Getting the support of civil society for the Lisbon strategy is not only a wish, it's a prerequisite if we want this strategy to get the backing from the public and economic and social forces that can guarantee its success. This is the conclusion to draw from the Economic and Social Conference (EESC)on Wednesday and Thursday in Luxembourg on the theme of, “Getting the Lisbon Strategy to Succeed: A Pact with Organised Civil Society”. I'm not saying this because Jean-Claude Juncker reached the same conclusion (see this section 29 January), as well as the president of EESC Anne-Marie Sigmund when she summarised the work that had taken place, but because the whole conference bore this out. This strategy, is unknown by the public and linked to reforms about which people are currently displaying a level of scepticism. It has too many objectives and indicators and cannot succeed without the support of the unions, employers and other representatives of society. The above-mentioned pact has to involve, together with the EESC, similar organisations in Member States (those that took part in the conference for which the Luxembourg EESC was coordinator).
A method that needs simplifying. The work covered two aspects of the Lisbon Strategy: method and content. In the former, a wide variety of views was identified, calling for the strategy to be simplified and rationalised. There are too many objectives, sometimes they partly contradict each other and the indicators for measuring the results are so many that it is sometimes easy to get lost in them. Both objectives and indicators should be simple, effective and transparent and to a certain extent should be differentiated according to the country, as Member States are not at the same stage in reforms. Distinction by country could have a pedagogical efficiency by demonstrating, for example, that Member States which are better at controlling their public spending are those that have made most progress in reforms.
A difficult balancing act. Content: the key work is balance between the three chapters of the strategy: economic, social and environmental. This comes as no surprise but if we look at the details things aren't quite so simple. Getting the balance back means that the balance is not perfect. To the detriment of what chapter? Replies diverge on this issue. Several political forces believe that the EU is dominated by neo-liberal tendencies and the social chapter is being ignored. The Greens think that ecology is falling behind and that there should be more emphasis on the environment. Industrial leaders and their representative bodies at a European-level (UNICE and Eurochambres) believe that Europe's weakness is due to lack of competitiveness. This divergence provoked a number of skirmishes in the conference. According to the Deputy Secretary General for Eurochambres, Mr Skehan, the European economy is increasingly less competitive; the downward spiral is gradual and therefore is not provoking a head-on shock or high-risk reaction. But the statistics prove it. Drawing on a number of graphs and statistics on-screen, Skehan demonstrated that Europe was in the lead for social welfare, maternity leave, redundancy protection, rules on chemical waste and environmental legislation, but it was at the bottom end of the league in working hours, spending on research and general productivity, where it was in fact going backwards. Mr Skehan's conclusion was radical: over the next five years, the economic chapter should be a priority in order to rebalance the three pillars with concrete and efficient measures and that they are not simply based on calls for good faith or comparisons between countries as the “open method of coordination is a disaster”.
As far as could be expected, approval for the appeals from Eurochambres were not unanimous. Far from it. The Secretary General for the European Confederation of Trade Unions (ETUC), John Monks did not agree that the road ahead meant questioning social and environmental standards; people would reject reforms that ate into their living conditions. Workers were reasonable and could agree to specific cutbacks and tougher conditions but a radical change in the Welfare State was an idea that should not be entertained. Monks said that “theological debates” had to be avoided, they had to stay pragmatic about things and discuss the real problems including those of relocation, which should not be skirted round.
Other speakers were less diplomatic. According to the Greek councillor Georgios Dasis, three categories of lies existed: big lies, small lies and statistics. Those of Mr Skehan belonged to the third category; they did not say anything about poverty in the USA, the US budget deficit or working conditions in China. In Europe, reforms could succeed without the support of a majority of people. With a few references to Athens and Sparta (with the former being preferred to the latter), Mr Dasis concluded that the European social model had to be safeguarded.
Other contributions went in the opposite direction. Jim Murray, director of European Bureau of Consumers Unions (EBCU) called for an increase in competition in all areas: not only for goods but also for services and public providers. He believed that this would be the way forward for improving competition. Hans-Werner Müller, Secretary General of the representative bodies for small and medium-sized enterprises (UEAPME) pointed out that SMES did not relocate and that the Lisbon strategy was like a Christmas tree: everyone puts a bauble on it and there were too many objectives. There are really two priorities: growth and job creation; training, education, sharing know-how, which is all essential. According to Margarita Lopez, Head of a small company, greater flexibility in redundancy procedures would help create jobs, as an excess in guarantees did not encourage employment.
An efficient rapporteur. I was beginning to get worried: how could the conference reach the same positions? In this situation there would be a double danger: in an effort to avoid displeasing anyone, refuge would be taken in a text that was so vague that it would say nothing interesting; or a strong draft was reached that would satisfy one or other of the different sides but which was not acceptable to civil society as a whole. The intervention by Bruno Vever of the EESC was considerably reassuring. He believed that mobilising civil society was crucial because the Lisbon strategy was too serious a subject to leave in the hands of politicians (men or women). It is a medium and longer term project whereas politicians thought in the short term. The European Council did not even respect what it had itself decided. Mr Vever recognised that there had been certain progress since the birth of the Lisbon strategy in information technology, SMEs, sustainable development (a little), participation of social partners, the “positive reading” of subsidiarity. But there were substantial delays even if it were admitted that the deadlines included in the text (2010) and the objective itself (creating the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world) should not be swallowed whole. Discussions on the draft “services” directive proved that a genuine common market in this area is not on the cards for tomorrow. Research: financial decisions were falling behind. Vever also highlighted that this subject, which I am very sensitive about, was too often ignored: total freedom for trade in the world is inconceivable unless “norms of behaviour” are established internationally and in WTO negotiations the EU had had to give up on its “Singapore objectives” (which aimed to introduce rules in this context). Mr Vever indicated the orientations that should get support from all sides: rejuvenation of investments, simplification of regulation, exploitation of the single market's potential, fighting incoherency (the European patent is one example of this). The EESC resolution proposed for adoption (Mr Vever is preparing it as its rapporteur), would contain operational recommendations and put into practice “partnerships for reform”, as well as establishing a “code of conduct for social partners”. This code would see civil society taking responsibility for its commitments and it will have to respect them. Mr Vever underlined that, “We are not calling on the authorities to play a role without making commitments ourselves and being determined to respect our commitments”.
National ESCs make commitments. Representatives from the EESCs sister organisations in different countries, in all their various forms, responded positively. They are ready to take part in a network among themselves and with the EESC, which will be getting the Lisbon strategy and reforms linked to it pushed forward in each Member State. Agreement was unanimous on the balance between the three dimensions of the strategy and some of the speakers were keen to highlight the notion of balance. Mario Sepi, president of the workers' groups at the EESC provided an image of a triangle whose three sides were identical; if one was shorter, it would not be an equilateral triangle. Mr Windey, explained that in his country, Belgium, the Lisbon strategy had already been included into all areas of work, and certain elements of it had even been incorporated into collective agreements and into funding for social security. Bruto da Costa from Portugal defended the nature of the overall strategy - that some deadlines could be revised but none of them could be isolated. Peter Simerka from the Czech Republic affirmed that all reforms being studied by the body he was president of corresponded to the Lisbon orientations, even if people were unaware of this. Other speakers developed similar conclusions. Civil society was fairly well-disposed to ongoing reforms in many countries on the conditions that the Lisbon strategy were relaunched and clarified and that the European and national authorities fully played their part. The president of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker then laid out what he wanted from the Spring Summit (see this section on 29 January). We are now waiting for the European Commission report.
(F.R.)