European Semester: Country Report Denmark 2017

We started looking at the Danish economy at the beginning of the European Semester 2017 in the blog entry European Semester 2017 start: Denmark.

I hope that the European Commission manages to inspire, and that politicians, civil servants, interest groups and activists with the right priorities use benchmarking exercises, such as the European Semester, in order to profit from an outside view and clear suggestions for reform steps and corrections.

Assessment of progress

In February 2017 the European Commission published the overview communication:

2017 European Semester: Assessment of progress on structural reforms, prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011; Brussels, 22.2.2017 COM(2017) 90 final (27 pages)

Amidst a generally improving outlook, the communication summarises the progress in implementing reforms and in addressing the imbalances in member states’ economies (p. 2), initially in broad terms, later selectively highlighting promising reforms in individual countries and finally reporting country by country on findings from in-depth-reviews (p. 24-27).

In 2017 Denmark is one of 14 EU member states not selected for and in-depth review (IDR) (p.8).

Country Report Denmark

The communication was accompanied by a detailed Commission staff working document (SWD) providing a wealth of information concerning each member state, such as for Denmark:

Country Report Denmark 2017; Brussels, 22.2.2017 SWD(2017) 70 final (52 pages)  

A summary of main findings and policy challenges (p. 2-3) spurs the reader on to the detailed analysis of how to boost investment, pursue structural reforms and ensure  responsible fiscal policies.

Denmark’s economic policy challenges include surging house prices in urban areas, large household debt, groups at the margins of labour markets, vocational and ICT skills shortages, integrating refugees into labour markets, improving school performance of pupils with first and second generation migrant background, reigniting productivity growth, inadequate start-up and scale-up performance and enhancing competition in services markets.

Those most interested in a quick general view are rewarded by the one page Table 1.1 on key economic, financial and social indicators (p. 11).

Box 3.3.1 on page 28 highlights the flexicurity theme, including how the system has been tweaked in order to encourage employment.     

With regard to entrepreneurship and the lack of start-up and scale-up performance mentioned earlier, I want to highlight Scale-Up Denmark (quote from page 32):

Scale-up Denmark is currently the largest Scandinavian accelerator programme. The objectives of this programme are (1) to increase the number of high-growth startups; (2) to provide established companies with innovation opportunities; (3) to build next-generation serial innovators; and (4) to develop self-sustaining ecosystems that persist without public funding.

The overview table (from page 41) offers a clear picture of progress on 2016 country-specific recommendations (CSRs) and towards Europe 2020 targets.

Ralf Grahn

Is the Europe 2020 strategy jinxed?

In the article EU action plan to improve access to finance for SMEs I mentioned the information note from the Danish Council presidency:

European Council - Follow-up by the Council; Brussels, 19 March 2012 (document 7824/12)

The content is described on the front page:

In order to ensure that the General Affairs Council can fully play its general coordinating role as well as its specific role in ensuring the follow-up to European Council meetings, the Presidency has prepared the attached information note. The note outlines steps taken in implementation of the orientations agreed by the European Council at its meetings of December 2011 and March 2012, as well as at in the declaration of the Heads of State and Government of 30 January 2012. This note also sets out how these orientations will be taken forward by the Presidency within the Council until the end of the Presidency period, notwithstanding upcoming discussions to be held in Coreper and Council in respect to the orientations set out by the March 2012 European Council, in particular as regards paragraph 16 of its conclusions.

Peer pressure

So what did paragraph 16 of the conclusions of the spring (March) 2012 European Council say? The EUCO conclusions are available in all 23 official EU languages; here the English text, under Economic policy, which highlights some aspects of single market reform and compliance (although the single market has been mentioned in these and other conclusions as well):

16. The European Council considers that enhanced "peer pressure" can help raise the ownership and responsibility at the level of Heads of State or Government as regards the Council's and individual Member States' role in developing the Single Market and complying with its rules. To this effect, the European Council invites :
− the Commission to provide transparent scoreboards as a basis for appropriate benchmarking;
− the President of the European Council to promote regular monitoring by the European Council of progress achieved on key Single Market proposals in the various Council formations.

Follow-up note

The follow-up note deals with the growth agenda, including:

* the single market, Single Market Act,
* acces to finance for SMEs, the COSME programme,
* the forthcoming employment package,
* the reduction of the administrative and regulatory burden,
* innovation and Horizon 2020,
* the digital single market,
* the internal energy market


Under Economic policy, the following themes were among those mentioned:

* the next steps within the European Semester leading to recommendations on the National Reform Programmes and the Stability or Convergence Programmes of the member states as well as the prevention of macroeconomic imbalances revealed by the Alert Mechanism Report,
* the regulation of financial services,
* the two-pack proposals on euro area surveillance,
* the contribution of taxation to fiscal consolidation and growth,
* piloting European project bonds

Additional themes were the long term budget (Multiannual Financial Framework MFF), Justice and Home Affairs (including Schengen enlargement and governance, the Common European Asylum System), Climate (low-carbon 2050 strategy), Trade and Enlargement.


Jinxed Europe 2020?

Only a few weeks ago the spring European Council reminded itself and others that:

2. "Europe 2020" is Europe's strategy for jobs and growth and its comprehensive response to the challenges it is facing. In particular, the five targets set out for 2020 remain fully relevant and will continue to guide the action of Member States and the Union to promote employment; improve the conditions for innovation, research and development; meet our climate change and energy objectives; improve education levels and promote social inclusion in particular through the reduction of poverty.

However, yet again we see a paper from one or more member states skillfully evading the main EU2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, despite dealing with certain concrete aspects of it.

It looks improbable that an EUCO president or EU member state can – in good faith - write an eight-page issues paper or equally long information note [edited] about the EU's growth agenda and economic policy, or the five pages of a twelve-country plan for growth in Europe without mentioning the Europe 2020 strategy.

Is EU2020 jinxed, or what?

Europe 2020 is supposed to be the main uniting economic reform strategy for all levels of government in the European Union and its member states, as the heads of states or government reiterated at the beginning of this month.

Have we ever seen or heard an intelligent explanation from the governments of the EU member states, or have the EU members shown us a diagnosis of amnesia?



General Affairs Council

Monday, 26 March 2012, the coordinating General Affairs Council (GAC) meets to discuss two main items, of which the second one is: Follow-up to the European Council 1-2 March 2012 (agenda).

In this respect, the background note for the GAC meeting offers practically nothing in addition to the presidency note 7824/12:

Follow-up to the [December] European Council

The Council will take stock of the follow-up to be given to the European Council meeting held on 1-2 March, on the basis of a presidency note (7824/12).

The meeting focus[ed] in particular on the growth agenda and on economic policy.

The follow-up discussion is not public, so if the General Affairs Council does not make drastic improvements to its conclusions, the presidency note is probably the best thing the public is left with regarding growth and economic policy for a while.



Ralf Grahn
public speaker on EU affairs

P.S. The multilingual Bloggingportal.eu already aggregates the posts from 944 Euroblogs. They represent an important part of the emerging European online public sphere, discussion across national and linguistic borders. Erkan's Field Diary is more than a Turkish delight. The anthropologist, Dr Erkan Saka follows and links to global, European and Turkish politics and events, not forgetting human rights, cyberculture and social media. Some of the posts are in English. Recommended reading.

