In these crucial days for the Convention and therefore for the Constitution of Europe, it is difficult to speak about other things. But in several areas, the Union is on the move and it's important to highlight this fact. Our bulletin has been taking into account over a number of weeks, the avalanche of new and important decisions, even if their significance is sometimes lost on the public. Especially the "Lisbon Strategy", essential for the re-launch of the economy and employment, the real problems are on the table, in the bubbling ferment of ideas. Parliamentarians and political and social actors are longer leaving the apparently technical dossiers in the hands of the experts, technicians and specialists. They've understood what's at stake and are actively dealing with it. The general importance of certain developments ought to be highlighted. I tried to do this last week with regard to decisions about Galileo, the military airbus and Arianespace (see this section on 31 May).
From one excess to another. The discourse should be broadened, notably to that on corporate governance and the financial world. Tthe question is not about elaborating and approving a few well spun sentences (the G8 has just done that at Evian: "the economy of a country should be based on a solid legal system, effective regulation and transparent corporate government practices") but rather, getting stuck into the content of regulations and putting an end to the monopoly wielded by the experts and doctrinal purists. The most objective economists recognise that in the 1970s Europe went too far with index--linked salaries, State Aid and inflation, to the detriment of savers. But during the 1990s we were guilty of the opposite excess; all advantages went to financial and real estate activities to the disadvantage of the workers and genuine investment. The heroes of the economy and models for the young and ambitious were no longer industrial leaders who create jobs and wealth but the big financiers who manipulate capital. Now, the balance needs to be re-established: fewer guarantees and resources to financial incomes and capital, a bit more for those who produce, to employees as well as to the entrepreneurs
Industry reassessed. The first step has logically been to re-evaluate the role of industry as a producer of goods and on this point, the European Commission and Member States are in agreement. Romano Prodi had rejected the idea of a Europe transformed into a "services economy", asserting that industry remained, "the source of European prosperity" (see this section on 7 February). President Chirac, Chancellor Schröder and Prime Minister Tony Blair, came up with a common document for the summit on 21 March, stressing that EU manufacturing provided 45 million jobs and remained the vital source for growth (see this section on 27 February). During its last session, the "Competitiveness Council" confirmed these principles by outlining them. What' essential remains to be done, namely putting the guidelines that have been retained, into practice and defining the balance between industrial and other Union policies such as environmental and competition policies in particular. This is an extremely delicate task. One only needs to think about the document on the chemical industry to realise this. On one side, there's the demand to protect nature, human and animal health and on the other, millions of jobs and the strength of the European economy in the world. Where does the balance exactly lie? By discreetly asking the Commission, you'll obtain differing replies. Some sources there confide that Commissioners would dare not go against any environmental provisions, as they are afraid of being accused of neglecting measures for protecting nature and life, others adopt a sorry-look and admit that the Commission's environmental commitment are above all, just words. The truth is that attaining equilibrium is very difficult to define as soon as we go beyond abstract principles and their practical application.
The attitude of the social partners is also sometimes disorientating. Comments on the dangers of some activities, workers who are affected are afraid of losing their jobs and sometimes answer with fatalistic resignation, "we have to die of some thing in any case". There are just as many uncertainties concerning company mergers when it comes to defining the dimensions sought after that both allow competitiveness to be safeguarded and European industry to fight on an equal footing with the colossus power of the USA and the Japanese.
With the role of manufacturing industry being, in effect, reaffirmed, two aspects, nonetheless, need to be understood, notwithstanding the complexity of the accompanying texts: corporate governance (including take-overs regulation, still very controversial) and services of general interest, which involve the same concept as the European model of society. I'll definitely be coming back to these two points later on. (F.R.)