Brussels, 07/09/2009 (Agence Europe) - In a speech to the Ambrosetti seminar in Cernobbio (Italy) on Saturday 5 September, the French prime minister pleaded in favour of a genuine European economic strategy. François Fillon, who lamented the failure of the Lisbon Strategy and hopes that revision will help to make it more effective, welcomes the fact that the programme which President Barroso has just sent to the European Parliament laid great emphasis on the "robust economic strategy coordinated at the level of the European Union". In his speech, the prime minister raised the following points (our translation throughout):
Economic upturn: "In order to relaunch Europe, I would like to propose a voluntarist economic strategy based around three ideas: investment in research and innovation, redesigning Community policies to be of greater benefit to growth and European competitiveness against a backdrop of globalisation, re-establishing our public finances by means of a concerted programming (...). Although it is true that economic prospects are improving in the short term, thanks to differing relaunch plans, longer-term forecasts are not favourable to Europe. They give us just 1% in GNI growth in 2010. In the United States, this figure is over 2% and in Asia, more than 4%. It is unfortunately a sluggish growth perspective. And with this sluggish growth, we will be unable to keep in place the European social model, or bring down our public debt. For this reason, we need to create 'new GNI' and to develop 'new growth products'. This means, specifically, investing more in research and innovation in the most strategic sectors. And in order to add to the efforts made by the States and businesses, we should not be afraid of using the support of the Community budget here.
"This also means continuing and reinforcing the excellent sectorial work already launched by the Commission - these industrial 'round tables' which have been held in Brussels for several years now, which have unfortunately not often managed to lead to decisions. Who, indeed, would be able to define European automotive policy? When the electric car is being developed on a large scale, where are the standardisation measures needed? What became of the recommendations of the ELECTRA round table? They have, however, announced two or three key projects in the electricity and electronics sector. And what has come of the recommendations of the 'European chemicals' round table? Due to a lack of goodwill, a great many necessary actions never made it out of their boxes. I am of course aware that the birth of an industrial strategy in Europe will be the cause of concerns and fears and may come up against the dogma of 'technological neutrality'. But what does that mean, given that competitors of the Union are organising vast State-business partnerships- for the electric car, for example? When the British government has no qualms about specifying which industrial sectors are the most strategic for European growth - CO2-free vehicles, aerospatial engineering, biotechnologies and nanotechnologies? Has Brussels become the only place on the planet where we are not allowed to think of the future?
"The history of Europe argues that it should be nothing of the kind. The truth is that the Union has constantly worked on a sectorial basis. From the beginning, with the ECSC and EURATOM; more recently, with major technological programmes such as ITER or GALILEO. The European Union has always been the right level to accompany the development of strategic sectors".
Energy and climate: "One of these strategic sectors is that of energy and climate. Fortunately, the European Union has not overlooked this fact. Much has already been done: a highly ambitious European plan to fight CO2 emissions has been adopted; efforts have been made in favour of energy efficiency; the Commission has made proposals to reinforce the security of our natural gas supplies; a project to draft common nuclear safety standards has been relaunched. I believe that we must go even further. We must ensure that the European economy has energy supplies at a reasonable cost. This means coordinating our capacity investments; improving the transport of electricity and gas; defining a proper supply policy, including grouped purchases of gas, amongst other things (...). Let us be aware of a possible 'environmental dumping', from exporter third countries which refuse substantially to reduce their CO2 emissions. Without a carbon inclusion mechanism on the borders, it could mean that after Copenhagen, an unacceptable advantage could be given to those who refuse to play the game. This would be bad for the climate - and bad for the European economy".
The budget: "The Community budget also has its part to play in this investment for growth. It will provide the opportunity for all of us to think about the structure of the budget and the management methods of Commission. In particular, European research programmes must have better-defined priorities and fewer of them, and procedures must be simplified. 'Spending better' must be our word of order. This must be our ambition when we negotiate new financial perspectives".
Debt: "The public debt of the 10 richest countries of the G20 has risen from 78% of their GDP in 2008 to nearly 100% this year. Part of this debt will be automatically re-absorbed once the economy recovers. However, it is vital that the Community authorities get together with the Member States to commit to a concerted programme of re-establishing their public finances. If we ask countries to follow unrealistic programs, we are running the risk of facing a spiral of indebtedness, which will mean that we will very soon lose any handhold over our own destiny (...). We all have the same objective: re-establishing the balance of public finances. It would be dangerous for us to miss this target by not doing enough to coordinate our actions. Although France and Germany occasionally differ over the issue, there is no difference in ideology between our two countries, either on the importance of bringing public deficit under control, or on the need, which Ms Merkel frequently stresses, to invest more and more in the sectors which will bring about tomorrow's growth". (O.J./transl.fl)