Among the Euroblogs on Bloggingportal.eu you find my currently active blog trio, Grahnlaw (recently ranked fourth among political blogs in Finland), the Nordic Grahnblawg (written in Swedish) and Eurooppaoikeus (meaning European Law, in Finnish). I write and speak about democracy and openness in the European Union, but increasingly about the crucial challenges of the global era for Europe: growth (EU2020) and the (digital) single market in the making.

European Central Bank offers economic policy advice

Eurozone woes seem to be going nowhere, but there are different angles regarding the causes and remedies. The blog post Economic policy making becomes challenging mentioned the latest reports from the European Commission:

Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) of the European Commission: 2011 Report on Public finances in EMU (European Economy 3/2011)

European Commission (Ecfin): Interim Forecast September 2011 (14 pages)


European Central Bank

The editorial of the latest Monthly Bulletin of the European Central Bank (15 September 2011) is available in 22 official EU languages. The English version:

Editorial – 15 September 2011 – Monthly Bulletin

Uncertainty and risks abound:

... the Governing Council expects the euro area economy to grow moderately, subject to particularly high uncertainty and intensified downside risks.

The ECB does not abandon its anti-inflationary role, but it has participated heavily through market measures to shore up liquidity for banks and governments in trouble. However, the European Central Bank wants to see swift and decisive economic policy action from governments and parliaments in the euro area:

Turning to fiscal policies, a number of governments have announced additional measures to ensure the achievement of their consolidation targets and to strengthen the legal basis for national fiscal rules. To ensure credibility, it is now crucial that the announced measures be frontloaded and implemented in full. Governments need to stand ready to implement further consolidation measures, notably on the expenditure side, if risks regarding the attainment of the current fiscal targets materialise. Countries that enjoy better than expected economic and fiscal developments should make full use of this room for manoeuvre for faster deficit and debt reduction. All euro area governments need to demonstrate their inflexible determination to fully honour their own individual sovereign signature, which is a decisive element in ensuring financial stability in the euro area as a whole.

Fiscal consolidation and structural reforms must go hand in hand to strengthen confidence, growth prospects and job creation. The Governing Council therefore urges all euro area governments to decisively and swiftly implement substantial and comprehensive structural reforms. This will help these countries to strengthen competitiveness, increase the flexibility of their economies and enhance their longer-term growth potential. In this respect, labour market reforms are key, with a focus on the removal of rigidities and the implementation of measures which enhance wage flexibility. In particular, there is a need for the elimination of automatic wage indexation clauses and a strengthening of firm-level agreements so that wages and working conditions can be tailored to firms’ specific needs. These measures should be accompanied by structural reforms that increase competition in product markets, particularly in services – including the liberalisation of closed professions – and, where appropriate, the privatisation of services currently provided by the public sector, thereby facilitating productivity growth and supporting competitiveness.

Not to everybody's liking, but the ECB carries a big stick.



Ralf Grahn

Economic policy making becomes challenging

In a 2010-2014 perspective, according to the convergence programmes of the non-eurozone EU members and the stability programmes of the euro area member states, the public finances were returning to more sustainable deficit levels as a whole:

In the EU, the general government deficit is planned to fall from 6.3% of GDP in 2010, to 4.6% in 2011, 3.4% in 2012, 2.3% in 2013 and 1.4% in 2014. Meanwhile, the corresponding figures for the euro area are 6.0%, 4.3%, 3.1%, 2.1% and 1.3%.

Source:

Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) of the European Commission: 2011 Report on Public finances in EMU (European Economy 3/2011), page 38

However, both global and European growth prospects have dimmed considerably since then. According to the updated Commission forecast economic growth in the EU and the eurozone would practically grind to a halt during the third and the fourth quarters of 2011:

Ecfin: Interim Forecast September 2011 (14 pages)

The less economic growth, the more challenging the making of economic policy becomes, especially where robust and democratic structures are in short supply.



Ralf Grahn

Eurozone: Juncker and Rostowski in European Parliament

For the first blog post we found texts with main points: Eurozone: Trichet and Rehn in European Parliament.

The second part proved trickier.

I found nothing on the Council's web pages on the euro group or the 'salle de presse' of the prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, with regard to the meeting in the European Parliament yesterday.

They announced the coming participation of finance minister Jacek Rostowski in the ECON meeting in the European Parliament, but I do not find what he actually said on the web page of the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union.


Media

Let us see what media representatives have caught of the contributions by Juncker and Rostowski.

Honor Mahony on EUbserver noted that the chairman of the euro group Jean-Claude Juncker was hopeful of a solution to the Finnish demands for collateral linked to the second Greek rescue package: Rehn questions political appetite for eurobonds [near end of article].

The Polish finance minister Rostowski saw the ”six-pack” of legislative proposals for improved economic governance as a litmus test for the EU. - It is a priority for the Polish presidency.

According to EurActiv, Rostowski hailed the interventions by the European Central Bank for saving Europe: MEPs rally behind ECB as savior of euro.

On the EUobserver, Andrew Rettman quoted an interview in Gazeta Wyborcza: Polish finance minister says Europe at risk of ”collapse”. European, including German elites have the choice between the survival of the euro and the collapse of Europe. A bigger EFSF and deeper integration are necessary for the eurozone. Finland's requirement of collateral is irresponsible.

Rostowski described fiscal irresponsibility in the South and lack of solidarity in the North of Europe as dangerous populism.

The European Voice has more on Juncker's and Rehn's words about the deal on Greek collateral: Trichet calls for speedy action on bail-out deal.

The blogging Swedish MEP Gunnar Hökmark, who is a member of the EP ECON committee, saw the need for stricter budget discipline and reforms aimed at increasing market dynamics and real economic growth: Pressmeddelande: Tillväxt är det enda som kan ta Europa ur krisen.

(As we saw in the previous post, commissioner Olli Rehn spoke about the need for qualitative, structural reforms for growth, competitiveness and jobs.)


Bloggingportal

For continuing discussion about the eurozone challenges and other European issues, follow the new articles from 841 euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, an important part of the European public space.

I invite you to read and to discuss on my four blogs: Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN SV FI).

I am also active on Twitter (although I can follow new people in return only when slots become available) and Facebook.



Ralf Grahn

Jackson Hole calling US and eurozone politicians

Yesterday, I presented the speeches by the Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke and the ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet in the blog post (in Swedish) USA och Europa: Bernanke och Trichet i Jackson Hole, as well as the message addressed to the eurozone by the IMF chief Christine Lagarde: Jackson Hole: IMF Lagarde talking to Europe.


Jackson Hole calling politicians

The central bankers and the leaders of the international financial institutions want the politicians in the USA and Europe to get their act together, Reuters reports: Analysis: Economic leaders fear policy paralysis (28 August 2011).

The Wall Street Journal chips in with: Central Bankers Worry Economy Still in Peril (29 August 2011).

