At the European Summit. The battle of values: social protection or free competition
(BRUSSELS2) Make no mistake about it. In its apparent simplicity, the German proposal for a mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), towards a reformed Treaty, conceals an important aspect: the reversal of the values and objectives of Europe.
First of all, this mandate "breaks" the beautiful article I-3 of the Constitution, which intended to enumerate a long list of objectives. It thus brings the principle of “free and undistorted competition” – object of virulent criticism during the referendums in France but also in the Netherlands – to the rank of (simple) objective of European policies. But it does not totally eliminate it, contrary to what some people claim. Competition policy “which is not distorted in the internal market”, for example, thus remains one of the possible actions of the Union in the same way as other policies (trade, anti-dumping, etc.).
Next, by renaming the "Treaty of the European Communities" to the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union", the mandate implicitly subordinates it to the "Treaty on European Union", and therefore to the objectives which the latter assigns to the Europe. As a result, principles previously considered declarative or generous - the peace and well-being of peoples, the peacemaking and protective role of its citizens in the world, the area of freedom and justice without internal borders, economic cohesion , social and territorial, cultural and artistic diversity…-, as well as social objectives, are thus revealed as fundamental principles guiding European policies and thus acquire, by simple mechanical effect, a higher rank.
This reversal of values might appear cosmetic at first glance. It is not so ! Or at least it might not be. Placing social, environmental and sustainable development values at the same level as, or even slightly above, liberal economy values is a strong political gesture. The axiom "social market economy" - dear to the Germans in particular - is thus attached to the term "highly competitive". “Balanced economic growth” is linked to “price stability”. But the internal market is only established as an observation - "The Union is establishing an internal market" - whereas a whole set of socio-economic and environmental objectives are cited and precisely enumerated: full employment, social progress, high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, fight against social exclusion and discrimination, justice and social protection, solidarity between generations, protection of children's rights... The consequences could also be legal. As the Advocates General of the Court had already mentioned, there is currently no hierarchy between fundamental social values and the fundamental principles of free movement.
Needless to say that this hierarchy causes great concern on the part of certain political leaders, the liberals in particular (Graham Watson, leader of the ALDE group in the European Parliament). The "perplexity" is also in the European Commission. Both José-Manuel Barroso and Neelie Kroes are very unconcerned about seeing the Commission's autonomous action in competition policy restricted in this way. All the more so if we take into account a possible declaration on services of general interest (SGI) requested by the Dutch and supported by the French. The use by the European executive of article 86 – reconciling the interests between SGI and free competition – with the sole aim of forcing public monopolies would thus risk being limited.
As a result, this subject, which seemed to be an additional point of discussion, risks coming back to the fore.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
