Towards simple approval of texts prepared in advance. There is virtually no chance of the Summit on Thursday and Friday giving rise to an in-depth debate on the relaunch of the Lisbon Strategy. With what's going on in the world, European heads of state will naturally have other priorities. But that does not mean the Lisbon Strategy will be ignored and a large part of the Presidency "conclusions" will no doubt be given over to it. But the European Council will not go far beyond approving texts prepared in advance since there will be neither the time nor the desire in the hall to do any more than that. The texts are too long and there are too many of them. The incapacity of the European institutions to keep the preparations of the Summit to a reasonable size seems to beggar belief this time; this remark applies to the Council as well as the Commission. It is true that the Lisbon Strategy with its aim of making the EU the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world covers virtually all human activity - industry, finance, company governance, social affairs, the environment, competition, patents and research. The Commission went to town in its document on almost every aspect and the various Council formations didn't want to be left behind, each fearing that their special area of activity be forgotten. The result is frightening.
Heads of state will not for one moment consider reading all the documents they have been transmitted but will have to give their positions on various vital points. I will not make a vain attempt to summarise them but I will list the points the Summit will have to decide upon.
The Galileo Programme. If the Iraqi tragedy does not make the Summit cut through the disagreements that are still holding back the European satellite navigation programme, one could despair about the intelligence and farsightedness of the princes governing us. The United States will no doubt announce at the start of military operations that they are scrambling their GPS system, making civilian use of its uncertain. At the moment the EU is fully dependent on the US GPS; the interests of European transporters and others are subject to US strategic interests. Washington's assurances about not wanting to disrupt civilian use of the GPS outside the theatre of operations are worthless since the military will decide. If EU heads of state fail to sweep aside the obstacles to actually launching the Galileo programme (paradoxically there is not too little funding but too much since three countries want to contribute more in order to be leaders in the industrial use of the system since the prospects of profits and positive consequences are so likely) they will have an enormous responsibility since the first satellite has to come into operation in 2006, otherwise the frequencies already allocated will be lost. This means construction has to start next month.
Space and research. The Summit should decide on a single European body (shared between Member States) for space, in order to guarantee the continuation of Arianespace and also, on a broader front, revitalise research on innovation activity.
Community patent. The Summit must endorse the compromise reached by the Council at the beginning of the month (see Europe of 4 March, p.8) so that after so many years of hesitating, the Community patent, that industry has been awaiting with impatience to make a powerful contribution to remedying Europe's lagging behind its main world competitors when it comes to innovation. The obstacles that have held it back (it has been talked about for 30 years) result from prestige (languages!) and legal competence. The compromises have naturally meant reciprocal concessions but the hurt pride should give way to satisfying the leaders of industry in question, whose priority is cutting the costs of the Community patent (they will be halved). Patents will still be more expensive in Europe than in the US or Japan, because of the large number of counties and language problems (though lesser) , but it will be a significant step in the direction of Europe becoming competitive again. And that's the essential issue.
Industrial policy. The Summit will no doubt confirm that manufacturing industry is a pillar of the European economy that has to be maintained and developed in line with the guidelines in the Commission memo on industrial policy (see this column of 7 February), enhanced by the common approach taken by prime minister Tony Blair, President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (see this column on 27 February).
It is not yet time to take decisions (which will have to be carefully handled) but it is the right time to clearly set out the direction to be taken regarding certain suicidal tendencies of abandoning industrial production since the production of goods must remain the priority for Europe's economy.
Telecommunications. Invited first by Jacques Chirac and then by the ministerial council of 5 December 2002 to present a report on the situation in the telecoms industry, the Commission published a report last month. But it did not share the alarmist views made a few months ago by some of the telecom industry (that President Chirac gave the impression of sharing, in part at least). In its document the Commission a) gave a positive and encouraging image of the electronic communications sector's "decisive role to play in the European economy and in meeting the Lisbon objectives"; once the current problems caused by excess expenditure have been overcome, the sector can help return to growth, creating new jobs and speeding up innovation; and b) argues that state aid is not a suitable solution; new policies do not need to be launched, existing policies simply have to be effectively put into action, in order words the new, recently concluded regulatory framework and the eEUROPE 2005 Action Plan. At the same time, national and European research should be supported and stepped up, along with investment in education (which boosts the electronic communications market and encourages a knowledge economy). If the Summit shares these guidelines and action follows, this vital sector will start advancing again.
Company law and governance. I can only skate over this area, like the heads of state, since it so huge that entire volumes would be needed to cover everything. What is happening is an overall consideration of the role of free enterprise in society, the responsibility of business leaders versus shareholders, surveillance methods and the responsibility of controllers, the application of competition rules, and the like. One only has to follow the discussions over the new merger directive to get an idea of the scale of the issue and its importance - the impassioned and dogged debate over mergers are a great step forward from the virtual indifference that greeted the previous proposal (until the fireworks that led to its demise). The same can be said about the investment services proposal, and generally about the opening and transparency of financial markets. In parallel, the European Commission has made new contributions on general issues like innovation policy and entrepreneurship. Whatever the guidelines of these documents and the decisions of the Summit, reflection should continue. Among recent contributions I would like to highlight those by the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Philippe Maystadt, and the former Director General of the Commission, Michel Albert, which I plan to return to.
Services of general interest. I have already commented in this column on the great progress made over the years in awareness about the significance of services of general interest as an essential part of the European model of society. But in practice, many aspects still have to be considered in greater depth, for example how the services are funded and changes in state aid. The Summit may decide to adopt various principles, which France wants to be firmer while other Member States want them to be vaguer. Either way, the Commission will very shortly be unveiling its Green Paper (in the first weeks of April) which will relaunch debate over concrete matters.
The Tripartite Social Summit on Thursday before the European Council will add its results to the pile of documents already prepared. The big problem is always striking a balance between the three main components of the Lisbon Strategy - economic, social and sustainable development. This balance cannot be clearly determined but can only be affirmed in principle, followed by efforts to respect it case by case, policy by policy, decision by decision, whether in terms of industrial policy (the most symbolic example here is chemicals) or competition policy or whatever. To this imposing example one should add strengthening the coordination of national economic policies beyond the budget side of things already controlled by the Stability Pact (Stability and Growth Pact is its official title).
In the current circumstances, to repeat, it would be mad to expect heads of state to hold in-depth discussions on all these issues. But reaffirming various principles and guidelines and setting some deadlines would make a significant contribution to relaunching the Lisbon Strategy, which remains fundamental for Europe and its citizens. (F.R.)