A Financial Times editorial praised Lagarde for starting a debate on how to get rid of excessive debt in the USA and in Europe, but criticised her willingness to send the tab to the taxpayers: Lagarde spells out ugly truth on debt (28 August 2011).

The message from Jackson Hole to politicians is that monetary policy alone can't keep the global expansion going, according to Bloomberg: Central Bankers Urge Governments on Expansion (29 August 2011).

I am still hoping to find comments on Lagarde's message to the eurozone leaders:

So Europe must recommit credibly to a common vision, and it needs to be built on solid foundations—including, for example, fiscal rules that actually work.

European Parliament

The European Parliament committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON) meets today to discuss the sovereign debt markets with the Jean-Claud Trichet and about restoring market confidence with Jean-Claude Juncker, Jacek Rostowski and Olli Rehn (Draft agenda).

A few days ago, ECON chairwoman Sharon Bowles (ALDE) published an article about the challenges on Public Service Europe. The costs of a failure of the euro are simply too huge: Bowles: 'Saving the euro is paramount' (26 August 2011).

According to the Swedish ECON committee member Gunnar Hökmark (EPP), the continuing accumulation of debt did not solve the debt crisis. Too little has been done to enhance competitiveness and to create durable growth: En höst som måste vända utvecklingen (28 August 2011).


Bloggingportal

For continuing discussion about the eurozone challenges and other European issues, follow the new articles from 841 euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, an important part of the European public space. Look for the tags 'eurozone' and competitiveness'.

In addition to my four blogs (links in margin), I am active on Twitter and Facebook.



Ralf Grahn

Jackson Hole: IMF Lagarde talking to Europe

After a period of writing about competitiveness from different angles including ICT prowess, I turned to the economic crisis in the eurozone. My later blog entries can be found through the post Eurozone: Whatever is needed, except...


Jackson Hole

This morning we return almost full circle. We look at the themes of competitiveness and technological advance (including Europe 2020 and the Digital Agenda) through the eyes of the guardians of monetary policy. What do the central bankers have to say to their neighbours, the politicians responsible for economic policy, about the preconditions for economic growth?

The annual Jackson Hole retreat of central bankers, policymakers and academics offers some clues.

Earlier today, I presented two speeches in the blog post (in Swedish) USA och Europa: Bernanke och Trichet i Jackson Hole.

I might as well link directly to the addresses:

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Symposium, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 26, 2011: The Near- and Longer-Term Prospects for the U.S. Economy

The chairman of the European Central Bank (ECB) Jean Claude Trichet:

Setting priorities for long-term growth; Jackson Hole, U.S.A., 27 August 2011

Some (other) speeches at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic policy symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, 25 to 27 August 2011 can be found here.


IMF Lagarde

The fresh managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde spoke on the same panel as Trichet: Setting policy priorities for long-run growth. Her address can be found on the IMF web pages:

"Global Risks Are Rising, But There Is a Path to Recovery": Remarks at Jackson Hole; by Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Jackson Hole, August 27, 2011

According to Lagarde, the downside risks to the global economy are increasing:

Developments this summer have indicated that we are in a dangerous new phase. The stakes are clear: we risk seeing the fragile recovery derailed. So we must act now. It is a matter of vision, courage and timing. Decisive action will bolster the confidence that is required to restore and rebalance global growth.

Turning to the needed policies, Lagarde named the challenges:

Put simply, while fiscal consolidation remains an imperative, macroeconomic policies must support growth. Fiscal policy must navigate between the twin perils of losing credibility and undercutting recovery.

She proceeded to talk in fairly broad terms about Europe, the United States, the global dimension and conclusions.


Europe

Parochially, I opt for the section on Europe. Lagarde sent three key signals to European policy makers:

First, sovereign finances need to be sustainable. Such a strategy means more fiscal action and more financing. It does not necessarily mean drastic upfront belt-tightening—if countries address long-term fiscal risks like rising pension costs or healthcare spending, they will have more space in the short run to support growth and jobs. But without a credible financing path, fiscal adjustment will be doomed to fail. After all, deciding on a deficit path is one thing, getting the money to finance it is another. Sufficient financing can come from the private or official sector—including continued support from the ECB, with full backup of the euro area members.

Second, banks need urgent recapitalization. They must be strong enough to withstand the risks of sovereigns and weak growth. This is key to cutting the chains of contagion. If it is not addressed, we could easily see the further spread of economic weakness to core countries, or even a debilitating liquidity crisis. The most efficient solution would be mandatory substantial recapitalization—seeking private resources first, but using public funds if necessary. One option would be to mobilize EFSF or other European-wide funding to recapitalize banks directly, which would avoid placing even greater burdens on vulnerable sovereigns.

Third, Europe needs a common vision for its future. The current economic turmoil has exposed some serious flaws in the architecture of the eurozone, flaws that threaten the sustainability of the entire project. In such an atmosphere, there is no room for ambivalence about its future direction. An unclear or confused message will add to market uncertainty and magnify the eurozone’s economic tensions. So Europe must recommit credibly to a common vision, and it needs to be built on solid foundations—including, for example, fiscal rules that actually work.

Sustainable public finances, but not at breakneck speed, seems to be the message.

Update 28 August 2011 about 15 EET: I left it to readers to find Lagarde's messages. However, could not resist pointing out the greetings that Europe (= the eurozone) needs solid foundations, such as fiscal rules that actually work. What do you think she means?


Bloggingportal

For continuing discussion about the eurozone challenges and other European issues, follow the new articles from 841 euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, an important part of the European public space. Look for the tags 'eurozone' and competitiveness'.

In addition to my four blogs, I am active on Twitter and Facebook.



Ralf Grahn

European Council: Economic policy timetable

The European Council was concerned about the regulatory burden of small businesses, especially micro enterprises employing less than ten persons. The summit called for a reduction of the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Exemptions or lighter regimes for micro-enterprises are on the cards. The European Council welcomed the commitment of the Commission to assess the impact of future regulations on micro enterprises and to screen the acquis (body of EU law) to identify existing obligations from which micro enterprises could be excluded. See the blog post: European Council on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).


Economic growth

We return to the conclusions of the heads of state or government on economic policy, especially with regard to growth-enhancing reforms in the spirit of the Europe 2020 (EU2020) strategy and related projects:

European Council 23/24 June 2011: Conclusions (EUCO 23/11; 16 pages)

At Council level, matters had been prepared during the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council (of ministers), notably EPSCO, Ecofin and GAC.

In paragraph 4 (page 3), the heads of state or government outlined the next steps concerning economic growth and job creation:

4. ----- It agreed to return to these issues at its December 2011 meeting. The Commission is also invited to prepare a roadmap on the completion of the digital Single Market by 2015. The Commission is invited to report in October 2011 on these growth-enhancing areas with a view to progress being achieved by the time of the Spring 2012 European Council.

European semester: 12 months?

The Commission is going to monitor progress and possibly prepare additional proposals, leading to a report in October 2011, during the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union.

The European Council will return to the economic growth issues in December 2011, after input from the relevant Council configurations.

