Strasbourg, 09/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - Efforts made at Wednesday's plenary by president Barroso and vice president Verheugen to convince the European Parliament that the Lisbon strategy (the main theme at the Spring Summit on 22-23 March): see below) is something that touches every European, apparently bore fruit, even on the benches where some of the left were sitting. The Socialists therefore, who chose to confront the centre right on a series of votes at the last plenary, gave their support to the resolution negotiated with the other groups, albeit with some slight differences. The Left, however, the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and the Greens/European Free Alliance were not impressed by the plea from the president of the Commission and the Commissioner for Industry. One of the main criticisms that these two groups addressed to the Commission involved its refusal to simply withdraw the “Bolkestein directive”.
President of the Council, Nicolas Schmit again highlighted the need for synergy between the three dimensions of the strategy: economic, social and environmental. The re-examination of the social agenda had to complete and support mid-term review of Lisbon, he pointed out, adding that the European Council would raise the “social dimension of economic growth”. He also underlined that contribution to environmental policies, growth and jobs. The Luxembourg minister for European Affairs was keen to point out that “strategy governance, at a Member State level, is really at the heart of the mid-term review”. Decisions to take on this “complex question” will allow for “synchronisation and rationalisation” on the different existing processes and “more latitude” to Member States on the choice of their priorities and means for implementing them.
Reforms planned in the Lisbon strategy “are part of our much wider vision” assured José Manuel Barroso, who hammered home the fact that: these reforms involve people and what interests them most - “a chance to work, a decent start for their children, security at retirement or when ill”. This means improving the quality of life and living standards “all over the enlarged Union” and take advantage of “European excellence…for our business community” (particularly Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), support for science and technology and our “unique model of society”. Barroso provided assurances that this Commission would fight for these objectives even when “we are discussing future financial perspectives”. Barroso warned, however, that “when we verify the real commitment to cohesion and solidarity of those today, at least in their political speeches, are in the front line defending the European model”. In response to concerns expressed by MEPs, Barroso explained that there was no contradiction between the priority on growth and jobs and “our social and environmental policies…I fully agree that the fact that sustainable growth depends in turn on parallel progress in cohesion, our social agenda and our ability to attack damaging environmental trends”. Services directive (see p 10): Mr Barroso indicated that “we have identified a certain number of domains where changes do not appear necessary to obtain a broad consensus”. We are ready to work in a pragmatic way, he said, in order to eliminate the risk of social dumping and that having a services directive meant, broader cover but which would not necessarily cover health care or services of general interest” that this directive would “take into account real worries about how the principle of country of origin worked”.
Mr Barroso touched on the innovations proposed for the Lisbon strategy: setting up European Institute of Technology, the most important priority for improving regulation, “use of rules on state aid and tax rules for encouraging the sprit of enterprise, innovation and research”, refocus labour market reforms for helping women, youth and elderly workers find jobs and adopt a European Youth Pact. “Appropriation” of the strategy close to the heart of Mr Barroso, who quoted the Commission's proposals on: formulating EU level guidelines that bring together economic policy guidelines and guidelines on employment, “to five Member States a clearer idea of when they should do” (for the first time, micro-economic reforms will be tackled in detail, he indicated); the elaboration of national Lisbon strategies; simplification of information obligations on strategy development so that “Member States devote more time to reform implementations and less time writing reports on them”. Mr Barroso said that he was very encouraged by the positive reception the Commission's proposals had received at the Economic and Social Committee and from the Committee of the Regions. He concluded by repeating his warning that to be perfectly coherent, the political orientation defined in March should guide the financial decisions that will be taken in June.
“In this regard, a voluntary agreement on financial perspectives, putting sufficient emphasis on cohesion, would be a decisive element for strengthening and developing our social model in the next few years”.
Gunter Verheugen suggests that Member States designate their ministers
for competitiveness a being in charge of Lisbon follow-up
On the Commission suggested innovations for relaunching Lisbon is that each of the Member States nominates a person in charge of its follow-up. At Wednesday's plenary, Commissioner Gunter Vergheugen exclaimed that the strategy had to have a face to it and that it would be natural that this would be that face of a minister at the Competitiveness Council, who would give a “new role” to this Council body. The Commissioner for Industry was again keen to provide assurances that the Commission wanted a more competitive Europe but “at a high level not on the cheap”. He insisted that they should not be ashamed of European hi-tech and quality products and that they are obtained through respect of certain “values” that avoided the “unscrupulous environmental waster and exploitation”. He affirmed that this was the European philosophy behind economic policy and highlighted a strategy carried out in partnership with all interested parties. In reply to those who criticised the obligation of Member States to present “progress reports” on strategy results, Mr Verheugen explained that this did not mean naming and shaming but that it should be possible to know where and with whom one was with the Lisbon Strategy.
Verheugen announced that this year would involve several concrete initiatives on: better regulation; modernisation and re-evaluation of SME policy, “an enormous and untapped potential” of 25 million SMEs representing a third of the labour force in the EU; industrial policy. The word still raises a number of fears in certain Member States, noted Mr Verheugen, who said that some people required a 21st century definition for this policy. He underlined that a solid industrial base was indispensable in Europe. The Commissioner wants to proceed to a sector by sector analysis; innovation. The Commission declared that in almost each area in Europe, there was at least a company or at least a country which is an international player. He also warned of the serious damages that the Lisbon Strategy would incur if the EU hesitated to make a decision on financial perspectives for 2007-13.
