Competition is not the enemy of social Europe!

(B2) OPINION - The European Union is often presented as synonymous with free competition. This assertion, often repeated, must be nuanced. Admittedly, the creation of a single market is based on free competition (free movement of goods, capital, people, free provision of services, etc.). Admittedly, free competition induces the notion of limitation of monopolies, whether public… or private, and the prohibition of certain public subsidies. But Europe has not erected free competition as a supreme principle.

Moreover, contrary to what some say, this European competence does not date from yesterday, but from the beginning and is as historic as the common agricultural policy. It was in a way its consubstantial counterpart; the French holding on to second and the Germans to first.

First of all, it is not a question of letting everything go. On the contrary, the community idea intends to control, supervise the economic sphere to avoid any slippage, any unbridled or wild liberalism. Penalties for cartels harmful to competition and abuse of dominant position are part of this policy. Similarly, the control of public subsidies is necessary otherwise it would amount to giving a bonus to the States and regions that could afford it.

Then, even if they are still scattered, various possibilities – already enshrined in the European treaties and included in the Constitution – allowing the notion of general interest, public service or social protection to be fully preserved. Thus, while the public sector is normally subject to Community competition law - in many cases it is not, either by virtue of what can be called a "natural" exemption - the public service does not fulfill not all the criteria defined by competition law - or by virtue of the principle of the general economic interest. And the European Court of Justice has significantly broadened this position, by giving the concept of service of general economic interest a broader scope of action than the proponents of a minimalist public service and by imposing on it an imperative of efficiency ( the monopoly can be justified if the public service fulfills its mission).

Finally, to say that the application of the principle of “free and distorted competition” has a negative effect on employment and on the social policies carried out at national level is shameless. Because community control can work one way or the other. The study of the effects of free competition on employment - destroyers or promoters - proves delicate and has only rarely been undertaken. Thus, the framework for aid can just as well work against the current social system (framework for employment or restructuring aid, etc.) but also in its favor (limitation of restructuring aid). Similarly, the prohibition of cartels can sometimes be favorable to employment (if it prohibits any rapprochement) or unfavorable (if it hinders the economic development of a sector). While social measures - such as structural funds - can be anti-competitive and disadvantage employment (cf. aid for relocation in particular) as well as favor it (aid for the non-market sector). It's all about the cursor and the circumstances.

Being a little iconoclastic, we could even argue the opposite: the basis of "free and undistorted" competition, at European level, implies that employment costs are if not normalized, at least that no distortion substantial amount of competition comes from social factors. Paradoxically, the deepening of healthy competition could then induce a social deepening, a European framework in social matters just as there is a framework in banking, financial or economic matters.

One is not the enemy of the other, necessarily. Everything then depends on how we apply these notions.