The European Council had already (paragraph 1) given the European semester green light as ”an effective governance method to support EU and national policy-making in an integrated, transparent and timely manner”.

The planning cycle leads to an assessment of the Stability or Convergence Programme and the National Reform Programme (NRP) of each EU member state. We can expect the keynote document, the second Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the European Commission in January 2012.

With or without an extra European Council in between, various Council configurations will deal with fiscal policies and economic reform issues (including the Euro Plus Pact commitments) during the second leg of the presidency trio of Poland, Denmark and Cyprus.

The spring European Council, usually late March, will provide more or less clear signals for the next round of public national programmes based on the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and the EU2020 strategy in April, followed by Commission proposals for recommendations.

We can expect more Council conclusions in June, during the Danish presidency, before the concluding European Council, although the formal recommendations will probably be issued in July, when Cyprus has taken over the chair at the Council meetings.

***

If we take preparatory work and implementation at the EU level, as well as operational and budget decisions and preliminary programmes at the national level into account, we find that the European semester is more than a six-month exercise, keeping actors busy the whole year.

Thus, it becomes an ongoing exercise, which needs common vision and smooth cooperation between the countries of each presidency trio (cf. Wikipedia).



Ralf Grahn



P.S. ”Europe's leading cultural magazines at your fingertips”, declares Eurozine.

European Council on growth and jobs

The preceding blog posts, including the latest one 'European Council documentation: Ecofin integrated guidelines', left us wondering about the vanishing paper trail (accountability, transparency) and real scope of the endorsement from the European Council ”without any watering down”, as well as from the national leaders ”to do everything necessary”, with regard to Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes (NRPs).

Still, the impetus, political directions and guidelines from the European Council represent the top level signals for the development of the European Union, so we have cause to continue looking at what the summit had to say about economic policy:

European Council 23/24 June 2011: Conclusions (EUCO 23/11; 16 pages)


Economic growth

In paragraph 4 (page 3), the heads of state or government turned to economic growth and job creation, against backdrop of still sluggish and uneven progress:

4. National efforts must be supported by action at European Union level, particularly with the aim of unlocking Europe's full potential for economic growth and job creation. In this context, work should accelerate to deliver the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives and the Single Market Act, focusing on the priorities identified by the Council on 30 May 2011. In particular, the regulatory burden on SMEs needs to be further reduced and where appropriate micro-enterprises should be exempted from certain future regulations or at least be subject to a lighter regime. In this context, the European Council welcomes the commitment of the Commission to assess the impact of future regulations on micro enterprises and to screen the acquis to identify existing obligations from which micro enterprises could be excluded. It agreed to return to these issues at its December 2011 meeting. The Commission is also invited to prepare a roadmap on the completion of the digital Single Market by 2015. The Commission is invited to report in October 2011 on these growth-enhancing areas with a view to progress being achieved by the time of the Spring 2012 European Council.

The paragraph contains several interesting signals, which we need to unlock through brief references omitted by the leaders.


Europe 2020 strategy

The success of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EU2020) depends mainly on reforms in the EU member states and on the willingness of the countries represented in the Council and the European Council to push for reforms at EU level.

Having pronounced on the public finances and growth-enhancing reforms in the member states, here the European Council addressed the Commission, which prepared and drives forward the seven flagship initiatives dedicated to EU level action: the Digital agenda for Europe, the Innovation Union, Youth on the Move, Resource efficient Europe, the industrial policy for the globalisation era, the agenda for new skills and jobs, and the European platform against poverty.


Single Market Act

Officially, the European Union has an internal market, but the benefits of a real single market beckon. The Single Market Act (SMA) is a step in this direction, entailing proposals promised in twelve areas, in order to support growth and job creation.

The Commission hopes to see the proposals adopte by the end of 2012.

A more detailed view of the intended actions is found in the communication from the Commission:

Single Market Act: Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence "Working together to create new growth”; Brussels, 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 206 final


Council priorities

In an off-hand manner, but still, the European Council offered a clue by mentioning the priorities identified by the Council on 30 May 2011. This must mean the Competitiveness Council, although it is less clear if the summit endorsement targeted only the Single Market Act, or everything connected to the EU2020 flagship initiatives as well:

3094th Council meeting Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space); Brussels, 30 and 31 May 2011 (10547/11; 22 pages)

Here, let us focus on the Single Market Act, leaving the rest of the issues to readers interested enough to study the conclusions more fully.

We find the following text (with links in the original):

Single Market Act - Council conclusions

The Council held a debate and adopted conclusions on the implementation of the "Single Market Act" (SMA), which is a two-year plan (2011-2012) of 50 initiatives aimed at ensuring continuous optimisation of the internal market and contributing to the successful implementation of the Europe 2020 objectives on stimulating employment and economic growth (13977/1/10).

In the light of the outcome of a public consultation, the Commission submitted on 13 April 2011 a communication identifying the 12 levers that can best contribute to tapping the single market's potential for growth and employment. Moreover, the communication sets out a timetable for the adoption of each lever (9283/11).

The 12 levers for growth and social progress include actions in the areas of workers' mobility, financing for small and medium-sized enterprises, consumer protection, the digital single market, energy taxation and trans-European networks.

Among other things, the conclusions invite the Commission to put forward all these key actions before the end of 2011 and calls on all actors to commit themselves to adopting a first set of priority measures to give a new impetus to the single market by 2012.

10993/11

The links lead to the corrected version of the original communication (13977/1/10), the April communication (9283/11), and the Council priorities (10993/11):

Council Conclusions on the Priorities for Relaunching the Single Market (31 May 2011, 10993/11; 10 pages)

***

This is about enough for the first blog post about the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Guardian praises Sir Nicolas Bratza, the new president of the European Court of Human Rights, which ensures the observance of the European Convention of Human Rights (concluded within the Council of Europe).

European Council documentation: Europe 2020 employment (II)

Is there a difference between The Emperor's New Clothes, by Hans Christian Andersen (see Wikipedia), and the conclusions by the European Council?

Yesterday, we saw that the June summit endorsed the country-specific recommendations approved by the Council and invited all Member States to reflect them in their national decisions as regards their budgets and structural reforms and to address the shortcomings revealed by this exercise.

Majestic enough, but no direct link or reference to the substance, what the heads of state or government actually approved, or not.


EPSCO documents

Thanks to a Commission memorandum, we found the relevant Council meetings, first of which the EPSCO configuration:

3099th Council meeting Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs - Employment and Social Policy; Luxembourg, 17 June 2011 (Council document 11574/11)

Some sort of general approval emerged, tempered by ”certain reservations” and a postponement (to the Ecofin Council). The ESPCO Council bequeathed us with four documents (gracefully linked on page 11), which we must read if we want to know what the ministers approved.

