Civil society's involvement in the Lisbon Strategy was the subject of the conference held on Wednesday and Thursday in Luxembourg by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). The President of the Ecofin Council, the President of the Eurogroup and the President of the European Council took the floor. You will, I imagine, be aware that these are one and the same person: Jean-Claude Juncker. Before outlining the (significant and constructive) results of the Conference, I would like to sum up what Mr Juncker said. He didn't mince his words. I give him the floor.
Understanding through public opinion. First of all, Mr Juncker pointed out “a certain amount of evidence”, such as the statement that for the time being, the Lisbon Strategy “is not a complete success; it is not a complete failure either, but we have lost our way a bit”. He feels that the main problem is that “people have no idea what we are talking about”. Having mentioned the Lisbon Strategy to a group of Portuguese immigrants in his country, he got a standing ovation because they thought he was paying tribute to their capital city. If you just talk about reforms, people are wary: in the current climate of uncertainty, they are worried that the social acquis of the European model of society is being called into question. They must be convinced that precisely the opposite is true: the aim of the strategy is to make social protection and what else the model has given us accessible to the largest possible number, to those who are still excluded. To this end, the Member States must make the Lisbon Strategy their own, translate what the Summit decides in Brussels into national strategies. Mr Juncker has already explained this to his head of government colleagues. Can you imagine what kind of responses he's had? That in the short term, the political advantage would go to the opposition, who might then become the majority party, and could then credit themselves with the positive effects of the reforms when they emerge later on! This, Mr Juncker feels, is unreasonable reasoning. “National action programmes” must be set up, prepared together with the social partners and submitted to the national parliaments who can then monitor their implementation. This would feed into debates, the press would take notice, the people would become aware of them and “Lisbon” would no longer be a city, but a project. Via this change in tack, half of the work would be done because public opinion would get involved and would be able to understand its real meaning.
Simplifying and clarifying. To help raise awareness among the citizens, the excessive numbers of “processes” the Union has committed to must be simplified and rationalised. We've forgotten why some of them even exist; here he referred to the “Cologne process”. Mountains of reports no-one reads are submitted to the Summit; “we have become a bureau of non-applied studies. I had cherished the hope that the Commission would sort this out. It hasn't. We await its explanation”.
Keeping a balance. Logically, Mr Juncker didn't go into details on the Lisbon Strategy: the tones and shades, the misgivings from certain quarters, etc, are too numerous to mention. He did, however, stress the necessary balance between the three characteristic planks: economic, social and environmental. It is certainly true that the EU has a very real problem with competitiveness; there are a lot of indicators to confirm this, whereas other indicators put the Union near the top in terms of social protection and environmental regulations; from these points of view, “we are ahead of our American friends”. But this is not a good reason to make competitiveness the only objective of the Lisbon Strategy: we must “keep the balance and the link between these three elements intact. If, in the document it is to approve next week, the Commission stresses one single aspect, we would have huge problems in getting the message across to the public”.
Listening to him, I heard this as more of a warning than just a comment. Coming from someone who continues to defend the role of the Commission, its independence and its autonomy, and to affirm the need to respect the Community method, this warning is absolutely not to be taken lightly; it points to genuine concern.
Concluding, what Mr Juncker expects is that at the end of the Spring Summit, the EU will be able to tell its citizens what the Lisbon Strategy means to those without a job, for scientists, for small and medium-sized enterprises, and for industry.
Mr Juncker also made his position clear on the forthcoming financial perspectives, the revision of the application of the Stability Pact and the hold-up on the European patent. I will come back to these. (F.R.)