Brussels, 11/02/2008 (Agence Europe) - As the current European Commission approaches the end of its mandate, Agence Europe has sought to interview several prominent figures about the results achieved over recent years. At a time when member states are moving towards ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the interviews embarked upon aim at providing an insight into the priorities of tomorrow's Europe. The former secretary general of the European Trade Union Confederation and current president of the employment committee at the Council of Ministers of the EU, Emilio Gabaglio, agreed to answer our questions put to him. (G.B.)
Agence Europe: How would you judge the Barroso Commission's economic balance sheet?
Emilio Gabaglio: Over recent years, the European economy has experienced positive results in terms of growth and employment, thanks to a favourable international economic situation and the structural reforms implemented. There were, however, disparities in the approaches taken by member states regarding these reforms within the framework of the Lisbon strategy. Unemployment has gone down considerably, although it remains high in some countries and regions. At a quantitative level, the Union came close to the 2010 objectives. This is much less true with regard to the quality of the new jobs, which are often of a precarious nature, especially those for young people and women.
Nonetheless, we need to ask whether the Union could have done better if it had adopted a more pro-active policy and had not simply limited itself to monitoring macro-economic stability, which is, however, necessary. In this connection, it is striking to observe that the Union is still not managing to be the actor of its own development and fully utilise its economic potential through Community initiatives in the field of investment strategies, industrial policy and tax harmonisation. The Union's economic governance (in the Eurozone, at least) ought to be fostered through an economic policy coordination pact that has the same value as the Stability Pact and which subsequently re-balances EMU, hitherto an exclusively monetary instrument. This would all help to enable the Union to pursue more ambitious growth objectives, together with more open, dynamic and inclusive labour markets, with the subsequently highly positive effects on employment.
A.E: At the same time, has Social Europe managed to move forward or has it regressed?
E.G: Social Europe is not part of current thinking. Some think that for the main part it has been accomplished, given the benefits of the past (the body of social directives, social dialogue, European employment strategy etc). Others consider that it should never have existed and are therefore not in any hurry to give it a new boost. The current neo-liberal atmosphere is not making things any easier. The current Commission is hesitating before taking new initiatives in the field of work legislation. Setting up minimum social standards at a European level does not appear to be a priority at the College. Even when it involves revision of an existing text, which is the case with the directive on European works councils, the Commission is behind, well behind the legal deadline, despite the requests from the European Parliament and pressure from the union movement. That said, it should be recognised that for several years, the Council of Ministers has proved incapable of approving substantial social measures. Nevertheless, the situation could change in the near future. The most recent Council session illustrated the fact that a very clear majority supported the Portuguese presidency's compromise for unblocking two important dossiers: those on working time and temporary work. In 2008, revision of the Social Agenda appears in the Union's programme. The 12 member states that signed the joint “Giving Social Europe a new impetus” declaration at the beginning of 2007 and the others, which in the meantime demonstrated an interest in this approach, could lead us to think that they can use this occasion to organise a substantial debate on the social Europe, with the idea of providing the Union with a genuine social action programme, in light of the social provisions in the Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
A.E: With its plethora of “white, green and blue” papers and other communications, is the Commission actually becoming a publishing house?
E.G: For some, these documents constitute an initial phase of the decision-making process at a European level. They are, therefore, necessary. But in certain cases, we do get the impression that documents, due to the lack of a meaningful follow-up, are substitutes for action. This Commission activity can be useful for stimulating reflection and debates in member states. If it currently appears to be predominating, it is because of the extremely limited use by the Commission of its Union governance tool box. The open coordination method (OCM) has therefore become the main, if not the only instrument for initiatives in the social sphere. OCM has definitely had some good results in the case of the European employment strategy and it is currently proving its worth in the social protection sector, areas in which major responsibility is usually assumed by member states. But if the Union really wants to develop its social dimension, which is always being repeated, it is also essential that we go down the path of harmonising social and work standards. This is even more necessary given today's expanded European area. This would make social Europe make sense to the employees who are concerned about the repercussions on employment and working conditions in an integrated market with insufficient social regulation.
A.E: In a context of unbridled globalisation, what is the future for social dialogue and what is its role?
E.G: Europe needs to adapt to globalisation but it does not have to give up its values and principles underpinning the European social model. In a process of this scale and complexity, participation of all the actors at all levels make up the essential conditions for a successful social Europe. This is why social concertation between the public authorities, unions and employers, as well as social dialogue between social partners, play a central role. This process of modernisation touches the heart of the social systems and relations at work, by creating new checks and balances between rights and responsibilities, constraints and opportunities, such as current global transformations but cannot be accomplished without people agreeing to it. This means that there is a need for direct involvement of social partners and other social structures.
As is currently the case, the joint principles of “flexicurity”, which have just been approved by the Union, will have difficulty being put into practice in member states' employment policies without the support of the representative forces from the world of work and the determination to ensure that whatever shape they take in the different member states, they will be put into practice. Social dialogue is far from being outmoded, as certain quarters claim, and despite these different movements it has a great future ahead of it, which will help Europe succeed with this indispensable change.
A.E: What should the priorities of the Europe of tomorrow be?
E.G: At an internal level, we need to keep up with the Lisbon strategy, together with a macro-economic policy focusing on growth - even more so because today's economic forecasts are less positive than those in the past. In this way, the structural reforms called for at Lisbon and which still need completing, will be even more fruitful in terms of job creation, quality work, inclusion and social cohesion. As for Europe's projection into the world, successful managing of globalisation is quite rightly increasingly being mentioned as the area in which the Union should exercise more influence, in its own interest, whether this involves regulating the financial markets or ensuring respect for international social standards. However, to become an effective global player, the Union would need to draw from a high and commonly shared political determination, as well as more active economic and political integration. These options are currently out of reach but it will be necessary to come back to them if the slow, stagnating decline in European construction is to be prevented.