Recommendations

Here is our catch:

Recommendations for Council recommendations on the National Reform Programmes 2011 to each Member State - General approach (employment aspects) (21 June 2011, 11851/11; 2 pages)

Outside the circle of Council officials and national experts, the text is almost indecipherable:

Further to the outcome of the Council (EPSCO) reflected in doc. 11819/11, delegations will find hereafter the overall results of the Council session on 17 June. The final texts from EPSCO are included in the documents prepared by the Legal-Linguist Experts. In particular, the solutions found to, or the reservations maintained on the open points listed in doc. 11657/11, Section II, are included in the following documents:

[list of document numbers]

The second document is:

Recommendations for Council recommendations on the National Reform Programmes 2011 to each Member State - General approach (employment aspects) (17 June 2011, 11819/11; 4 pages)

Perhaps more interesting than why and how individual member states demurred, the EPSCO Council informed us that it had reached a general approach – in yet another document:

On June 17, the EPSCO Council held a policy debate on the Country Specific Recommendations in the context of the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Council reached a general approach on the employment aspects of the Council Recommendations as outlined in doc. 11657/11.

”Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition” - could we be close to unearthing something intelligible for ordinary mortals?

Here we go. All language versions considered, Council search yields 44 references. Let us be content with the English versions:

Recommendations for Council Recommendations on the National Reform Programmes 2011 to each Member State - General approach (Article 148 TFEU) (15 June 2011, 11657/11; 9 pages)

Here, the Council actually offered an introduction to the matter, described the process, listed general (horisontal) open questions, reservations by individual member states and described the next steps. In other words, just a few steps below the European Council we actually find some useful information, although most of all further document references.

The second additional document:

Recommendations for Council Recommendations on the National Reform Programmes 2011 to each Member State - General approach (Article 148 TFEU) (16 June 2011, 11657/11 COR 1)

This corrected document concerns only Spain and Hungary.

NRPs

We return to the EPSCO conclusions, where the Council endorsed the joint EMCO/SPC opinion on the examination of national reform programmes (10664/11) and the pilot version of the employment performance monitor (10666/1/11) [links in the original].

Piece of cake to use the links provided:

Examination of the National Reform Programmes 2011 - Joint opinion of the Employment Committee and of the Social Protection Committee = Endorsement (14 June 2011, 10664/11; 8 pages)

The committees have produced a readable, but extremely general text. Not much penetrates deeper than an assortment of newspaper headlines about current employment challenges in European countries, with the possible exception of the social protection and inclusion thoughts. These give us the feeling of the early stages of convergence towards some sort of consensus about common priorities at a European level.

Employment Performance Monitor

Employment Performance Monitor - Endorsement (15 June 2011, 10666/1/11 REV 1; 91 pages)

Few but some experts can be expected to peruse all the 91 pages of the document, but the the pilot version of the Employment Performance Monitor (EPM) could come in handy for those who want to see how their country measures up from a European perspective.

Although ”peer review” is a bit hazy, it has the potential to stimulate progress. Admittedly, more intensive communication and debate could usher in more frequent benefits at the national level, but where do we find these, when the European Council hides the beef beneath several layers of documents and the Brussels press corps keeps shrinking?

***

This was only the beginning. We still have to look at the Ecofin Council and the coordinating General Affairs Council, before we have unearthed what the European Council is ”wearing”, when it tells us of its endorsement.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Week in Bloggingportal offers its summary in a lighter vein: Tusk against the EUterus of death.

European Council: ”Ambition and additional efforts”

In the blog post 'European Council Res Gestae (SGP & EU2020)' 29 June 2011, we looked at how the great men recorded their deeds with regard to the Stability or Convergence Programme and the National Reform Programme (NRP) of each EU member state.

In the entry 'European semester: ”More of the same” (European Council)' 1 July 2011, we noted that the summit gave its approval to the new planning instrument and prepared the road for future rounds (paragraph 1).

The blog post also tried to provide interested readers with relevant materials for further study.

We return to the relevant conclusions of the European Council, wrapping up the first new style planning cycle called the European semester (pages 2 to 4):

European Council 23/24 June 2011: Conclusions (EUCO 23/11; 16 pages)

For those who want a detailed, but clear overview of the issues of economic governance in the European Union, I recommend the memorandum mentioned in the previous blog post:

EU Economic governance: a major step forward; 31 May 2011, MEMO/11/364


Progress and challenges

The second paragraph of the European Council conclusions referred to the assessment by the Commission:

2. Based on the assessment provided by the Commission, the European Council discussed the policies and measures presented by Member States. These constitute a good starting point for sustaining Europe's recovery, for addressing fiscal challenges and for driving more ambitious reforms at national level. The European Council notes the clear determination of all Member States to do everything that is required to fully implement the Stability and Growth Pact. Member States have made good progress in defining action to attain the headline targets and goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy for jobs and sustainable growth. Some of the targets are on track but others (concerning employment, energy efficiency, R&D, poverty and tertiary education) require additional efforts. Priority should also be given to ensuring a sound macroeconomic environment, restoring fiscal sustainability, correcting macroeconomic imbalances and strengthening the financial sector.

Country-specific recommendations

The press release 'Delivering on growth and jobs: Commission presents 2011 country-specific recommendations' (7 June 2011 IP/11/685) was published in 22 languages, containing advice for the coming twelve to eighteen months.

There is one set of recommendations for the eurozone as a whole and 27 ones for the individual EU member states.

The memorandum published in the working languages of the Commission, English, French and German, provides more information, including on the papers published:

2011 Country-Specific Recommendations in the context of the European Semester: Frequently Asked Questions (7 June 2011 MEMO/11/382).

The memo explained why five countries received only one recommendation each:

Specific recommendations have not been addressed to the five Member States in receipt of financial assistance from the EU and IMF: euro area countries Greece, Ireland and Portugal and non-euro area countries Latvia and Romania. The assistance these countries are receiving is tied to the fulfilment of ambitious, tailored policy programmes focused on fiscal consolidation and structural economic reforms. The priority for these five Member States is to implement the programme as agreed, hence the single recommendation for each of them to do so.

For the same reason, Portugal and Greece have not submitted Stability Programmes this year.

The memo contains general observations about the Stability or Convergence Programmes and the National Reform Programmes (EU2020), as well as procedural information.

On the face of it, we can see that the European Council conclusions were more or less in line with the Commission findings at a general level, acknowledgeing the national programmes, but calling for more ambitious measures with regard to both public finances and Europe 2020 reforms.


Ecfin web page

On a single web page 'Stability and Convergence programmes (or updates) and National Reform Programmes 2011...', the European Commission's DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) manages to provide links to Stability or Convergence Programmes, National Reform Programmes, Commission Staff Working Papers and Commission Recommendations. We are still waiting for the Council to adopt its formal recommendations, following the benign nod from the European Council.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Yesterday, Poland took over the presidency of the Council (of ministers) of the European Union.

European Council Res Gestae (SGP & EU2020)

The European Council 23 to 24 June 2011 was supposed to be the grand finale of the first European Semester, spiced with the Euro Plus Pact, so what did the heads of state or government leave posterity?

The 'Res Gestae' web pages record the deeds of our secular leaders with regard to economic policy:

Committed to implementing reforms

The political leaders discussed economic policy coordination; the amendment of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the ratification of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty; and the situation in Greece.


Economic policy coordination

What does the summary of the European Council conclusions tell us about the road towards sustainable public finances (Stability and Growth Pact, SGP) and growth-enhancing reform policies in line with the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020)?

