A consensus of principle which has not yet reached the content. Last week's Summit did not relaunch the Lisbon Strategy. It merely reaffirmed the need to do so, and gave a few (very vague) indications about the guidelines to be followed, and defined a few procedural elements (a bit more concrete). Those in charge of the dossier may point out that it was never the intention to relaunch and revise the Strategy at this stage, as it had already been agreed that this would be the job of the Spring Summit in March 2005. This is quite true. But at a certain moment, with the publication of the Kok report, the statements and press conference by its author, the stances taken by the social partners, etc, the general public may have got the impression that the revision of the Strategy and its relaunch were done deals. We are just at the outset. I don't mean by this that what has been done is not significant: political approval of the relaunch at the highest level is in itself a positive step. But we must avoid any unclearness, and most of all, we must not assume that a consensus has already been reached on anything, even the principle of the form this relaunch should take. Most of the work is still to be done, and what the Heads of State and Government had to say at the Summit indicate that positions and views are far from uniform.
The official "conclusions" of last week's Summit devote just a small page to this dossier (paragraphs 5 to 13 of the Presidency's conclusions, reproduced in no. 2384/2385 of our EUROPE/Documents series). On the substance, they never get past the level of the soundbite: encouragement to keep up the pace of work being done, the importance of the Member States' applying the measures agreed upon, an invitation to the social partners to implement the Lisbon Strategy more effectively as it relates to them, etc. This is not a criticism: the Heads of Government have already made more than enough declarations of principle on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, and no more are needed. For at least the past two years, there hasn't been a Summit which hasn't taken the Lisbon objectives and confirmed them, commented on them, added to them, relaunched them. This time, the Summit was a bit more specific about the procedures: a) expressing its satisfaction at the launch of the action programme to simplify Community legislation; b) taking note of the fact that the Commission and the Council have agreed on priorities in the fields of the environment, transport and statistics, and that they are to draw up a list of ten to fifteen legal actions representing the top priorities.
Under the current state of play, I feel that these elements deserve to be highlighted.
1. Deadline confirmed, but… The Heads of Government did not change the meditated deadline (2010) for the Lisbon Strategy to make Europe into "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world", although nobody still thinks this time-frame is reasonable. Chancellor Schröder suggested that it should not be considered the deadline for the end result, but the date by which the reforms and other measures should have been approved and phased in. The tremendous impetus provided by a deadline (which has always been very useful in other important European achievements) is thus kept in place.
2. Balance between the social and economic elements of the Strategy. The Kok report confirms that this balance remains at the heart of the whole strategy. This is indispensable for the Lisbon Strategy to enjoy the support of both Unice (the employers) and the workers' unions (ETUC). The tripartite meeting which preceded the Summit (see our bulletin of 5 November, page 9) was quite unequivocal on the subject. It could be considered a success due to the unanimous acknowledgement of the need for balance, and thanks to the assurances given by the President of the European Council, Mr Balkenende, on keeping and defending the "European social model". Growth and employment, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable sections of the population, thus remain essential objectives of the strategy. But this does not mean that the employers and the workers already agree on the ways and means to respect this balance. Unice particularly stresses the importance of the competitiveness of the European economy in general and of industry in particular, and some elements of this notion trigger a certain wariness among the workers. The Secretary General of ETUC, John Monks, was confident and optimistic, but cautious at the same time: "We are prepared to look together at how much common ground we have to go forward (…). There is much to think about between now and March's Summit, and we have made a good start". This is encouraging, but we must not kid ourselves: the two sides don't see the sought-after balance in quite the same light.
ETUC's written position (see our bulletin of 5 November, p.13) takes the Kok report as its foundation, recognising that the Lisbon Strategy is not based on a de-regulation of social norms, and that dialogue between the social partners represents an essential part of this (whilst calling for a revision of the Stability Pact, see point 6, and criticising the absence of "sustainable development", see point 5).
3. Unanimous support for an increased research effort is positive, with one reservation. On one aspect of the Lisbon Strategy, agreement is unanimous: new impetus for research. The objective has even been quantified: the EU should spend 3% of its overall GDP on research, a level which has already been achieved or exceeded in the United States, Japan and elsewhere, and which is currently just about 2% in Europe. The catalysing effect has been achieved. What one seems to forget is that the Commission analysis showed that in Europe, public contribution to funding for research is similar to that of the United States (although it is less efficient, mainly because of duplication of effort between the Member States), whereas the difference lies in the fact that the private sector is not spending enough. This is never mentioned in Unice documents. I wrote about this in my column of 23 April, warning against the temptation to do nothing but increase public spending, expecting miraculous results in return. I referred to the case of certain enormous public research structures which don't make any new discoveries any more: "It's not the lack of funds which makes them inefficient, but a certain internal sclerosis and an excess of bureaucracy (…). We must be wary of campaigns which thunder about increasing public expenditure. Without reforms and increased attention to the results of research, the effort may be to inflate bureaucracy and certain structures rather than to develop innovation". And that's where we still are.
4. Majority decisions and budgetary commitments. Romano Prodi, who will be speaking as the President of the European Commission until the end of next week, stressed that the success of the Lisbon Strategy for aspects which are entirely under the jurisdiction of the Community is dependent on two conditions: that commitments are translated into credits in the budget of the Union, and that in certain fields, application decisions must be taken by a majority. He referred to the example of the Community patent, which everyone recognises the need for, but which has been blocked for years by the language issue, and he told the press: "With the unanimity rule, we will have a patent in 20 languages! It's unthinkable".
5. Not forgetting sustainable development and social exclusion. The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) regrets the fact that the Kok report makes no reference to the conclusions of the Gothenburg Summit, which, in June 2001, added a detailed "sustainable development strategy" to the Lisbon Strategy. The EEB recognises that the Kok report extended the notion of balance for the Lisbon Strategy by including within it an environmental dimension alongside the economic and social dimensions, and this is essential, especially as the "triple dimension" was taken up in the "conclusions" of the Summit. But the EEB calls for the Gothenburg text to be taken into consideration in the relaunch and reform of the Lisbon one: see our bulletin of 4 November, p.9. In the bulletin of 6 November, you will also find (p.15) the regrets voiced by the EAPN for the absence of any reference to the commitment taken under Lisbon to eradicate poverty and social exclusion (regrets which were echoed by ETUC).
6. Differences of opinion. In the above observations, an essential element is lacking, that of questions which remain open for want of an agreement, and which will have to be discussed between now and March. Chancellor Schröder called for the relaunch of Lisbon to be accompanied by a reform of the Stability Pact, providing notably for the "net contributions" of the Member States to the Community budget not to be taken into consideration for the calculation of national budgetary deficits. This is a difficult and delicate innovation. The Kok report suggests that the progress of the Member States towards the Lisbon objectives should be monitored, on the basis of several indicators, and Mr Barroso said that this surveillance role should be conferred upon the European Commission. Several governments, notably that of Chancellor Schröder, refused to countenance this kind of classification, with good and bad pupils, and the idea is seen as inappropriate by Mr Juncker (who will chair the March 2005 Summit) as well. More generally, President Chirac takes the view that the equilibrium between the three dimensions- economic, social and environmental- should be better guaranteed, and that there should be more stress on Europe's vocation to develop a modern and high-performing industry. Several Heads of Government, on the other hand, believe that the Lisbon Strategy should be liberal, and based around competitiveness. These fundamental questions will be at the centre of the preparatory work for the March Summit. (F.R.)