MEPs respond to José Manuel Barroso’s strategic objectives
Adamos Adamou EUL-NGL Cyprus
When I heard Barroso's presentation of the European Commission’s Strategic Programme, I wondered how he is planning to reinforce the Lisbon strategy and make it work and, at the same time, save the Europeans from, as he later mentioned, the US model of economic productivity which has not produced the expected results on labour policies. Low salaries and poor working conditions are not a solution. Even though I feel relieved that the ‘Bolkenstein directive’ was not mentioned, I am suspicious about the labour market and social protection systems reform. Does that actually mean the liberalisation of public services? Is that really going to save the more disadvantaged sectors of the European population, who see their pensions lowered and the health and welfare systems dismantled all over Europe, in order to make it more "competitive"?
It is very difficult to see how the less prosperous EU areas will become equalised with the more prosperous ones without a strengthening of the Financial Perspectives 2007-2013. The same goes for the enhancement of culture, education, health and environment.
What will definitely strengthen the role and the prestige of EU institutions, thus bringing the citizens closer to the EU, is a real improvement of the social conditions of the European citizen, combined with an accrued dissemination of relevant EU information.
Ryszard Czarnecki Non-Attached Poland
The biggest value of Barroso's strategy is that it exists. The European Parliament feels relief - the commission has a strategy! Barroso has shown that he does not want to be a 'painted leader' and that he does not want to duplicate the EU Council but that he is heading towards a strong political commission and not only a technical 'helper of the Council'.
Strategy is being criticised by some - that it is too economically 'neo-liberal' and by others that it is not enough 'neo-liberal'. In my opinion it means that it is exactly as it should be. Frankly speaking, EU countries should have a smaller role in economy. They should give more concessions and not too much involve in economy therefore.
Claims that Barroso has not shown enough measurable targets are not true while if all the targets are priorities than none of them is a priority.
Silvana Koch-Mehrin ALDE Germany
The new objectives of José Manuel Barroso are more realistic than the former Lisbon Agenda has been. Barroso rightly emphasises the need for competition and free market. These are the columns on which the European Union is built on. It is a good sign that Barroso puts economic growth through liberalisation in the first place. After all: not legislation but a sound economy creates new jobs. Informing the European public through visible and effective means of communication is not only an obligation for the commission. The European Parliament and its members have the same obligation. Fighting bureaucracy and red tape is a good goal for the next five years. Barroso will always have the support of the liberals when reducing regulation. However, ideas of weakening the stability and growth pact are fatal for a common European currency. The commission should stand firm against the member states and insist on low deficits. A reform of the Growth and Stability Pact should lead to strengthening budget discipline.
Gary Titley PES UK
I was impressed by Barroso's statement to the European Parliament on Wednesday. He has come forward with a forward looking commission action programme which aims to create more and better jobs in the European Union.
With this programme he has aimed at the heart of the European agenda that has real and tangible benefits to the European citizen. I was encouraged by the positive noises about solidarity, it is crucial that job creation does not come at the price of undermining social standards in the EU.
He appears to have taken on board messages from the Social Democrats and shown himself able to listen to the parliament: a valuable lesson learnt.
With a renewed partnership between our institutions making certain that the benefits of legislation far outweigh the costs, I hope that Barroso's fine words are turned into action.
Graham Watson ALDE UK
The major challenge for pro-Europeans, particularly facing a series of referenda on the EU constitution is to overcome years of indifference and ignorance. Barroso is offering us a clear vision and concrete proposals based on the three-pronged principles of prosperity, solidarity and security and with an emphasis not just on better regulation but on better communication.
Today liberalism is more about freedom - a philosophy that has become common currency for most moderate, centrist politicians and enshrined at the heart of Europe's single market. The Lisbon agenda aims at a more competitive economy that will stimulate growth and jobs - making the point that growth is not an end in itself.
