Confusion and question marks. The longest part of the "conclusions" of the Summit of 25/26 March was given over to the "Lisbon strategy" (see this column yesterday and the day before for the "terrorism" and "Constitution" planks). But it is doubtful that it did much for public opinion. For the second year in a row, the subjects for which the Spring Summits were created (added to the traditional Summits of June and December) took second place, due to the serious nature of international events: war in Iraq last year, terrorist attacks this. However, the debate was meticulously prepared, with a great many position documents.
So was it a failed mission? For now, for public opinion, I get the impression that it was. But this is not the case in the medium term, or for the economic and social circles directly concerned. Because the texts are there, and the Heads of Government agreed to most of what had been prepared. Months of analysis identified weak spots and delays in the strategy's implementation, and priority needs. The EU's objective of becoming the "most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world" by 2010 should not be taken literally; the other countries and continents are also moving forward, and the goal will not be met by the deadline. But it is true that what has been achieved is partly disappointing and that delay is quite considerable in certain areas, even taking account of the poor global economic situation. Why? Mistakes and omissions in national implementation, without a doubt; but it has also been said that keeping the "European social model" is sometimes running into trouble with competitiveness whatever the cost. It must be recognised that man's sole objective cannot be always to produce more and more at lower and lower costs. For agriculture, we are starting to realise this; it must be done in other fields too. The day China and other colossi have the same level of productivity as the US, Japan or Europe, the world will be overtaken by an unreasonable volume of cars, domestic appliances, televisions and millions of other products, way beyond demand and way beyond what the earth and its environment can support. We are not there yet, but the first alerts and concerns are starting to emerge about China. The increase in competitiveness and production cannot remain humanity's priority for ever.
Statement and reflection. That said, it is clear that for the time being, Europe has still plenty to do to improve its economic effectiveness. All that relates to the unified market (paragraphs 19 to 22 of the Summit conclusions) is indispensable: European patent, single market for financial services, improved "corporate governance", removal of harmful taxation measures, etc. But, on some aspects, a certain caution is necessary. For example, the Summit states that "the examination of the draft directive on services must be a priority"; however, compatibility with the European social model will have to be ensured. Support for the "growth action" with its "quick start programme" (paragraph 16 of the "conclusions") is quite welcome. Pointing out a "risk of disindustrialisation" in Europe is fitting; but the increase in competitiveness is not the only answer; should we not have a serious think, one day, about the conditions (environmental, social and others) of the total opening of the borders? The Kok group should not stick to a factual statement, but think about the future.
A forgotten Super-Commissioner. I could keep on reviewing all 42 paragraphs of the Summit conclusions on the Lisbon strategy; but this is something everybody could do for themselves. I have also noted that the Heads of Government did not take up Germany's suggestion of a Super-Commissioner responsible across the board for all economic questions. Was it out of concern for the Commission's autonomy, which should organise its own functioning itself, or due to the strong reservations of the Secretary General of the European Trade Union Confederation, John Monks, who fears that the future Social Affairs Commissioner would not make the weight, opposite a Super-Commissioner with very broad competencies?
A recommendation, by way of conclusion. Anybody who wants to know the real state of the Lisbon strategy and the concerns surrounding it should not just read and inwardly digest the Summit conclusions. They must also look into the very many preparatory stances (taken by the social partners and other organisations), which have been amply summed up in our bulletins, and, in particular, read the comments of Maria Joao Rodrigues (in our bulletin of 24 March, p.7), whose role was essential in preparing this strategy, and who knows it better than anyone.
(F.R.)