The leaders marked the end of the first European Semester under which the EU makes a six-monthly, simultaneous assessment of national stability and convergence programmes planned by member states.

The European Council endorsed country specific guidelines, without any watering down, and noted the determination of member states to do everything necessary to implement the Stability and Growth Pact (SCG). Targets that require additional efforts include employment, energy efficiency, R&D, poverty, and tertiary education. Member states should also give priority to ensuring a sound macroeconomic environment, restoring fiscal sustainability, correcting macroeconomic imbalances and strengthening the financial sector.

Member states are invited to take account of the guidelines when finalising their budgets for 2012, which are then decided on by the national parliaments during the autumn.

These national efforts should be supported by EU level work to enhance economic growth and job creation. In particular, the regulatory burden of SMEs should be reduced and, where appropriate, micro-enterprises should be exempted from certain future regulations, or at least subject to a lighter regime. The Commission should also provide a roadmap on the completion of the digital Single Market by 2015.

With regard to the Euro Plus Pact, the European Council concluded that the next round of commitments to a list of reforms intended to improve the fiscal strength of participants should be broader in scope, more concrete and ambitious, and should include a pragmatic coordinatinon of tax policies.

The statement seems to bear out the ”stronger sense of common responsibility”, noted by president Herman Van Rompuy, although the press release did not bother to specify which country-specific guidelines the European Council endorsed ”without any watering down”.

Usually, one or more working groups, presidency papers, Coreper meetings and Council configurations intervene between Commission recommendations and summit conclusions.


European Council conclusions

How about the Stability or Convergence Programme and the National Reform Programme (NRP) of each EU member state?

Our next step is to take a closer look at the detailed summit conclusions (available in 23 official EU languages):

European Council 23/24 June 2011: Conclusions (EUCO 23/11; 16 pages)

In paragraph 2, the European Council called the assessment provided by the Commission ”a good starting point”, but this time it does not look like an exercise in the use of weasel words, because ”additional efforts” are needed to attain some of the headline targets and goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy for jobs and sustainable growth.

The European Council specified that it endorsed the country-specific recommendations as approved by the Council (paragraph 3).

The conclusions proceed to outline coming measures to promote economic growth and job creation, as well as the next round of commitments under the Euro Plus Pact. Even the conclusion of the Doha Development Round was paid ritualistic observance.

To be continued on a few blogs near you.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. The Commission doesn't understand politics, wrote Ronny Patz on Polscieu (Ideas on Europe). The blog post has generated some interesting comments.

Stability, convergence and EU2020 compliance: EU member states and Commission

The spring meeting of the European Council 24 to 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11, paragraph 2 and footnote 1) outlined the the next steps within the framework of the European semester and endorsed the the priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform ”in line with” the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey, while also referring to the synthesis report of 16 March 2011 by the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union.

The conclusions of the Ecofin Council (Economic and Financial Affairs) 15 February 2011 on the European Semester stated that the Stability and Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes for the period 2011/2012 were to be submitted by the EU member states preferably by mid-April or end April at the latest (paragraph 1).

During our pre-deadline peek on 22 April 2011 we found both programmes, but mainly in the national languages, from four countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) plus the Stability programme of Slovenia posted on the web pages of DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) of the European Commission.

The next day we looked for updates on the website of the Europe 2020 strategy, but found none.

However, by searching for documents from the EU member states, we unearthed and provided links to the posted language versions of the first Stability Programmes, Convergence Programmes or National Reform Programmes stashed away on the website (Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium and Hungary).

We also provided direct links to the different language versions of the programmes posted on the Ecfin web page.

In part, different sets had been posted on the two Commission websites. At the time, even after combining the EU2020 and Ecfin websites, we still had no programmes from 21 out of 27 EU member states, and only one programme each from two of the six countries posted on the websites of the European Commission. Only Hungary and Finland offered both programmes in English.


Submission deadline

We have passed the 30 April 2011 deadline and we have entered what the Elisabethan writer Thomas Dekker called ”The Merry Month of May”.

The final version of the Stability Programme of each eurozone country or the Convergence Programme from each EU member progressing towards euro adoption, plus the National Reform Programme for every member, is its main contribution towards fulfilling its obligations according to the Stability and Growth Pact, the European Semester and the growth-enhancing reforms in line with the EU2020 strategy.

The drafts were submitted last autumn, but have been under wraps. It is high time for the European public to be able to access the final programmes, the new language versions (especially English) and possible related improvements and updates on the EU2020 and Ecfin websites.


Europe 2020 improvements and updates

The latest updates on the EU2020 website are press releases from the Commission.

If we search for Latest documents, the last addition is from 25 March 2011, namely a link to the conclusions of the [European] Council, which include the agreed text on the Euro Plus Pact.

In other words, the Commission has not improved its presentation since our latest visit.

In my humble opinion, on a pan-EU website such as Europe 2020, all the EU institutions and the member states should be treated on an equal basis.

Forewarned, or inspired enough to search for Member states' documents, you find six NRPs added to the ones we found on our previous visit: from Poland (in Polish), Lithuania (in English), Luxembourg (in French), the Czech Republic (in Czech), Ireland (in English) and the United Kingdom (in English).

Eight National Reform Programmes out of 27 EU member states, but only four programmes in English.


Ecfin improvements and updates

Through the Ecfin web page 'Stability and Convergence programmes (or updates) and National Reform Programmes 2011 – programmes received to date' we find thirteen Stability or Convergence programmes and nine NRPs, but most English versions are not yet available.

The DG Ecfin offers a dedicated web page and the available programmes can be seen at a glance. In addition to the submitted programmes, the page contains space for the later stages: Staff Working Paper, Commission recommendation and Council recommendation.

Clearly, someone has done some thinking. Perhaps the people responsible for the Europe 2020 strategy and website could pay a visit.

The missing Swedish version of the NRP from Finland I remarked about has not been added in the meantime.

***

Hopefully, we are going to see improvements within the next few days, by the EU member states as well as the Commission, because the deadline for proposed recommendations is approaching (late May, early June).



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Infopolitics.eu is a public service dedicated to news and opinion concerning netizens' rights and freedoms. It is a joint project by the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament and Piratpartiet.

State of EUnion: Wide ownership of Europe 2020?

Can we hope for more ambitious economic policy reforms from the EU member states? How did the European Council and the European Parliament endorse Single Market reform? What did the Commission's Single Market Act (SMA) look like the morning after having been provisionally launched? How did the General Affairs Council (GAC) practice open and fair dealing in its follow-up of the meetings of the Europan Council meetings on 4 February, 11 March and 24-25 March 2011, including the questions we have followed: sustainable public finances, growth-enhancing reforms (Europe 2020) and the Single Market Act?

These blog posts tell us something about the real state of the union – the EU institutions and the member states – subject to later updates and improvements.


Updates and improvements?

This morning we were waiting for the first Stability Programme or Convergence Programme from a member state to appear on the web pages of the Commission's DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin).