Barroso has struck a sensible and coherent balance between the measures needed to create prosperity (sound macro-economic foundations, fair but strict competition rules, boosting innovation and reducing the regulatory burden) and the need to maintain our commitment to the principle of solidarity (economic and social cohesion, environmental conservation, promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and protection of cultural diversity).
It is a mistake to focus too much on targets rather than actual performance. Witness the lack of progress in achieving our Lisbon goals. The first five years was taken up adding target after target. The Dutch EU Presidency in the second half of 2004 set a good example by focusing on shorter-term, achievable goals based on concrete measures, as advocated in the Kok report. Barroso is also rightly concentrating on a clear vision with concrete action evaluated at three yearly intervals. This is a more sensible and pragmatic approach and I welcome it.
Neena Gill PES UK
Barroso is promising an EU renaissance and quite rightly so, the excesses of popular euroscepticism are well known to us all and the time certainly is nigh to enlighten the dialogue of the deaf. However I can not help wondering if we are missing a trick, a partnership for prosperity, solidarity and security is a nifty theme for our union and yet I am not sure how we de-code this to our native europhobes.
The EU is of course contingent on the success of the European market, its competitiveness, and its reinforced focus on the Lisbon Strategy and yet as UK trade minister Patricia Hewitt outlined this week, we need to revive Europe's sense of idealism by promoting our union as a force for good. We need to promote Europe's role as a beacon of hope, rolling out the message of, democracy, dignity, human rights, freedom, peace and solidarity.
Yes, Barroso speaks of the Millennium Development Goals and Europe as a world partner; I just do not feel this extends far enough. The forceful promotion of our development and humanitarian work would not only galvanise the consciousness of Europeans, but would define the EU as an entity to the rest of the world. We need a better brand, it may sound prosaic, but Europe as a force for good, could just be it.
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff ALDE Germany
If Europe is to return to strong and sustainable economic growth, more and better jobs are needed. That is what we promised our voters. I therefore strongly support the commission's emphasis on these two themes underlying its strategic objectives and reject the socialist attacks on Barroso's team. Europe needs economic growth to create and sustain quality jobs. It simply does not follow any logic to expect the jobs without the growth. The commission's emphasis is entirely correct.
Most of the measures to establish economic growth need to be taken in the member states. In this context I support the commission's declared intention not to let member states off the hook as indicated in its "strategic objectives 2005-2009". Especially in view of Europe's dramatic recent enlargement, future prosperity cannot be invented only in Brussels. A new communication strategy must help to explain the EU's intentions and actions, especially to member state parliaments.
Kyriacos Triantaphyllides EUL-NGL Cyprus
I heard with great interest Barroso’s intervention. I have to admit that although the style differs widely from the previous commission president, the content unfortunately remains more or less the same. Indeed, the public's disconnection from the EU, does not stem, in my opinion, from the way the European institutions are structured but rather from the lack of sufficient information on crucial issues that make the public unaware of the realities of the inter-institutional process-building mechanism.
The Kok report that was circulated late last year heavily criticised the Lisbon strategy for failing to meet its mid-term goals. Thus, rather than choosing the way of introspection and devising sound policies that would ultimately provide for a Europe, that Barroso describes as "founded on economic dynamism, strengthened in its social justice and bonded together with greater social cohesion", the latter chooses instead to reheat a dish already served by the previous commission.
The question thus begs in the eyes of any realist: how can the commission deliver on its Lisbon strategy goals when the member states are not getting to terms with the fact that the Financial Perspectives for 2007-2013 must be strengthened? Should this issue be resolved, the commission must then tackle another sensitive issue: how to achieve greater social cohesion through the liberalisation of public services? The recent case of the port services liberalisation directive should have been the warning sign for the commission that social cohesion is not necessarily attained through neo-liberal policies.
