Moderate admiration. If the first objective of the Juncker presidency is to rework the Stability and Growth Pact (see this section yesterday), the second is to revise the Lisbon strategy for the very simple reason that the two objectives have to be reached together at the Spring Summit by preparing the way for the third, the most difficult: the political agreement on financial perspectives 2007-13, planned for June. I don't think that I'm mistaken in writing that Jean-Claude Junker is not an unreserved admirer of the thousands of pages on the Lisbon strategy since it was set up in March 2000: the excessive number of objectives, analyses and reports, which have made this strategy opaque for public opinion and it allows one or other aspect of direct interest to be highlighted while neglecting the others. Even the Kok report, requested by Heads of government to cast light on the issue, contains a number of these “recommendations” that the reader could get lost in. Nevertheless, if only certain aspects from the strategy are retained, an overall imbalance ensues and sharp opposition from political and economic forces whose priorities are not taken on board, is the result.
Respecting balance. Mr Juncker (I'll quote his speech-programme made at the European Parliament) in the “Lisbon Strategy” and whose description is “strictly incomprehensible for the most part”, it is necessary to strictly respect equality between the four elements it consists of: competitiveness, social cohesion and environmental protection”. The goal is to “create a solid basis of sustainable wellbeing for Europeans and to act today to guarantee access for all to the European social model in the future”. But safeguarding and propagating this model presupposes reforms, to adapt to the fragile social tissue, the loss of competitiveness and productivity, the declining and ageing population”. Moreover, “Europeans don't like reforms. They're scared of them and don't understand the good reasons for them. It is necessary to explain to them that reforms aim to guarantee the survival and viability of the European social model. They need to be convinced that if reforms are delayed, a high price will have to be paid”.
Each to their own objectives. This is not everyone's choice of vocabulary. Employers only know one word, competitiveness, a word that has become a shibboleth, omnipresent to the point of becoming an obsession and presented by their European organisation (UNICE) as the panacea for all evils, as this reinforces competitiveness with which European companies have to defend themselves on a global competitive level and for creating next markets, relaunching growth (with the advantages that result from this for national budgets) and job creation. The UNICE president therefore asked for all new EU legislation to be evaluated in the context of its consequences on national competitiveness and that this assessment be restricted to an independent body. In the orbit of the ecologists and the European Environmental Agency (EEA) they will tell you that the UNICE strategy “will be disastrous for the EU and for the rest of the world”. The objective of reducing greenhouse gases by 30% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050; all Community expenses should be integrated into the sustainable development objective and a specific annual budget of EUR 3 bn should be used for protecting biodiversity. The European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) asserts that economic and social policies until now have worsened the situation and are calling for social inclusions to be placed at the heart of all strategies.
EU is not a study bureau. Mr Juncker considers that everything needs simplifying: “we have too many processes: Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG), guidelines for jobs, the sustainable development strategy, the strategy for the internal market, the charters for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, the Cologne Process, Cardiff Processes and so on. All these processes have very often got bogged down in bureaucratic procedures leading nowhere. The EU is more like a study bureau (not used) than a creator of applicable and applied ideas. We have to change this. “According to the revolving president, the strategy has to be European and reviewed every two or three years (we can't change the strategy every six months, from one European Council to another, at the behest of or whim of a presidency and the successive inspiration”), “where application firstly has to be national. However, “We want national implementation to be speeded up and focused. We are proposing that Member States establish their action programmes, which will be conceived together with social partners who should be presented to national parliaments. The latter, together with Community bodies will monitor application”. This is what we really call a reform!
(F.R.)