What the President of the Commission said: The message that Chancellor Schroeder was waiting from Romano Prodi has arrived, which does not however mean that bumps in relations between Berlin and Brussels have been smoothed out. Beyond some specific issues raised at the meeting in Brussels last week, the central issue that perplexed Germany was the following: for the Commission, does the manufacturing industry remain a fundamental aspect of Europe's economy? The German Government had the impression that certain aspects of the Commission's policy penalised its country's industry, as if there was a tendency to provide priority to other aspects of economic activity: financial services, banking, the "new economy" in general (see this section of 19 April). Here is how Romano Prodi summarised and commented on (at his press conference the following day) the exchange of views on the subject between the Commission and the Chancellor:
"The concern for industry, not only German but European, dominated our talks. I absolutely agree with the Chancellor: industrial strength lies at the root of Europe's economy. Our diagnostic was not pessimistic, on the contrary: the EU continues to be very active in its external industrial trade (….) We also raised issues that may, in perspective, create possible difficulties (the environment, chemicals industry, automobile distribution), without conditions nor ultimatums or insurmountable differences, in an atmosphere of co-operation. The Chancellor welcomed the recent solutions to certain problems: German banks, some sports issues.
Does the Commission sometimes want to move forward too fast? In my opinion, and I state it clearly, only the coherent implementation of the Lisbon Strategy can provide citizens with security and a line for Europe. The problem resides in clarity, dialogue, transparency; it's not a question of speed. What the Commission is sometimes accused of is its slow pace, not its speed…
I add here a personal remark: it is easy for me to speak along the lines indicated, as I have always been a partisan of industry that could be called, between brackets "traditional". I have never believed that port-industrial sectors could replace industry. The new economy may accompany a strong structure of industrial production, but it can certainly not replace it. I'm happy that the real economy has rid the ground of certain passed erroneous opinions".
The President said that he was happy to have observed here his "identity of views" with the Chancellor, and considered as important for all Member States, small countries included, that his message on the significance of industry as basic structure of European economy should have got through.
A temptation of another era. This clarification should reassure all those who believe that the manufacture of goods useful for citizens and society, should lie at the basis of economic activity. It could have at least a psychological influence on the direction of certain European policies. But it has in no way to be interpreted as a weakening of attention paid to other aspects of Community action: environmental concerns, consumer interests, free competition. By referring to the "Lisbon Strategy", the Commission's President no doubt includes "sustainable development", which since the Gothenburg Summit has been an integral part of this strategy.
Nor should we imagine that the Commission intends proposing and conducting a "European industrial policy", temptation that belongs to another era and that Germany has, moreover, forcefully rejected. The Commission should soon be turning to the implementation of its updating of its evaluation of the competitiveness of European companies in the world., which is quite different to a central industrial policy. The aim is to evaluate and take into consideration the repercussion on industry of all decisions relating to company law, rules of competition, taxation, etc…, in the respect of the balance enshrined in the Lisbon Strategy between economic, social and environmental demands, in accordance with the "European model of society".
The setting out of these principles is easy, implementing them less so. The way in which the problem of the German banks, which seemed insurmountable was settled, represents a model. A similar balance needs to be found for takeovers and State aid, for flexibility at work and for pensions. We are always, obviously, speaking of the same issues. But solutions could be facilitated by the reaffirmation that the production of goods to respond to the needs and expectation of citizens remains, in the respect of the other aforementioned demands, the essential goal for economic activity.
(F.R.)