To his defence however, I must agree that Barroso has taken a step forward. The fact that he did not mention the ‘Bolkenstein directive’ proves perhaps that, for once, the commission is perhaps ready to listen to alternative voices that have sound policies to offer for a real EU of economic dynamism strengthened with social justice and bonded with greater social cohesion.
Tunne Kelam EPP-ED Estonia
Coming from a new member state which owes its success to radical liberal reforms - proportional income tax, conservative financial policies, openness to competion, the first e-government - I can't perceive any real liberalism in the commission's proclaimed objectives. I find Barroso an able and determined leader and I have much personal sympathy for his ideological objectives linking free market principles to social cohesion and solidaritity. However, the first draft of strategic objectives is dominated by general Eurospeak slogans presented in modernised form. The document is rather a list of good and noble intentions, lacking unfortunately, the concrete mechanism of how?
Clearly I am not satisfied with receipts like "the re-invigorated and refocused Lisbon Agenda will put Europe back on that track, with the target for new and better jobs being met through higher growth". Where is Europe now? Has it gone off the track? When? Why? If we are not determined to find a real and working solution to boosting scientific research and implementing the results of innovation in practical economic activities - here is EU in a weakest position compared to that of the USA - then no strategic objectives would help us to fill that fatal gap.
István Szent-Iványi ALDE Hungary
The communication from the president of the commission rightly states that, "the union must achieve greater political coherence in external action: coherence between different branches of external policy; coherence between internal and external policies; and coherence in action between that of the Union or Member States bilaterally".
To this, I would add that coherence is required between political priorities and budgetary allocation. The EU wishes to have a stronger presence and influence on the international scene but spends less than ten per cent of its budget on external policies in the period of 2007-2013. The president of the commission insists that enlargement and the new neighbourhood policy are priorities. Despite this, the proposed combined expenditure for these two areas in the new financial perspective is much less than that foreseen for development and economic cooperation. Of course, it is a perfectly legitimate policy choice. But then again, we shouldn't say that we take enlargement and our neighbours seriously.
The money the EU spends worldwide on various objectives is too much to be wasted and too little to make a difference. Being the largest donor in the world is not a virtue in itself unless we are able to focus on key issues and geographic areas where we can achieve substantial and measurable progress. It's time we first set real priorities and afterwards put our money where our mouth is.
Claude Moraes PES UK
Barroso has highlighted anti-discrimination as a key strategic objective for the next five years. This is hugely welcome, but it should not be pursued simply as a response to the Buttiglione hearings where commitments were made on this agenda under duress. We expect to see the commission continue to enforce existing anti-discrimination directives like the Race Equality and Employment Directive and come up with a promised comprehensive anti-discrimination package. In the month of the Auschwitz memorial, the protection of European minorities in Europe is a worthy strategic aim.
Anna Záborská EPP-ED Slovakia
It would seem that commission has forgotten that the most valuable asset for kick starting the European economy is the poorest members of society. The poorest citizen also have something to offer: their knowledge and experience of what it is like to be denied fundamental rights. How can EU administrators, working in the "caprices des dieux" of the European institutions, possibly know what measures are necessary to eradicate poverty in the EU? Investing in people and developing an active and dynamic welfare state will be crucial both to Europe's place in the knowledge economy and for ensuring that the emergence of this new economy does not compound the existing social problems of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty. May I recall also that the financial perspectives do not contain any specific heading for social inclusion? Instead it comes under other headings, such as those for sustainable growth. Development policies seem to be set primarily according to economic, agricultural and environmental considerations, and not by social considerations. Poverty and social exclusion are not included directly in the financial perspectives. We must therefore remain vigilant. I see clearly that the motivation has weakened with regard to the initial objective of eradicating poverty. And so, for the period 2004-2009, I am setting an "Objective Barroso". The quality of his Commission will be measured on the steps taken to eradicate poverty, made in close collaboration with the poorest members of society and with the same determination that the Commission gives to competition or measures to combat terrorism.