This morning we were waiting for the first National Reform Programme (NRP) of an EU country to be posted on the Commission's website for the Europe 2020 growth strategy (or any new item under latest documents and reports).

This morning we were waiting for the the language versions after Italian on the Commission's website about the Single Market Act to be made accessible, as well as for updates of the visible ones : Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, German, Estonian, Greek, Spanish and Italian (notably the communication in the national language). The final versions of the communication in English and French have yet to appear. .

This morning we were waiting for the final version of the communication COM(2011) 206 to appear in any language on Eur-Lex under preparatory documents, as well as the accompanying SEC(2011) 467 (in English?).

This morning we were waiting for any new public documents (among the 200 latest ones) regarding economic policy implementation, the Europe 2020 strategy, the Single Market Act or a meaningful follow-up to the European Council meetings 2011 (concerning economic reform) to appear on the Council website.

***

If the European Council is serious about wide EU2020 ownership and economic policy cooperation engaging all stakeholders, improvements and updates are needed.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Dave Keating, and American journalist in Brussels, writes the Gulf Stream Blues blog, well worth following.

European Council: More ambitious reforms from EU member states?

In a series of blog posts I corralled the latest entries published on my four blogs and in three languages: Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

The practices of the European Council and possible reform of this (now) official EU institution, as well as the conclusions of the spring summit regarding economic policy, sustainable public finances and growth-enhancing Europe 2020 reforms were discussed in the articles mentioned. This latest compilation, divided into five parts, covered blog posts published between 25 March and 9 April 2011: One, Two, Three, Four and Five.


Inspiration from spring European Council?

Guidance from the spring European Council was intended to inspire possible improvements in the final versions of the Stability Programme or Convergence Programme and in the National Reform Programme (NPR) of each member state.

However, the economic policy paragraphs (2 to 5) we have looked at in the conclusions were sketchy enough to add no new substance to earlier Integrated Guidelines, EU2020 headline targets, the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission, or conclusions from different Council configurations (summarised in the synthesis report by the Hungarian Council presidency):

European Council 24/25 March 2011; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)

If the paragraphs concerning the implementation of the European Semester contained no added value, they did not visbly detract from the goals, proposals and conclusions mentioned.

The European Council conclusions clearly endorsed public deficit reduction (paragraph 3) and they backed structural reforms in a number of wide areas (paragraph 4), plus they reiterated the next steps in accordance with European Semester procedures (paragraph 5).

In this respect, the conclusions by the spring European Council could be described as neutral.

Beside the EU level EU2020 Flagship initiatives and Single Market reform, the concrete actions to reduce public deficits and debt levels to tolerable levels and to reform product and labour markets are in the hands of the EU member states, and the previously agreed targets are general enough to offer as much room as national governments need (and much more than most of them are willing or able to contemplate).

In addition, higher levels of ambition are expressed elsewhere in the European Council conclusions.


Euro Plus Pact

Single Market reform, free trade agreements, the proposed ”six-pack” legislation on economic governance and (more rigorous) new stress tests of banks received complementary backing from the European Council.

The European Council also took a step towards establishing the new and permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM), intended to replace the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) in providing external financial assistance to euro-area Member States after June 2013. (See EUCO 10/11 Annex II.)

However, the higher reform ambitions we spoke about were expressed in the Euro Plus Pact, with Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania joining the 17 euro area states in order to enhance competitiveness and convergence. An annual cabal of heads of state or government is supposed to bring additional national commitments to the table. (See EUCO 10/11 Annex I.)

The goals are wide enough to house almost any economic reform plans and pledges:

§ Foster competitiveness
§ Foster employment
§ Contribute further to the sustainability of public finances
§ Reinforce financial stability

Concrete new reform commitments?

The first batch of more ambitious commitments is supposed to find its way into the national programmes due in April (EUCO 10/11 paragraph 12):

12. The Member States that have signed up to the Pact are committed, on the basis of the indicators and principles it contains, to announce a set of concrete actions to be achieved within the next twelve months. A number of Member States have already announced first commitments. All participating Member States will present their commitments as soon as possible and in any event on time for their inclusion in their Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes to be submitted in April and for their assessment at the June European Council.

I have seen no EU level compilation of first commitments already announced. At least the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), if not the Stability and Convergence Programmes, should start appearing on the Commission's web pages for the Europe 2020 strategy, but this morning the search for member states' documents still returns zilch.

The DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) pages with the Stability and convergence programmes concern the 2009-2010 round (last update 6 October 2010), so we remain in waiting mode at EU level with regard to final versions 2011.

Naturally, for more energetic souls there is the opportunity to scout for the programmes government by government (and a few updates have appeared during the last days), but I leave systematic search along this avenue to the more ardent researchers.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. Eva en Europa, by Eva Peña (on Twitter @evaeuropa), is one of the top Euroblogs and a fine representative of the lively Spanish scene of citizen-bloggers dedicated to European affairs. She writes reasoned posts with a long shelf-life, mainly in Spanish, but has published occasionally in English and Catalan.

European Council blogging: Part Four (11042011)

Previous round-ups of my blog entries were published in Part One, with articles posted 25 and 26 March, and Part Two, which took us from 27 to 29 March 2011.

Part Three corralled the blog posts published from 30 March to 1 April 2011.

My blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

Part Four brings together the European Council and economic reform aims in the EU. The blog entries were published between 2 and 5 April 2011.


Describing and reforming the European Council

The procedures of European Council, the European Semester, the summit priorities and guidelines (if any), the Annual Growth Survey (AGS), the contributions by the Ecofin Council and the EPSCO Council, the synthesis report from the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council and thoughts about improving the governance, transparency and closeness of the European Council were discussed in a series of entries on Grahnlaw.

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities I (2 April 2011)

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities II (3 April 2011)

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities III (4 April 2011)

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities IV (5 April 2011)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The five-language family of the Euros du Village in French, Gli Euros in Italian, Die Euros in German, The Euros in English and Los Euros in Spanish is a real fountain of European news and opinion, a treasure trove for interested EU citizens and language students alike.

European Council blogging: Part Three (11042011)

Previous round-ups of my blog entries were published in Part One, with articles posted 25 and 26 March, and Part Two, which took us from 27 to 29 March 2011.

The blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

Part Three consists of the headlines of blog posts published from 30 March to 1 April 2011.


Economic policy

What did the spring summit say and do about economic policy and economic governance? The blog post looked at a few online comments.

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Commenting on European Council: Economic policy (30 March 2011)


European Stability Mechanism

This round-up concerned the new and permanent fund to prevent and to redress disruptions in the euro area. Here we took a tour of European press comments regarding the new bailout fund, intended to bring stability to the eurozone.

Grahnlaw: European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in media (30 March 2011)


Finnish rhapsody

A few remarks with regard to the Finnish rhapsody: Most documents are referenced referenced exactly enough to be found in other languages, blog posts and other online comments by others are in the original language and there is always the fall-back option to use Google translation.

The first post in Finnish is a summary of the economic policy decisions of the European Council and an outline of the next steps. It was followed by a presentation of the European Semester, including the preceding proposals from the Commission.

Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish): EU-maiden talouspolitiikka: Seuraavat vaiheet (31 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Finnish): EU:n talouspolitiikan eurooppalainen ohjausjakso (European Semester) (1 April 2011)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. European Union Law is a noteworthy blog about EU law by Vihar Georgiev, who also writes a mirror blog in Bulgarian. Real treasures in a field where few have the stamina to keep going.

European Council blogging: Part One (10042011)

My latest collection of blog posts was presented on Grahnlaw (in English) a little more than two weeks ago: European Council blogging (24032011).

It is easier to find the relevant subject, if I offer myself and others an overview of the later blog entries on the economic policy theme at the spring European Council.

The blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).


Tripartite Social Summit

After an earlier introduction, a few blog entries presented the public statements of the participants in the Tripartite Social Summit, the social partners (employers, employees and EU institutions).

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Tripartite Social Summit: Unions and PES (25 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Reform camp leaders ahead of Tripartite Social Summit and European Council (25 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Tripartite Social Summit and European Council: EU views (25 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Tripartite Social Summit and European Council: Business views (25 March 2011)


Spring summit in a nutshell

After the spring European Council, I looked at the available links and materials, as well as the brief economic messages from the European leaders.

Grahnlaw: Spring European Council summary (26 March 2011)



Ralf Grahn




P.S. After an interesting ranking of top European media in French on Europe 27etc, ”Jamel de L'or” returned with a useful top ten of the European affairs media to follow in English (plus ten others, although the wrong link was offered for Grahnlaw).

European Council: Economic policy reform priorities IV

We continue looking at the governance and practices of the most important official institution of the EU, the European Council, with regard to fiscal consolidation and structural reform.

Having studied the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission in Part One, and EU 2020 macroeconomic and fiscal guidance offered by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) in Part Two, we turned to the contributions by the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) in Part Three, which dealt with employment, poverty and social exclusion.

It was possible to arrive this far in deciphering which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform the European Council broadly endorsed (”In line with”), because someone was graceful enough to insert footnote 1 to paragraph 2, clumsily acknowledging the submerged parts of the iceberg:

In line with the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey. See also the Presidency's synthesis report of 16 March 2011.

Source:

European Council 24/25 March 2011 Conclusions; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)


Hungarian synthesis report

The European Council did not exactly adopt (”See also”) the synthesis report from the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council, but it is well worth a closer look. Here the Hungarian presidency made a helpful contribution, by offering an overview and by including contributions from other Council configurations besides Ecofin and EPSCO.

There is, however, some ambiguity regarding the right version of the synthesis report and the differences between the various versions. The European Council footnote refers to a document dated 16 March, but if we search more diligently we find both a first revision, dated 16 March, and a second revised version, dated 18 March 2011.

The most obvious difference is that the two later papers are six pages shorter, but no explicit explanation is given in the introductory paragraph on the cover page:

Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/11; 21 pages)

Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/1/11 REV 1; 15 pages)

Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 18 March 2011 (document 7745/2/11 REV 2; 15 pages)

The shorter versions speak about an annexed Commission report about meetings with member states concerning their national reform programmes (NPR), but they fail to include the annex. The interesting Commission summary of discussions is found only in the original version.


Contents

As a rough indication of the contents of the synthesis report, I quote the introductory paragraph on the cover sheet (here from the original version, 7745/11):

Delegations will find attached the synthesis report prepared by the Presidency, summarising the discussions and the main political messages of the different Council formations in relation to the Annual Growth Survey, in the framework of the European Semester. The report together with the ECOFIN and EPSCO Council conclusions, will be submitted to the Spring European Council on 24/25 March 2011, which is expected to give guidance to the Member States for the finalisation of their Stability and Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes in April. This report is accompanied by a Commission report (see Annex) on the bilateral discussions with Member States carried out during February and March. The Hungarian Presidency’s aim is to close the first European Semester by the time of the European Council in June 2011.

The synthesis report is a clear exposition of the framework: the Integrated guidelines the EU and the member states are committed to, as well as the stages within the new planning cycle called the European Semester.

In addition to the Ecofin and EPSCO Council contributions (acknowledged by the European Council), the synthesis report summarised the contributions by the Competitiveness Council, the Education Council, the TTE Council (Energy) and the Environment Council, constantly reminding the readers of the commonly agreed Europe 2020 (EU2020) and other goals.

The report noted the difficulties in reaching the ambitious goals, mentioned the next steps and expected the spring European Council to give strategic guidance on policies. Each member state would take this guidance into account in its final Stability or Convergence Programme and National Reform Programme (NRP).

Although quite general in tone, the annexed Commission report highlighted questions of interest to the central administrations in the EU member states, including consistency between different processes and programmes, as well as to all ”stakeholders” (regions, local administrations, social partners) engaged in planning and implementing reform programmes.

Good work by the Hungarian presidency!


Submitted documents

Do we find the Hungarian synthesis report among the documents submitted to the European Council?

Nope. Only the annotated draft agenda and the provisional agenda are acknowledged, despite the multitude of submissions we have observed along our route.


Improving the European Council

Which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform did the European Council endorse?

Without the fortunate use of a footnote, we would have been totally lost. We now know that the European Council is more or less in agreement with the conclusions of two Council meetings (”In line with”). It acknowledged the synthesis report from the Hungarian Council presidency as useful information, because it was worth mentioning.

Based on paragraph 2 and footnote 1 of the European Council conclusions, we have been able to unearth the relevant documents on our excavation tour extending to four blog posts.

***

What if the European Council became interested in good governance, better communication, openess and closeness to the citizen?

In my humble opinion, this would require a transparent chain of proposals and decisions.

Instead of continuing to hide non-public (Coreper, Van Rompuy) draft conclusions behind meaningless phrases, the General Affairs Council (GAC) could become an important coordinator and a promoter of improved public discussion ahead of European Council meetings, by tabling concrete proposals, based on Council conclusions.

To these, the European Council would reply seriously, at this stage without becoming a legislative body.

The GAC could also follow up the implementation of European Council decisions in an open manner, through public reports and transparent decisions.

Now the GAC potential is wasted by its self-effacing role, and the public is deprived of the opportunity for a better informed discussion about real issues, before and after European Council meetings.

Positive practices are possible: We saw that the EPSCO Council conclusions linked and gave references to documents in their final form, and they also acknowledged the authors. The Hungarian synthesis report is also worth notice. Kudos!

***

This still leaves us with a few problems relating to the current form of government through European Council conclusions.

Many documents of varying kinds are submitted to the European Council. It cannot pronounce on every paragraph or suggestion in the present format.

On the other hand, if the European Council wants to be known as a Delphic Oracle hovering above mere mortals, by replying to large and complex questions by a few paragraphs, the conclusions easily turn into meaningless commonplaces, serving few needs of guidance or enlightenment.

***

Having studied the submitted texts, how much wiser do we become, if we turn to what the economic spring summit of the European Council itself said about economic policy reform in its conclusions?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. On the bilingual (French and English) EU Weekly blog, the nuclear physicist and citizen blogger Greg Henning follows the euro currency and political events in France and the European Union. Recommended reading.