Mr Barroso and Mr Verheugen's demonstration was rather well received. The EPP-ED president, Hans-Gert Pöttering said that he gave them the group's full support and also denounced the EU's shortcomings compared with the USA: productivity levels per worker which stood at 100 in the EU15 had fallen to 93 for the EU25, whereas the USA had reached a level of 121; the EU invests 1.9% of its GDP for research and investment, the USA 2.8%. The CDU MEP asserted that in Europe they would be better off used the experience of the elderly. Martin Schulz, president of the Socialist group, noted positive tones in the Commission speech: yes, the Lisbon Strategy could succeed if all interested parties took hold of it (on financial perspectives he noted with amusement that president Barroso had “smiled” when he heard the appeal from his Commissioner for Industry, who came from Germany, one of the countries calling for a 1% ceiling on the budget. Graham Watson (president of the ALDE group) told Mr Barroso that the Liberals supported him. Watson highlighted the freedom of movement for services and workers and good rules on intellectual copyright. The tone changed with Monica Frassoni, co-president of the Green/EFA, who criticised several points of the common resolution, especially the “ambiguities” on important legislation on services, chemical products (REACH) and software patents. In the context of the appeal to the resolution for lower taxes Frassoni explained that no-one liked paying taxes but what was necessary was reducing labour costs, which Jacques Delors had asked for years ago. In an angry tone the president of the GUE/NGL group, Francis Wurtz noted that in order to reach the Lisbon objectives they needed an employment rate of 70% in 2010 which would require the creation of 22 million jobs over the next five years. However, quoting The Economist, things were not too bad for some people and there had been an explosion in profits for the big companies. The French Communist said that what was felt among the people was that there had been an irrepressible overdose of neo-liberalism. He criticised several European Commissioners: Ms Hübner for his ideas on relocations; Mr Spidla for saying that the first objective was “flexibility”; Mr Verheugen for insisting on competitiveness; Ms Kroes for wanting to finish with regional state aid in fifteen of the old Member States; Mr Mandelson for having encouraged Member States to reform the labour market and the “welfare system” and Mr McCreevy for his ode to de-regulation. Other divergences came from the non-attached where the Czech Jana Bobosikova said that they should not make the mistake of the Socialists and that if they wanted to reduce unemployment they first needed to “free enterprise”.
The education, training and culture dimension has to be a central element in the strategy, according many MEPs. Austrian Social Democrat Christa Prets (appealed for fee university education); Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP/ED, Netherlands), highlighted life-long training if marginalisation was to be prevented; Vasco Graça Moura (EPP-ED, Portugal), called for real funding for culture in the Lisbon strategy. Finnish Social Democrat Reino Paasilinna said that re was no contradiction between the social dimension and the ecological dimension. He explained that his country has succeeded in reconciling them, so whey couldn't the EU? Liberalisation of the markets is an issue ton which all sides hold heart-felt views; British Conservative Malcolm Harbour and Labour Party member Gary Titley also from the United Kingdom, who insisted on the need for clear and understandable rules for all. French socialist Pervenche Berès said that the Lisbon strategy could, “embody added Union value in the eyes of citizens but also the what all do through the Union: big and medium sized goals that are lacking”. Berès added that good reform of the stability pact was essential for implementing the Lisbon strategy. Joseph Daul (EPP-ED, France) highlighted the need to work with members of the national parliaments.
Nicolas Schmit is convinced of need to reform stability pact
President of the Council, Nicolas Schmit believes in the Lisbon Strategy but in response to MEPs affirmed, without beating about the bush, that they would not have a successful relaunch of the Lisbon strategy without getting an agreement on the Stability Pact. He asked whether the press should be allowed to write after the European Council that the agreement on Lisbon and on the pact left them in a state of disorder. He did that this was inadmissible and that Europe need a macroeconomic framework that established balance between growth and stability. Schmit warned that uncontrollable deficits were not the solution but that investment in the future should not be paid for simply via a reforms of the accounts. He added that in connection with financial perspectives what would be thought if the Union decided in March to relaunch research and competitiveness then two or three months later it was incapable of reaching an agreement on Community funding for these policies. The president of the Council said that, “your messages have been received”: more research is needed, better translation of research and innovation into new products and services, more attention to human capital through permanent training, recognition of the “eminent role played by SMEs” (also by reflecting on best ways for funding). Schmit said that if they succeeded in all this, they would obtain a “dynamic Europe that did not have to submit to globalisation but could contribute to shaping it”
Parliament supports Commission's programme
The plenary gave its support to the Commission by adopting (514 votes in favour, 110 against, with 20 abstentions) a resolution submitted by the Conference of Presidents from the Political Groups (which we will be publishing in full). The Greens/EFA and the GUE/NGL did not support the resolution, which obtained a convergence of views from the EPP-ED and Socialists on certain subjects.
Similarly to the Commission, the EP considers that in order for the Lisbon strategy to be relaunched, it is essential to attack the inability to respect the objectives defined in March 2000 and to give the strategy pride of place in the domestic and European debates. This approach would need: identifiable priority actions for refocusing too generalised orientations; an attractive prospect for mobilising the European population, a decision-making process and implementation that was more open and transparent; national and European budgetary resources that would allow the objectives et out to be put into practice; relaunch of public and private investments. The EP is also calling for domestic and European budges t, as well as future financial perspectives (2007-13) to reflect the objectives pursued in the Lisbon process. It also acknowledges the unique added value of regional policy and points to that adequate funding is needed to meet these challenges.
By adopting these jointly submitted amendments by the EPP-ED and Socialists, Parliament is also highlighting the dynamic evolution of the market economy, the work of a stable currency, the end to indebtedness and national deficits and the security of the pension systems. The goal in all the efforts made is to increase labour market flexibility, which should translate into more jobs. The needs of SMEs should also be taken into account, stress MEPs.