Brussels, 24/10/2005 (Agence Europe) - The Tripartite Social Summit in London (see other article) confirmed the importance and significance of relaunching the social dialogue between employers and workers to create a climate in the EU susceptible to protect and reform the European social model. This newsletter believes it would be useful to provide readers with ideas expressed by Jacque Delors - seen as the father of European social dialogue and its best defence lawyer and interpreter - in his closing speech at a conference on Twenty Years of European social dialogue - balance sheet and future prospects, organised by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). Jacques Delors said:
'We must distinguish carefully between the Community and national level. The distribution of powers as laid down in the treaties places, among other matters, employment policy, education, culture, health and social security at the national level. Consequently, one cannot simply attribute the high level of unemployment in certain countries to Europe: what a country does not do for itself cannot be undertaken on its behalf by Europe. Thus the employment situation in Europe varies greatly from one country to another. Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria have very low unemployment levels. Some countries have succeeded in adjusting to the new global economic and demographic order, while others have not. This point is important, as is the concept, often misunderstood, of subsidiarity. But by dumping all the problems of social dialogue at European level, we will only bring about disappointment and confusion…
If there is such a thing as a European model of society, or even a European social model, I would define it as a balance between society and the individual: the individual may not abuse society, while society may not crush the individual. This model may also be conceived as a form of market-based social economy, in which regulations are acceptable, in particular in the form of agreements between the social partners. One must hope that this overall philosophy, of which the Commission is also ready convinced, will be shared by the leaders of our countries in the years to come, bearing in mind the diversity of the forms this social model may take. One cannot equate the social-democratic model of the Nordic countries with the Germans' Rhenish model, the French model which is fairly state-centred and certainly not the current 'socio-liberal' model in the United Kingdom. These differences must be respected and we should not attempt to impose an approach at a European level which would conceal the source of our richness and diversity. Taking this overall picture as a starting point, we will be better able to define what can be achieved at a European level.
However, two ambiguities must be cleared up straight away. The first is based on a personal observation which I arrived at about fifteen years ago: the Economic and Monetary Union is not a balanced one. The monetary authority is strong, consistent, it has its independence - I do not contest that. But the coordination of economic policies within the eurozone is practically non-existent….This political fact must be borne in mind when the social partners enter into discussions. They alone cannot change this…'
No competition between Member States. 'The second, very serious, ambiguity, as I see it, which will undoubtedly constitute one of the suppressed ideological struggles in the years to come, relates to the foundation of European economic integration. This integration is based on an effort of liberalisation, deregulation and harmonisation. It implies effort by the states which, in spite of everything, will retain their responsibilities. But if, as I heard a British minister and the Prime Minister of another country say, competition between nations must be added to competition between businesses, this will spell the end of European integration one of these days. If that happens, it will be all too easy to practise social or fiscal dumping flagrantly. Respecting the spirit of the Treaty does not mean having the same tax system or the same social system straight away. It is a question of preventing certain governments, by their policies, from creating competition between the nations of Europe in order to undermine it: if that happens, I believe that the European Union will not develop any further, despite the scale of its objectives.
One must remain vigilant when it comes to these two ambiguities, to prevent, in particular in the European social dialogue, those in favour of competition between countries in the Union from emerging as the eventual winners.'
What is possible at European level? 'Knowing whether it is possible to 'structure' the social dialogue…. one can try to achieve some consistency by avoidance of announcing at European level what one will not do, because a decision is to be taken at national level…looking at what can be done at European level.
The European level cannot be reduced to negotiation. There is also information, concertation and consultation. It is quite possible to carry out an information or concertation campaign in order to give rise to thinking at European level on questions which are then dealt with at national level: this European 'illumination' of issues can play a dynamic role but will not replace what must be done at national level. That is why what is undertaken at European level does not necessarily have to lead to a European law or negotiation, contrary to what I have sometimes heard. We can also formulate joint opinions, find common ground in our diagnosis, we can nourish the European ideal by showing that beyond your disagreements between social partners, beyond our divergences, we may arrive at something in common - and that is where the splendid pragmatism of John Monks - Secretary General of the ETUC - is truly admirable. He indicated four subjects, growth, employment, demographic trends, the restructuring/re-allocation of resources, both human and financial: four problems which can be talked about at European level. Can we draw all the necessary conclusions from these? Not at European level, since powers are shared with the Member States, but at least we will have illuminated the debate and may influence negotiations at national level more than we think.
We now have many activities with a European direction: cross-industry or global negotiation and also agreements at branch level. Some of these agreements, concluded after I left the Commission, are really interesting. The works councils also have a considerable role to play. It is this whole combination that reflects the spirit of the European social dialogue and the will of the social partners to be clear with each other regarding their analyses, to meet in cases of disagreement and in no way to devalue the European idea. By their work over twenty years, they have contributed to nourishing this European ideal: when we return to our countries, more and more entrepreneurs and trade unionists will know about Europe, what is done and what is not done there.
In conclusion, I return to the matter of politics. Firstly, in order to contest the view that I have heard and still hear today from politicians: that 'it is all politics'. I have never agreed with this, since it is society that creates itself and moves on without always waiting for political direction. The social partners exist, they are there to defend moral and material interests. Thus to say that 'it is all politics' and thereby to neglect social and economic dialogue is a very serious error which besides ends up feeding disenchantment with democracy, the hyper-personalisation of power and the desire for the instant - the constant rattle of our media - which prevails over memory and vision. All this must be combatted at European level. Certainly in each of our states, we have different political regimes. But who nowadays could deny that people have less faith in politics than they did 20 years ago? By the actions of civil society and the social partners it can be shown that yes, people do still believe in the general interest, in the collective interests and are capable of fighting for this ideal. Politics must take this into account…
But our society would be in a bad shape if it believed only in politics when politics is so unsuccessful at dealing with our problems. Fortunately, society also fosters several forms which allow citizens to taken an interest in collective matters…' Social society is one of them and it should help people take on their responsibilities.
(The conference proceedings are published by the EESC.)