Expanding the initiative for growth. Going further than general political significance (see this section yesterday), the relaunch of the Franco-German entente has already had some effects on certain economic aspects of Community activity. The first example is the initiative for growth. France and Germany have taken a position in the ongoing debate at a Community level, with a common document constituting an important contribution, alongside the work of the Presidency of the Council (Italy) and the European Commission, in view of the debates at the Ecofin Council and the following European Council on this subject.
President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schröder consider that the Italian document (Tremonti draft) stresses one aspect of the economic start up too much: the large infrastructure projects for completing the trans-European transport network. In Paris and Berlin this was described in bitter sweet terms as "Too much concrete", and considered that an adjustment in one's sights was necessary by subsequently introducing other elements more directly connected to the "Lisbon strategy" into the initiative in order develop "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world". This will mean that any growth initiative, according to Franco-German assertions, is given a suitable place in, "immaterial investment: human capital, research and technology". The judgement on the Tremonti draft was perhaps too abrupt (we shouldn't forget that "Galileo" did not call for much concrete and is at the top of the priority list, as it already was in the van Miert report, but France and Germany have already infected their new priority list with "more grey matter and high-tech" by introducing broad band cables for the third generation Internet, digital TV, alternative energies, clean fuels, methods for applying the Kyoto agreements. Bio-technology has not been forgotten either (with caution). Among the projects linked to the trans-European transport networks, are those involving Franco-German links, which predominate, logically, but also with the logical indication of other projects that could be added to the list. Karel van Miert doesn't trust interpretations that attempt to give his report on the networks an overly simplistic emphasis on growth. He was of the opinion that the Franco-German project re-established the balance as, "an initiative for growth cannot be based on investment in infrastructure alone" (see our bulletin 20 September p 13).
Coherency is necessary. A certain number of commentators have criticised or minimised the Franco-German initiative for growth because of the absence of indications on funding. But these indications would be premature; it is necessary to wait for the results of the Community work involving the work of the EIB (European Investment Bank), which will in any case, be fundamental and finance from the EU budget. France supports use of the Structural Funds but Germany is hesitant because its doctrine on the future of the Regional policy of the EU is not yet decided. It is true that an initiative for growth without funding will have no sense but political will is, all the same, an important aspect, and Jacques Chirac expressed this in a striking way, "Europe should not wait for growth, it should go out and look for it". One can only hope that France and Germany will be coherent and confirm this political will when financial decisions are involved.
Debate on industrial policy kicks off. The second strong point in the common declaration involves "risks of de-industrialisation", a theme on which Chancellor Schröder has been highlighting for some years now. This time, he's got some backing, as the letter to the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi on this subject was signed not only by President Chirac but also, on the following day, by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The common declaration denounces the danger of "excessive regulation""; in this context, the European Commission is directly targeted, either because of its directive for the chemical industry or nuclear safety and certain decisions regarding competition. It's a sensitive and difficult debate, as the Commission has to synthesise between industrial interests and other interests which are just as essential, that of the environment, public health and free competition. The letter from the three to Mr Prodi is an appeal and a warning, "We must make sure that no useless obligations are imposed on our industry…the Commission's proposals must not harm the legitimate interests of companies in the global market place". In particular, rules regarding chemicals must of course guarantee environmental protection and health but also respect European competition in the world.
The debate on the EU's industrial policy, which has already experienced a number of incidents between Germany and the Commission, has kicked off again. And this time Chancellor Schröder has some allies. (FR)
European Parliament Plenary Session