need for rules is now recognised, proof of which is seen in Tony Blair's efforts to introduce rules in his country alongside existing liberalisation. In the specific area of electricity, which served as the focus of debate in Barcelona, in theory everyone will come out a winner: electricity companies, consumers and the economy in general, which will reap the advantages of lower energy costs.
No need to dramatise one shortcoming. Several observers have noted that the failure to establish a deadline for opening the market for residential consumers seriously weakens the Barcelona decisions on electricity. Admittedly, this is a shortcoming, but is it really so serious? I wonder to what extent households and private users have a real interest in changing suppliers. According to a study conducted in Germany,
where companies can sell electricity to individual consumers outside of their region of origin,1.4 million households (accounting for 3.7% of the market) switched from their previous supplier, attracted by the rates and the advertisements of new competitors. But the initial enthusiasm has now declined, because changing suppliers requires an initial investment, and small suppliers who make fabulous promises sometimes go bankrupt (and going back to the previous supplier is rather expensive…). The usefulness of competition is not a negligible factor, however, because 27% of consumers have obtained lower rates simply by pointing out the existence of competitors. But in the final analysis, most consumers prefer the stability and reliability guaranteed by their traditional suppliers. In any case, full opening to competition for household consumers presupposes the entry into force of the framework directive on public service obligations, which will represent a high point in progress towards the European model of society. According to Deputy Chairman of the Transport Committee Gilles Savary, the challenge is to "consolidate the legal bases of the notion of public services at European level and (…) to assert these services as inalienable values in the EU, with clear legal bases ". The negative fanaticism of certain observers (even if they are senior lecturers at London University, like Philippe Marlière) does nothing to change that. Instead of always disparaging the value of what Europe does, we should evaluate the significance of what it has achieved. This consideration is also valid for the planned opening of financial services and for other results of the Barcelona meeting. The advantages of some of these results have been estimated: they amount to billions of euros, not peanuts. The calculations are no doubt approximate and debatable, but those who recall the Cecchini Report on the cost of non-Europe are aware of the psychological and media impact of such information.
Satisfaction for Spain. The legal opening of national markets does not suffice to create a European energy market; what use is a directive liberalising the electricity market if the lines needed to transmit it beyond frontiers do not exist? The Barcelona conclusion did not neglect this aspect; they stress the need for "powerful and integrated networks" and construction of the missing links. They also set a minimum level of electrical interconnection between Member States (at least 10% of generation capacity). In Seville in June, the Summit will have the Commission's report on security of energy supplies and provisions on trans-European networks in the energy sector must be revised before the end of the year. Spain had a particular interest in these aspects, which it considers essential for its full integration in the Union. Indeed, there still exists in this country a feeling that it is not yet fully integrated. This is partly psychological, but in the energy sector it is very real, for both electricity and gas. The road to doing away with it has now been opened.
To each his comment. Taking excerpts from the press conferences of the Heads of State and Government after the summit (summarised in our special edition of 17 March), it is possible to single out a sentence that mirrors each country's main concerns. Let's take a look at each one's priorities. For Jacques Chirac, public services: "We favour competition and the opening of markets in these sectors because it is good for dynamism, but not at the expense of public services, which is a foundation of the Republic pact." For Gerhard Schröder, defence of the industry against the temptation of Europe becoming little more than a service provider: "Germany must be able to maintain its production structure, notably for cars and chemicals." For Tony Blair, market opening: "I welcome the change of speed for liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets." For José Maria Aznar, energy interconnections: "This is particularly important for Spain, which has long been an energy island." For Silvio Berlusconi, connections across the Alps: "I very energetically raised the issue of links crossing the Alps, notably with France." For Guy Verhofstadt, research: "Spending in this area must increase to 3% of the Union's GDP by 2010; the objective has been set." For Wim Kok, respect for the Lisbon strategy: "There is balance between the economic and social dimensions in the Barcelona conclusions". For Jean-Claude Juncker, the transparency of European action: "Decisions must be explained to the public, which would prevent the big countries from saying whatever they like." We could continue, with Mr Paavo Lipponen (the environment in the northern part of the Union), Wolfgang Schüssel (respect for the rights of small countries in Council reform), Göran Persson (market opening, starting with the financial market). Each and every one seems to have found something to be satisfied with in Barcelona. (F.R.)