Going forward anyway. A few more remarks are needed on the Spring summit conclusions (after the skip through provided at the beginning of the week by this column), especially with regard to the innovative factor that has already been highlighted: the EU is seeking global agreements it would like on the fundamental problems confronting the world (such as climate protection and cleaning up the financial markets) but it has not ruled out moving forward alone if international negotiations fail. If this is the case, the EU would protect its interests against competition from the country rejecting common discipline.
For the time being these are only intentions and orientations, but they are revealing. For high energy consuming industries (aluminium, steel, etc), the possibility of European legislative provisions has been explicitly mentioned. Some commentators are talking about green protectionism. The goal is to create the conditions for fair competition. The same problem arises in other sectors, such as in agri-foods, where Europe is setting increasingly strict rules for itself on protecting the environment, product safety, animal welfare etc, in the face of competition that is not subject to the same constraints. The same principle is necessary and industrial leaders who call for a level playing field for their products must also accept one in the food sector, which is even more of a sensitive domain given that it directly involves the health of citizens and environmental protection.
National responsibilities. Some commentators have observed that the application of the new phase (2008/2010) in the Lisbon strategy will for the main part remain in the hands of the member states. This is an old criticism which is as ill-founded today as it was in the past. The strategy indicates the objectives and the way ahead for attaining them but putting them into practice obviously depends on the national, regional and local authorities. Operational measures that have to, of course, respect Community rules cannot be imposed by Brussels when these rules cannot be identical everywhere: they depend on local situations and the election results at all the different levels. After some bitterly negotiated cases, common objectives and a Community framework now exist. The Council conclusions are sufficiently firm and detailed. They involve broad coordination and significant amounts of European funding, but for their implementation, everyone has to assume their responsibilities. We are aware how the situation can change from place to place, not only from one member state to another but also from one zone to another in the same country. Local and regional players have succeeded in getting the European Council to explicitly mention their role in creating growth and jobs (paragraph 5, third line) but they are responsible for what they do with this role, as are the national authorities when it comes to reducing deficits and debt. Europe's task has been clearly indicated: the promotion of key projects (Galileo in first place); the creation of a venture capital EU-wide market; creation of a fifth freedom (alongside the four that already exist: freedom of movement for goods, persons, capital and services) for the freedom of movement for knowledge; strengthening of the better regulation initiative and above all, a package supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly involving their access to EU financial instruments and the Small Business Act, that the Council has been instructed to examine as soon as possible (once it has been presented with it). The Lisbon strategy is gradually becoming a pillar of European economic policy and Maria Joao Rodrigues can congratulate herself on the progress achieved since the epoch when this strategy was considered as a theoretical wish-list without any future.
“Green taxation” emerges. One point that needs highlighting is the inclusion of environmentally-friendly instruments into the armoury of those on tax. The summit conclusions call on the Commission to examine the question of whether reduced rates of VAT “can increase the use of energy efficient goods and materials and help save energy” (end of paragraph 27). This passage was preceded by a letter from Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy to Mr Barroso, calling on the Commission to include the possibility of reduced VAT rates for ecological products; the Council will then have to make a decision on the matter at unanimity. The pitfall is contained in the risk of upsetting trade in the single market. The idea of an environmental tax, however, and a Green VAT, has now officially entered the European debate.
The summit's invitation to the Council to examine the Solana/Commission report on the influence of climate change on international security should also be highlighted. The document is published in an annex to our specialist Europe/Diplomacy and Defence bulletin and this column will be returning to the issue later.
(F.R.)