Mr Juncker's convictions. The agreement on the mid-term revision of the Lisbon Strategy is almost a done deal, and the Heads of State and Government will give it their blessing on Tuesday and Wednesday, with a few last nips and tucks. Why am I so sure of this? For at least two reasons:
a) President Jean-Claude Juncker would not have anticipated the contents of the revision with such confidence and in such detail before the national MPs of the Member States (see our bulletin of 17 March, p.7), if he had not been so confident of the result;
b) It was clear that he was not outlining his hopes, was not using the rhetoric of the “ideal revision” of the strategy according to his dearest wishes, but was basing himself on his detailed discussions with the various heads of government, Chancellors or heads of State. On a few points, he made it quite clear that the result did not fully reflect his wishes and that concessions had been made. On one point, the quantitative objectives for future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, he said that the agreement was not yet quite in the bag.
If we add the fact that the European Commission and the European Parliament agree on most of it (see this column of 14 March), and that even the social partners have felt able to define a common position (albeit fairly vaguely), I can say in relative confidence that the renewed Lisbon Strategy is (almost) a reality which all the efforts of the Member States will now have to implement, if the mistakes of the past are to be avoided. Furthermore, it was not by chance that Mr Juncker reserved the first hearing of the information for the national MPs: he knew that he wouldn't get another chance to assemble such a large and representative group any time soon, and that it would be their Parliaments which would be called on to play a central role in the implementation of the revised strategy. If what Mr Juncker said was of use to the Member States' parliamentarians, it's also of use to us all. I will try to present his main points with a few comments of my own.
1. A harsh judgement on the past. Mr Juncker admitted that he had recently used two different expressions to assess the results of the first five years of the Strategy: the adjective “mixed” in official forums, the adjective “lamentable” in more informal debates. He seems to think the second is the more accurate, because he added: “We were not up to our ambitions, the results were extremely disappointing; in fact, abominably bad”. There are many reasons for this: there were too many chapters in the Lisbon text, and they were too long; its “virtuous” implementation didn't happen; there was no “national ownership” of the strategy, which was particularly important as it was very much down to the Member States to implement it. The balance between the three planks (economic, social, environmental) was not respected, as each country gave priority where it chose, amid chaos.
2. Balance. To redress the situation, the need to respect balance between the three planks was quite clear, and yet too much time was wasted “in a pointless, futile and particularly unhelpful debate on the priority of one over the others”. The three go together, Mr Juncker said, rejecting all attempts to define “risky priorities”: the European Council will put them all on the same footing and will say (even if a few Member States would rather it didn't) that competitiveness is at the service of social cohesion. Its conclusions will reflect this order of things, and the application measures will have to come into line “without setting timetables we know we won't stick to, but without deviating from the path”. And the “governance of the process” must be ensured, which is what has been missing up to now (see point 6).
3. Economic objectives. There are no surprises in the definition of the economic objectives of the revised strategy. Relaunching growth and employment: spending 3% of European GDP on research and innovation, creating a European Council for Research, improving funding mechanisms in favour of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), calling on the EIB (European Investment Bank), which is already active, to increase its lending in support of the strategy, making the Union attractive for workers and for business and speeding up the completion of the single market.
Under that last point, Mr Juncker referred to the “Bolkestein directive”: “I would like to make it clear that we need to liberalise service, but by eliminating the risks resulting from the current text. I am not saying that the current draft should be withdrawn, but that we have to remove the risks of social, tax and regulatory dumping. The directive must not be approved as it stands, and it won't be. The market doesn't make all the rules. In particular, the smooth running of SGIs (service of general interest) must be guaranteed, because SGIs cannot be eradicated from the European panorama”. On way or another, all of this will be said in the conclusions of the Summit.
4. The social plank. Having looked at the economic objectives, Mr Juncker turned his attentions towards the social objectives, with particular reference to the Commission's Social Agenda. The increase of employment rates (percentage of citizens of working age who have a job) will remain a priority as the planned objectives have not been achieved. Mr Juncker also insisted that workers and businesses must be flexible and adaptable, because he refuses to accept that obligations in this field are for the workers only. He also referred to better organisation of work and the “Youth Pact”, which will, in theory, be approved.
5. The environmental plank. Mr Juncker would have liked a “sustainable development Charter”, but he had to accommodate the views of some of his colleagues, reluctant to subscribe to texts which could be legally binding. The European Council will therefore approve “guidelines”; but whatever happens, the attention it pays to this dossier will be “more than furtive”. Overall, it will be the unanimous positive conclusions of the “Environment” Council which will provide most of the Summit's conclusions in this field. However, Mr Juncker expressed caution on the specific subject of global warming. Pointing out that the “Environment” Council had retained quantitative objectives for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2050, he added that only in light of the conclusions of the Summit would we know whether the ministers had really “spoken on behalf of their governments”. The President of this Council, Lucien Lux, stressed the importance of the agreement reached for the future of the planet and the punch behind the message this sends out to the other industrialised countries of the world, by voicing Europe's hopes that the heads of government “will take account of this”. At the same time, he took pains to allay the fears of several Member States, which feel that the EU should not enter into too many commitments without the guarantee that other countries will make equivalent commitments, by bringing in precautions and flexibility in future negotiations (EUROPE of 11 March, p.9). Without listing all of the results of the “Environment” Council in detail, Jean-Claude Juncker referred to a few specific elements (eco-innovations, eco-technologies) and gave his audience to understand that he very much shared the overall view of the Council that: a) the environmental policy also has a part to play in economic growth and employment; b) environmental considerations (especially halting the loss of biological diversity by 2010 at the latest) should be included in all EU policies; c) a renewed and ambitious sustainable development strategy must be put together by the end of the year (EUROPE of 12 March, p.10).
6. The governance of the strategy. The number of reports and other analyses of the functioning and the effects of the strategy is enormous, almost no-one reads them, and the number of “processes” the EU has undertaken is excessive. On a previous occasion (see this column of 29 January), Mr Juncker said that the EU seemed more like a focus group that a hub for action. Things must be rationalised and simplified, and the Member States must take ownership of the Lisbon Strategy, because the European institutions don't make reforms or decide on national budgets. The national parliaments must become jointly responsible, in a sense, for the application of the strategy, and the social partners must get directly involved. How? The procedure outlined by Mr Juncker is by and large as follows: a) every three years, the Commission produces a report on the objectives and the application of the strategy; b) on the basis of this report, each Member State draws up a national action plan, which it discusses with the social partners and submits to its parliament; c) these action plans can be changed or added to along the way, but new programmes can only be established when the Commission makes its triennial report.
Mr Juncker then held a question and answer session, and some very interesting points emerged on, amongst other things: a) the Bolkestein directive (see yesterday's bulletin, p.7); b) seeking a political agreement on the forthcoming financial perspectives. I will return to the comments of the President on both of these subjects, because they go beyond this week's Summit.
(F.R.)