The "conclusions" of last week's Summit on rekindling the Lisbon Strategy certainly do not represent a galvanising text that could raise the enthusiasm of the public. The faults are many. They are long, much too long (30 pages in the official presentation), they are drab and soporific and, at times, not all that clear. I urge those who want an overview of the economic results of the Summit to read the résumé published in our bulletin of 22 March (pp.9 and following) before broaching the text as a whole, and to refer to the statements by head of government (the aforementioned bulletin and the special bulletin of 23 March) to assess the scope.
And yet, despite its faults, these conclusions are both appropriate, necessary, significant and may even prove to be effective.
Appropriate re-launch in the current political context. The Summit's conclusions on the "Lisbon Strategy" are appropriate regarding content, as well as in relation to today's dramatic circumstances and concerns. To play a political role to the height of their ambitions and have influence on the management of world affairs, Europe needs enhanced economic credibility. Its political clout cannot be exclusively based on the rekindling of ambitions relating to foreign and defence policy. To use the language of electoral meetings, Europe, which for too long now has been an "economic giant' but a "political gnome", must not aspire to become a political giant to the detriment of its economic weight and effectiveness, which lie at the basis of its whole edifice.
At the same time, it was appropriate that, whatever the political concerns of the moment, the heads of government proved that the EU still had the same daily aspiring spirit of its citizens concerning employment, the environment, social and economic codecision.
Necessary re-launch. The re-launch of the Lisbon Strategy is necessary as: a) it's achievement is lagging behind, different deadlines not having been respected; b) the slow pace of economic growth (notably in relation to that of the United States) is, for a good part, attributed by experts to the slow nature of structural reform and inadequate co-ordination of national economic policies; c) it is not simple to "sell" this strategy as a whole to the public, as it comprises so many elements that even technicians lose themselves. At times citizens need reminding that the goal is to make of Europe "the most competitive knowledge-based and competitive economy in the world" which means the creation of 15 million new jobs by 2010 (to take the level of the working population to 70%), as well as better social cohesion. It's in the light of these objectives that the public will be able to gradually understand that the Lisbon Strategy is no additional machinery to secure greater market liberalisation, but a global project aimed at consolidating and affirming the European model of society; d) in some fields, a spark at the highest level seemed essential: to eliminate the last obstacles to the concerted launch of Galileo (see this section of 19 March) and the approval of the Community patent, to set a certain number of binding deadlines and strengthen some objectives which, in the light of the latest developments, now seem inadequate (concerning, for example, the development of renewable energy and the possibility of criminal sanctions against those responsible for serious maritime pollution).
(Possibly) effective re-launch. Other than been appropriate and necessary, the re-launch of the Lisbon Strategy could this time be effective. Following a few years of floundering, the governments seem more aware of the need for this strategy and of the importance to act together. Furthermore, the willingness of the social partners has been further enhanced. The President of the European Council, Costas Simitis observed this at the end of the Tripartite Social Council ("the social partners agree with the Lisbon Strategy and recognise it as framework for all their efforts"), and his words were for the most part confirmed by the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, Emilio Gabaglio and the President of UNICE, Georges Jacobs. Sure, ideas do not always concur on the priorities of this complex strategy, but this is part of the dialectic norm among social partners.
The raising of awareness of new demands covers a wide range of problems. For how many years have the authorities encouraged early retirement? Today, we rather recognise the need to hold back the age of retirement and abolish some abuses.
In addition and above all, the requirement that the single market must be perfected by extending it to new areas (energy, single sky, railways, financial markets, etc.) is recognised even by those who were still hesitant only yesterday, and the determination to act in a coherent and consistent manner is affirmed even by the Ministers of Economy and Finance, who had long been reticent about letting certain national prerogatives slip by. They are the ones, gathering within the Ecofin Council, who placed emphasis when speaking to Heads of Government, on the need to take coherent economic measures at Union level in order to face up to the consequences of the war in Iraq.
A difficult balance to be struck (and still more difficult to comply with). All the above does not mean that the task awaiting Europe is a simple one. There will still be difficulties, slack periods, and deadlines that are not kept. The most difficult intellectual, social and political task lies in striking a balance between the economic component, the social component and the environmental component ("sustainable development") of the Lisbon strategy. Each time a party places emphasis on one direction, another party calls for re-balancing in another. It is a political battle, there are no objective legal criteria. Where is the point of equilibrium between a certain amount of flexibility on the labour market (needed because excessive rigidity discourages employment) and the essential protection of workers rights? To what extent do the rules on the production and use of chemical products have to be severe in order to protect environment and health? How should one define the point of equilibrium between merger control, to defend free competition, and the requirement that companies should be of a certain size in order to affront the market's American, Japanese and other giants? How should one assess whether State subsidies to those providing services of general economic interest correctly cover the costs of the obligation of universal service, without comprising elements of State aid?
There are no criteria that can be put down in figures and that are unquestionable, and responses vary according to political trends and national traditions. In its preparatory document for the Summit, France called for the evaluation of mergers between companies to take into account "their contribution to economic progress", and for the Commission to improve the "assessment of the relevant market when competition is global" and also that the same Commission "rapidly provide the legal security needed for the financing of public services". On the other hand, the United Kingdom and other Member States placed emphasis on the flexibility of the labour market, while others insisted on the social guarantees and the risks resulting from the relocation of companies caused by differences in tax regimes.
The "conclusions" of the Summit take into account all these elements and the wishes of all are also taken into consideration. The result is that these conclusions partly represent a long list of wishes that are all justified: - employment possibilities must be accessible to all, it is necessary to promote life long training and education, it is appropriate to bring together the conditions that are propitious for research and development, and the full potential of the internal market must be used … It is not in these lists that the importance of this Summit lies, but in the second part of the document that indicates "decisions and actions for the next twelve months", with precise mandates for the institutions and many imperative deadlines, with details that would not normally get to the level of the Heads of State and Government. These "Tables of the Law" (sorry for the exaggeration) will be invoked over the next twelve months by the Commission to encourage the Council and Member Sates to act, with the European Parliament to goad on determination and the social partners to push the achievements that each party considers as a priority and to denounce the (inevitable) hold-ups. But some results and the respect of deadlines presuppose that guidelines should be specified concerning many issues still on the discussion table, for example, the content of directives on takeover bids, on the financial services and (possibly) on services of general interest, and at a broader level, Union policies on telecommunications, armaments and space (the three Commission documents on this subject have not been gone into in greater detail by the Council or by the Parliament).
Acting at European level. The success of the Lisbon strategy depends on sound macro-economic policies likely to reactivate growth in a context of stability. Does the current war darken the prospects, which are already not very glorious? Must budgetary imperatives of the Stability Pact be momentarily relaxed? Should specific measures be envisaged in the energy field, concerning, for example, recourse to oil stocks? The conclusions of the Summit do not speak of this, as they are economic and not structural issues, but some Heads of Government discussed the issues during the Summit. Not only the Ecofin Council but the Commission and the European Central Bank are keeping an eye on the situation and are ready to act, each according to its competence, and the need for coherent action at European level is recognised by all. The unit that was so cruelly lacking at political level is automatically reforming itself there where Europe already exists. (F.R.)