Unanimity. The initiative of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to define a Programme for Europe on behalf of civil society in the EU is both useful and timely because it integrates a strategy approved by representatives from all social categories (EUROPE 9871). This unanimity is essential. Initiatives from civil society raise a number of concerns and misgivings when they express the interests of a specific category; in this game, the biggest loser is the general interest. All the different categories certainly have the right to express themselves and be listened to and then it is up to the elected political representatives to define the general interest, which does not correspond to the specific interests of one or other of the categories. When this arbitration is not forthcoming or is inefficient, democracy is unable to function but when a body by its very essence incorporates all categories in managing to accomplish a synthesis that is accepted by all at unanimity, the political authorities are obliged to take note. This is the case with the EESC's document.
There is obviously a price to pay for this operation: the document is still rather vague when it comes to the different civil society categories that do not agree. If the final document is restricted to exposing a few principles and general lines, it will not have reached its objective. The EESC, currently presided over, as we are aware, by a representative of the workers' group (Mario Sepi), managed to get over this stumbling block by playing its role of representative of civil society in the institutional structures of the EU. It is not claiming to be a substitute for the three main political institutions but is seeking to present them with a kind of civil society manifesto highlighting concrete objectives. The objectives of a more general character are mentioned but are not what really counts in the document: strengthening of the social dialogue at a European level, fighting tax evasion and implementing the Small Business Act initiatives. Who doesn't agree with this? What is important is the unanimous support for a few orientations that are still opposed in certain member states, particularly on:
1. Taxation: getting rid of fiscal competition between member states, which presupposes a certain level of corporate tax harmonisation and a common definition of the tax band (namely at what level companies should be taxed) and setting minimum rates.
2. Agreements with third countries. The EESC wants to “promote the introduction of social and environmental standards and integrate the environmental and social dimension (including employment-related aspects) into EU trade and association agreements with third countries”.
3. Food security in developing countries. The agricultural sector must become the strategic priority in EU agreements with these countries and “contribute to their food self-sufficiency…It is necessary to underpin the trade in agricultural products with standards for guaranteeing that every country always has sufficient food supplies”. Trade is not the priority.
4. Manufacturing industry. The EESC states that “faced with the turmoil of financial speculation, the true value of industry to the real economy appears obvious”. It should be taken into account.
Caution on other subjects. The EESC is cautious when it comes to other subjects. On Eurobonds it would only point out that “the idea of a European loan should be developed”. For the European social model, it only went as far as requesting that a European Council (Hampton Court 2) should focus on the question. In connection to services of general interest, it underlined its importance but did not go any further. Sustainable management of natural resources was mentioned, together with the need for soil protection and greater attention to the role of forests, which is not exactly revolutionary. On the issue of nuclear energy, the document calls for “careful examination of the opportunities and dangers”. With regard to the question of energy in general, the EESC does not call for a common external policy but does request “active cooperation at a European level in external energy policy”. On the other hand, it takes a very tough line against biofuels, “the partial replacement of diesel and petrol with agro-fuels is one of the least efficient and most costly of measures…it is a poor allocation of financial resources”. The EESC considers that the Larosière group's report on financial market reform and supervision is insufficient. According to the EESC, the report does not “completely explore the possible responses and fails to propose change on a necessary scale”.
Common platform. The positions taken by the sectoral organisations should be referred to in order to examine positions that are more focused: the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC); BusinessEurope, for employers; COPA and COGECA for farmers and so on and so forth. The aim of the EESC was to present a common platform for civil society for which the basis now exists. (F.R./transl.rh)