Poul Rasmussen’s article is an interesting political approach with some concrete thoughts on how Europe should proceed. It raised three issues in my mind that are not quite the same as the three he identifies.

 

First, it is obvious that member states have to act together to achieve the aims of the Lisbon strategy. Acting together means common and strong institutions. Rasmussen refers to the drive to complete the Single Market by 1992. We should remember that the Single Market was first proposed in the early 1980s, but was largely left to a voluntary approach by national civil servants and the wishful thinking of some politicians. It yielded little in the way of results until Jacques Delors proposed in 1985 to change the treaty to qualified majority voting so as to give the programme teeth. The similarities between the current situation of the Lisbon strategy and the pre-Single Act situation of the internal market are plain to see.

 

So we need stronger economic governance, no competition between national fiscal systems and harmonization by qualified majority voting. It is only through strong institutions and a commitment to agreed policies that Europe can move forward. In the current European-level political atmosphere, all this may look rather out of this world, but 20 years ago much the same approach was needed and was accepted.

 

The second issue is Cohesion. Rasmussen’s diagnosis lacks the element of economic cohesion in a Europe of 25 today and 27 in 2007. Cohesion means institutions, cooperation and a budget. The budget discussion centres on more and better allocated resources. The current discussion about the CAP is more about impressions and less about substance. We must not forget that in 1986 agriculture absorbed 68% of the European budget, while the proposal by the Luxembourg presidency was that the CAP budget should represent just 37% by 2013. Nor does it concern just 5% of the European population! It concerns 100% of European citizens and both food security and a strong environmental dimension for Europe.

 

The third issue is Investment. This connects with the need to finance large-scale European infrastructure projects to greatly improve our road and rail networks, ensure that the EU’s “open sky” and telecommunications strategies pay off. EU funding for such projects is considered by many to be a paleo-keynsian approach, but in my mind it is clear that they would greatly boost employment and contribute to the better functioning of the overall European economy. Finally, I should stress that I wholly agree with Poul Rasmussen about the need for political courage at national and European levels.