'Ware populist rhetoric. Let's not play down the efforts the European Commission made last week (particularly its president José Manuel Barroso) for a balance between the three strands of the Lisbon Strategy (see our bulletin of 10 February, p. 6-8). A week earlier, a section of the European Parliament was less than delighted with the overall document, stating that it had stressed the economic dimension (growth and competitiveness) and neglected the rest; the new documents are given over to the two other planks, the social and the environmental. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), certainly, has maintained its reservations and intends to remain vigilant, but it recognised the effort that had been made (see below). Its attitude was not shared by other bodies, especially some of the political groupings, which chose instead to reject out of hand the specific strategies for social and ecological policies. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the apocalyptic tone of some reactions gives the impression that their intended political impact took priority over the contents of the drafts on the table.
I would like to give you one example that left me stunned: the reaction of Marie Anne Isler Béguin on behalf of the Green group of the European Parliament. The title alone made one sit up (“Putting a stop to the Commission's cynicism!”); the rest seemed to be looking for a reaction (our translation): “Enough of these dramatic proclamations, of this double language, of these political actions which turn out to be nothing more than media events, while the planet burns and nature dies out”. To hear some constructive ideas, you have to go down to the last four lines, where you finally get a wish-list: European rail transport projects, a specific budgetary line to preserve biodiversity, tax on kerosene, the inclusion of air transport in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions, the obligation for national investment in renewable energy. All well and good: but these are the very ideas the Commission is looking into, some of them for a very long time, and which are mainly included in the Commission's document on sustainable development, which refers to the possibility of tax on kerosene, the application of measures against greenhouse gases in aviation and in maritime transport (and also to deforestation), plus the preventive policy. As for the rail projects with a view to transferring a proportion of road transport over to rail, these underpin the European transport networks already planned (see this column of 8 February). The ten-point demands submitted by the European Environment Bureau to Council President Jean-Claude Juncker are, in my view, more concrete and useful than Ms Isler Béguin's populist statements.
The real objective. As for the new social agenda, you may have understood that it is the position of John Monks, Secretary General of ETUC, which I see as constructive; you get the feeling that he is the legitimate spokesperson of millions and millions of workers and that his aim is to improve their rights and their situation rather than beat a political foe. I would like to transcribe a couple of passages from an interview he granted to “La Tribune” of 10 February (our translation once again): “The social agenda is the first indication that for now at least, the social dimension has not been demoted to second place (…). Unlike some in the European Parliament, we did not say that Mr Barroso is a Chicago Boy; nor did we announce that we were closing our doors. All we said is that we planned to stay alert. Furthermore, we welcome the initiative of Commissioner Vladimir Spidla and the Commission. The Commission is laying down concrete tracks (…). In my view, it is a solid programme for social policy. However, for now it is just an Agenda. It must be implemented”. Mr Monks spoke of “vigilance” and flagged up a few subjects on which ETUC's voice “has been heard”.
The new Social Agenda contains many elements which correspond to the demands of the workers' organisations, on such things as: reinforced consultation of the Unions on company restructuring; worker mobility; the re-examination of restrictions maintained on workers from the new Member States; the “portability” of social rights (including pensions) in case of movement from one State to another; the possibility of “trans-national collective negotiations”; taking new forms of work into account in the European legislative arsenal; certain aspects of migrations. Empty, this social agenda? I think not. Especially if you bear in mind that in this field, the majority of the power remains in the Member States, and those active at European level first have to fight their battles at national level.
Constantly blackening all of Europe's deeds may be an easy game to play, but it's also an unfair and a very dangerous one. (F.R.)