Divergent strategies but a shared objective. The transformation, of what was initially announced as a European Council on social issues related to the crisis, into a meeting between the Czech Presidency and social stakeholders has received a mixed reception, and deep disappointment in some quarters. John Monks, Secretary General of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) called it “a bad signal for citizens and workers,” giving the impression that “European decision-makers are not concerned enough about unemployment” (see issue 9868 of our newsletter). Martin Schulz, chair of the Socialist Group at the European Parliament, talked of “a fatal error at a time when millions of citizens are scared about losing their jobs,” and called for the special European Council meeting to be put back on the agenda so that “member states can show public opinion that employment is at the heart of their action.” The president of the European Council and the president of the European Commission have both said they would prefer there to be a genuine special sitting of the European Council, and Jose Manuel Barroso invited the heads of government that so desired to attend the meeting, whatever form it takes (see the report on the debate at the European Parliament in yesterday's newsletter).
The odd part of all this is the fact that the very same reasons are given by those calling for a special European Council and those who oppose the idea. Both sides say they want to demonstrate to public opinion that the priority of all EU action to combat the crisis is to support and protect jobs. The information available suggests that a clear majority of member states express concern about a European Council because it would give the impression that European and national economic stimulus programmes ignore the question of employment, and that a special European Council on employment would be needed to demonstrate that they were taking jobs seriously. They argue that, instead, it has to be made clear that preventing job losses has always been the aim of everything that has been decided and discussed. Several sources suggest that it was the Belgian prime minister, Herman Van Rompuy, who won the day in this argument at the last summit. Belgian media were the first to announce that the “Social” European Council had been cancelled and replaced by a meeting with employers and trade unions. Other heads of state focussed on the fact that it is the Czech Presidency that is responsible for making and announcing questions of this ilk.
The EU must get the following message across… Both sides in this debate have the same concerns but disagree over the best way of achieving the common goal - either trying to explain that the idea from the start has always been to protect jobs, or convening a special jobs summit. The situation in the member states and the looming electoral campaign are both having an impact but the situation is far from clear-cut. I have already drawn attention to the virulent criticism voiced by the chair of the Socialist Group at the EP, for example, despite the fact that Socialist parties are in power in the United Kingdom, Spain and other member states and are members of the coalition government in Germany. The problem for the EU is to get the message across that: a) EU action is not designed to bail out the banks and bank executives who caused the disaster but instead to ensure the banking system can finance the real economy and protect savers by guaranteeing their nest-eggs; and b) EU funding and loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) are being used to support infrastructure, restoring certain projects and preparing for the future. This will not be easy because public opinion sometimes has the impression that public funding is bailing out the rich without guaranteeing jobs.
Breathing new life into an old debate. There is fierce debate about the big decisions and direction to be taken but when we examine specific projects, disagreement over doctrine is sometimes put to one side. The European Parliament's resolution on support for the car industry, for example, was backed by the big three political groups (EPP, Socialists and Liberals), being voted through by 413 votes to 44. The Greens were virtually isolated in their opposition to the resolution and in their argument that it supports manufacturers, executives and shareholders rather than trying to get the car industry to move in a direction that would guarantee employment. This is the type of operational choice that will decide the future. It is not a new European Council that will come up with solutions, solutions that call into question the true significance of manufacturing for Europe, an old debate that it is time to dust off and spruce up for this new environment where it has returned to the limelight. (F.R./transl.fl)