Fewer misunderstandings? The days leading up to the adoption of the European Commission report on revision of the Lisbon strategy have created a positive impression. We'll know more about it on Wednesday afternoon, when José Manuel Barroso presents the document to the European Parliament. However, increasing convergence has been observed between the orientations of the president of the European Council, Ecofin Council and the Eurogroup, as well as those by the Commission president. Last Thursday in Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker called on the Commission to respect the balance between the economic, social and environmental chapters of the strategy and explained what he wanted to gain from the Spring summit (see this section on 29 January); on Wednesday evening in Brussels, Mr Barroso went in a similar direction (see our bulletin 28 January, pp 7/8). There had been some misunderstandings beforehand, as the first initial preliminary draft of the Commission made particular mention of the “competitiveness” chapter. Approval of the document was delayed by a week and Mr Barroso explained that the Commission continued his preparatory work by indirectly appealing for any indiscretion to be avoided with regard to a text that was still being discussed. Even the terminology used by the two presidents became closer: “approval” of the strategy by Member States' national action programmes, their definition to be worked out with social partners and their subsequent submissions to national parliaments (for approval and then the regular controls), closely collaborating with civil society.
Last week Mr Juncker's ideas went beyond the general concepts that will obviously be contained in the Barroso report. Mr Juncker explained the other aspects to the other priorities of the Luxembourg presidency, which together with the Lisbon strategy, complete the whole picture, such as:
Stability pact and budgetary slippage. Without getting back to the main principles already discussed on several occasions (see this section 18 January); Mr Juncker explained that the interpretation of the Treaty of Maastricht clarified the fact that the application of the pact would be re-orientated but the text would not be changed at all. It is too often claimed that the pact involves an automatic opening of the “excessive debt” procedure as soon as the country goes over the minimum 3% rate. In fact the treaty is more subtle; if overshooting the minimum is limited, temporary or exceptional and if the country in question appears to approach the agreed to deficit, no procedures will be opened. If the disparity is too great, the Commission and Ecofin Council have to draw up a list of criteria to allow them to assess the reasons for the slippage. That's what the Ecofin Council works on. If positive structural reforms allow for a consolidation of the public finances but provoke an immediate increase in budgetary spending, it will not be the Commission, Council or Eurogroup that will sanction the country concerned. In this connection Mr Juncker referred to pension reform, which everyone evokes as a means of eliminating certain structural weaknesses in the public coffers; temporary and moderate slippage, which could result from this, will not be attacked.
Multi-annual financial perspectives. Mr Juncker thought that the letter of the six Member States for setting the budgetary ceiling at 1% as “lacking inspiration” but at the same time considered that the Commission proposal did not correspond to the current national budgetary situations. He appealed for calm and explained that what was difficult was when “we're talking about money; people lose all sense of logic and reality”. He said that it would be “indecent” to claim that new Member States were contributing to the “British cheque”, just as it was absurd to divide Member States into two categories, net contributors and the others. He said that they should not, “break solidarity instruments which are the basis of Europe's nobility”.
Blockage on European patent. On five occasions the summit decided that the European patent had to be approved and Mr Juncker saw on reason to oppose an appeal for the sixth time. The difficulty, however, that persists, is linked to language and not to internal market or industrial policy considerations. It is cultural. Juncker's understanding of national concerns is outstanding in this area, as the identities of each country has to be respected but Spain has got the wrong end of the stick. It is not by way of a technical or legal instrument protecting inventions that we defend one's language and culture.
Liberalisation of services. Juncker considers that the Union needs this new measure for measures leading to the completion of the single market for the benefit of all. But he says that he is “allergic” to the risks engendered by the current project and the consequent delays in the social arena. He does not see himself as someone who sees risks lurking in every corner but in this case they are obvious. The Commission had to clearly explain what the consequences of the principle of “host country” means from all points of view. Mr Juncker concluded that he was old fashioned and wouldn't sign what he did not understand.