Manuel Medina Ortega PES Spain
The Barroso objectives are neither too much or too little ‘neo-liberal’. They are just ethereal, as most things we do in the EU
It is not a matter of measuring targets. First, we ought to have the means to reach any targets, and that we don’t have now.
The Lisbon strategy chose the intergovernmental approach to the European construction, that has always failed in the past. Unless we move from this sermon-style way of doing politics into the business-like integration or ‘community method’, no progress can be expected to make of our EU a competitive enterprise. This means the availability to the EU of financial means that governments do not appear to be willing to provide for the time being.
Simon Busuttil EPP-ED Malta
Bridging the gap with the citizens is a massive challenge for the Barroso Commission. People fail to comprehend what difference, if at all, the EU makes in their daily lives. Yet, it does. And if citizens are made aware of it, they will identify better with the EU.
Barroso is a great communicator and his appointment of Wallstrom with specific responsibility for the commission's communication strategy is highly indicative of his intentions on this score. However, actions speak louder than words and there is a lot to be done.
On issues ranging from the EU constitution to illegal immigration and from employment to foreign policy people want to see if the EU can live up to expectations and deliver.
Whether Barroso and his team will succeed in reconnecting the EU with the people will be measured by the people's verdict on the EU constitution in countries where referenda will be held as well as by the turnout at the next European Parliament elections due in 2009.
People will not bother to vote for the EU unless they feel that it makes a positive difference in their lives.
Kartika Liotard EUL-NGL Netherlands
One of the key words in Barroso´s strategic objectives is "prosperity". That sounds very promising. As a socialist I am all for prosperity.
But Barroso appears to confuse the term prosperity with "pure economic growth". To him, as long as the EU has a high growth level, all will be well. This is a strictly neo-liberal approach to prosperity. For me, prosperity has other meanings as well. It means having free time to enjoy your wealth as well, which seems contrary to the increasing calls of the EU for its population to work longer hours and retire later in life.
Prosperity also has to do with universal access to affordable and reliable public services. As anyone who has ever taken a train in Great Britain or the Netherlands in recent years will confirm: liberalisation and privatisation of services often has the complete opposite result: making public services unreliable, sometimes unsafe, and often more expensive for the consumer. The services directive, in its current form, will certainly decrease prosperity for many Europeans, as it will undermine public services and labour rights, undermine consumer protection and make public control of regulations almost impossible.
Finally, to me prosperity is also about sharing the wealth. Not just between richer and poorer regions, as Barroso briefly mentions, but also between poorer and richer people. This can not be done without national governments and those instruments that the commission seems to loathe: taxes and the welfare state.
Vasco Graça Moura EPP-ED Portugal
I think it is a clever strategy, tackling the fundamental challenges Europe has to face. It never forgets the European social model, has to be liberal enough to make prosperity and development possible and depends upon budgetary possibilities. Barroso says you cannot build more Europe with less money...
Konrad Szymanski UEN Poland
Barroso’s objectives are surely not too liberal as some old fashioned leftists said during debate. I had a strong feeling of being in antique shop, listening to Wurtz, Schulz or colleagues like them!
The thing I would like to hear more clearly is a European perspective for the Ukraine. Living on the Atlantic coast it is very easy to under- appreciate this historic question. Now Barroso lives in Brussels, being responsible for whole Europe, he should change his perspective.
Michael Cashman PES UK
With just over 200 Socialist members in a 'hung' parliament of 736 seats, it is clear to me that a Socialist vision for Europe has a strong voice and a real role to play in shaping the EU's strategic objectives. Our task as Socialist MEPs is to build into the Commission programme a socialist perspective ensuring that modernisation and liberalisation of the EU's economy goes hand in hand with a high level of citizens' rights and social protection. Economic prosperity and social justice are the twin pillars of the Party of European Socialists' vision for the EU's programme. Through economic prosperity we can eradicate poverty and injustice whilst simultaneously bringing about the demise of the politics of envy and hate.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.