One of the keys for success. The Summit at which European social dialogue celebrated its 20th birthday last week (see our bulletin 9039) recognised the importance of this dialogue in the history of European construction and, more importantly, stressed its significance for the future. The Council, Commission and the social partners have stated that this dialogue represents an essential element in the success of the Lisbon strategy. Up until now, this strategy has been a partial failure, due to shortcomings in its implementation, which is not the fault of the institutions of Brussels (whose role consists of defining the strategy and its objectives, and coordinating and checking its implementation), but with the national authorities and the social partners; if they do not come on board, the strategy runs the risk of remaining nothing more than a catalogue of good intentions.
When, 20 years ago, Jacques Delors had one of those insights of his which allow him to anticipate the future and launched this dialogue at European level, his initiative met with many reservations, much reluctance (the British employers didn't even want to know) and scepticism. Fortunately, he was not a man to drop an idea he believes in, and alongside him, plenty of other figures believed in it too. I refer to Emilio Gabaglio of the Unionists, Wilfried Beirnaert of the employers, together with the politicians who lent the project their support, and the civil servants who backed it, Jean Dégimbe in particular. To start with, "very few people would have bet money on its being a success", as Mr Delors told the summit. Even those who were, in principle, favourable to it, felt that "the very fact of meeting together was more important than the results". Then the results started to pour in. Some of the texts negotiated during the dialogue led, after approval by the institutions, to texts of articles of the treaty or Community directives, to such an extent that it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that there are a few cases in which dialogue virtually took the role of a co-legislator. It then went through something of a grey period. And now we come to the relaunch.
Difficulties overcome. We must not believe that once, everything was easy. Wilfried Beirnaert, who witnessed events 20 years ago on behalf of UNICE (employers) pointed out that "it was no honeymoon" between the social dialogue and the European Parliament, and that certain representatives of civil society " tried to encroach upon the prerogatives of the social partners". For his part, the witness on behalf of the public enterprises, Jacques Fournier, former president of the CEEP, spoke of difficulties with the former European Commissioners for Competition, Leon Brittan and Karel Van Miert, concluding that in his view, "the result of the dialogue is shaded". However, he observed that the Constitution has re-established the balance between competition and public services of general interest, because it recognises "the role they play in the promotion of social and territorial cohesion", and Emilio Gabaglio made the point that it confirms social dialogue definitively on its institutional reality and its autonomy. Unfortunately, this same Constitution is currently in a log jam...
After the "Moment Delors" (the title of the study made by Claude Didry and Arnaud Mias into this period, the red letter day for dialogue), a certain lethargy seemed evident. John Monks, Secretary General of the ETUC (European Trade Unions Confederation), emphasised this in the first round of 20th birthday celebrations, which was held by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) on 14 April by initiative of its president, Anne-Marie Sigmund, and its vice-president, Roger Briesch. Mr Monks said that in his first official contact with the European Commission, in May 2003, the Secretary General of the institution had said to him: "Welcome to Brussels. But you have got here eight years too late. These days, social dialogue is absolutely a thing of the past, it's no longer the done thing. We are doing other things". This is why John Monks told the EESC of a "challenge to be met: how to put an end to a prejudice which existed two years ago with relation to the future of social dialogue. It was important, but it no longer is. It is reduced to a form of folklore, similar to the changing of the guard outside Buckingham Palace". These words echo what Jacques Delors said at the same occasion about tripartite meetings between the social partners/Council/Commission, which had previously existed and which he described as "High Masses, only without the faith", adding: "this is why we stopped in 1977: why bother attending meetings where everything is written out in advance, where nothing is said that isn't entirely appropriate, where it is seen as bad form to criticise a shortcoming in others?"
Happily, this is not the current fate of social dialogue which, on the contrary, now enjoys the support of all the institutions and the social partners, and whose relaunch can, I believe, be considered to be a done deal. Tomorrow, I'll explain why. (F.R.)