A strong and social Europe: the impossible mission of Wim Kok

The European Union wants to become the most competitive knowledge economy in 2010. While the economical tide is against this plan, Wim Kok has been asked to advise on how to reach this goal.

Social arrangements are far away from the top of his list. The question is how meagre the old Prime Minister wants to make Europe.

During the European Council of Lisbon (March 2000) the European Union (EU) has set herself a strategically goal. Around 2010 Europe has to be the most competitive, dynamical knowledge economy in the world, capable of long lasting economical growth, with more and better jobs and an intense social culture.

The European Council of Göteborg (June 2001) added environmental issues and trade unions to this list and pledged for a better protection of the current social rights, as this is what the environmental movements and trade unions also wanted: economical growth has to be environmentally friendly and take place in a friendly social climate. A solemn and noble promise of government leaders expressed during the so called Lisbon-process.

Social rights are a millstone around the neck of the process
Now that the economical tide has changed in many member states, it seems that not a lot has happened with the earlier stated two hundred criteria of the Lisbon strategic. While economical growth is stagnating, important social decisions not fulfilled. Main defence put forward is that the agreement is too ambitious, not focused on chore tasks and because of that it is not lived up to its promise.

This is the assignment of old Prime Minister Wim Kok. To lead a group of experts that will advise on the competitive strength of the Union. To comply with this request, Kok has to cut the criteria as to come up with a short list of recommendations. Almost certain is that the protection of environment and social rights will not be part of this list. The central goals will be growth, competitive strength and better employability. The EU will be – as to be expected – follow a more neo-liberal course then they originally planned.

In comparison with the USA our production process is lower, our unemployment higher, our average income per employee lower and we don’t invest enough in research en development. The connection to economical policy and durable development and social rights, consolidated during the Council of Göteborg is now been looked at as a millstone around the neck of the process that has to lead to the most competitive knowledge economic in the world.

Schuman-plan: economical integration as a means to an end, not a goal
The focus on this ideal is in shrill contrast with the vision the EU – then the EU for Coals and Steal – had when established in 1951. The French Minister then, Robert Schuman, emphasized in his EU establishment plans that a production unit of coals and steal would contribute to the ‘increase of the standard of living and the progress of peaceful fulfilment’. At first, his model was only focused on an alliance with Germany, but the model would be open and solidair to other countries that wanted to be part of the EU. This to be moulded community would have the possibility to promote and improve the situation in under-developed regions because of the increase in resources.

Mr Schuman saw the development of the African continent as the most essential task of a united Europe. He wanted to prevent ‘an international cartel with restrictive practices’ from adjacent countries. Schuman saw economical integration and uniting interests as a possibility to decrease the differences in wealth between countries and by this, to create a stable world order. His plan was well received and within years he formed, with the financial support of the USA, the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan is the foundation of the current EU.

Force field around Kok
The EU faces different dilemma’s than in the post-war years with the increase of participating countries. A competitive economy has higher priority than the ‘peaceful fulfilment’ of Schuman. Kok has to operate in a force field where lobby organisations, social movements, trade unions and politicians fall over each other. Covering this force field is the shadow of the negotiation process of the European Constitution. The treaty must bring Europe closer to the civilians. The Work Group Social Europe pleads for a social dimension in the Constitution, as to make sure all civilians recognize the contribution of an united Europe as an improvement of their daily lives. The right side sees the American social system less and less as a phantom but more as a sort of a figurehead. Koks assignment is part of a plan that develops a union broad, integrated social policy, something the current members feel aversion to.

After all, there are eight former Eastern Europe countries on the doorstep. They know more poverty, more unemployment and less well developed pension systems then the current member states. Many members have closed the job market, suddenly made possible through a ‘transitional arrangement’. It is a reflex that the position of the member states characterizes: a decrease in support for a complete social policy, which also leads to a problem regarding legitimacy. The question is how Kok these factors weigh and which model he will advise. Which sacrifices have to be made in favour of the economical ideal? Decrease of a complete social policy is certain; the question is how poor Kok Europe will make.

Keep or change course?
Although the EU is founded on the pillars of Schuman’s initial plan, we have to come to the conclusion that the mission is adjusted completely. The target now is to be the most competitive knowledge economy of the world in 2010. Social values are acknowledged, but disappear to the background when the economical tide changes. This expresses itself not only in import charges and export subsidy, but later on also in the restrictions that new member states get imposed on when the subject is free ‘movement of employees’. Although the ideals of Schuman in the current era are considered old, it still is important to look at the similarities.

War within the borders of Europe between countries is almost impossible, but the constant religious and cultural tensions can disrupt an economy considerably when they turn into terrorist actions and conflicts: without a stable world order, neither competitive nor dynamical knowledge economy. When Wim Kok on November 1st reports to the European Commission we will not only know what sacrifices we have to take in favour of the economical ideal, but also if the inheritance of Schuman is still alive.

Social or liberal Europe?
A small comfort is that the European Parliament will vote on the model that Kok will present. The choice if they want to implement the model or not and if yes, what kind of amendments they want to bring forward, will be made by the members of the European Parliament. Distribution of seats by the political parties plays a great part in this. Something 337,9 million European civilians between 10 and 13 June can have influence on. Do they want a social democratic or a liberal Europe?

Gepubliceerd: Politiek-digitaal.nl