Yesterday in this section, I tried to present an overall view of the results from the Summit and the progress on the work for re-launching and revising the Lisbon strategy. Today, I'm going to add some considerations of a more personal nature on the health and prospects for this strategy, which as we know, is to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, with a triple dimension: economic, social and environmental.
1. Kok report is not optimistic. The contents of the Kok report should not be watered down, but they are far from optimistic about the health of the Lisbon strategy. In his public statements and press conferences, Wim Kok has done his best to add some dynamism to the efforts made and diffuse the message that everything is possible but his assessment is largely negative (with the exception of the Scandinavian countries); Mr Barroso described it as "worrying but realistic". In the absence of any somersault, Lisbon, according to Wim Kok could become a synonym for missed opportunities and broken promises. Jürgen Strube, the president of UNICE (employers) was even more radical in his description of the Lisbon strategy, claiming that it was in " a pitiful condition".
2. Shortcomings and failures mainly due to action by Member States. The EU as such has taken decisions, launched the programme for the European infrastructure programme, renewed part of its legislation but most Member States have lacked commitment and political determination in implementing decisions and reform. Of course the international situation has not been helpful. Four years ago, full employment (or almost) appeared within our grasp; three years of stagnation and anaemic growth have destroyed hope. Most governments have to make a more practical and courageous effort if European initiatives are to be effective.
3. Summit's cool reception of Kok report. Heads of governments agreed with the general orientations of the Kok report but in practice rejected the operational options. They limited their "conclusions" to Wim Kok's speech by greeting it "with interest" and saying that the Commission's proposal to revise the Lisbon strategy (see following page) had to "take into account" the Kok report, as well as the point of view of Member States. Heads of government rejected the suggestion of the Commission establishing an "annual classification" of the progress accomplished by Member States respecting the Lisbon strategy. Those making progress will be congratulated and latecomers will be subject to a scolding "in a way that is made as public as possible". We are aware that these kind of mechanisms exist in certain areas, such as for internal market regulation, with quite positive results (Member States are trying hard to get good grades). The idea, however of applying them to the area of national reforms is not succeeding.
4. The Commission's essential role is acknowledged (except for some minor details). It is being called on to present by the end of January 2005, "proposals needed for proceeding to a mid-term review" of the strategy. The Summit's conclusions explain that this will "contain all the proposals", including possible adjustments to the Stability Pact and revision of the "strategy for sustainable development" defined in Göteborg in June 2001. The Commission is therefore exclusively responsible for the proposals. But the institutional innovations requested by Mr Barroso have not been kept: neither has the classification for Member States (see the previous point), the explicit "leadership" role of the Commission in strategy implementation, nor the idea of appointing a "Mr Lisbon" in each capital. In his farewell speech at the Summit, as president of the Commission, Romano Prodi highlighted the essential role of the Commission (which is not a study bureau and has to have authority) but also underlined the fact that it had to work closely with the European Council.
5. An "extraordinary variation". Yesterday I made a reference to the very sensitive divergences between the national positions, revealed by the exchange of views of Heads of government following Wim Kok's speech. Pages 12 and especially 13 of our bulletin on 6 November provide a pretty accurate depiction. The discussion was described as "lively" and according to Romano Prodi was "extraordinary for the variety of opinions expressed". How can one not feel a certain irony in this definition?
In my last comment of the week, I will be expressing my opinions on three sensitive areas: the reasons why the "Scandinavian model" is not transposable to the majority of other Member States; the role (modest) of immigration in the "knowledge society"; the importance of the initiative from France, Germany, Spain and Sweden on young people. (F.R.)