The logic of Penelope?

At times European integration seems to proceed with the logic of Penelope, who, while awaiting the return of her husband Ulysses, wove a tapestry by day and undid everything she had woven by night. But if the legendary figure of Greek mythology had very good reasons for acting in this way, the same cannot be said of Europe today, which is faced by the task of tackling the crisis that struck her four years ago, with grave repercussions on national balance sheets, on banks and on businesses, on employment and on families, jeopardizing not only the continent’s economic development but the entire European social model.The reactions to the crisis at the Community level were not immediate, nor were they always effective. But now it has to be recognized that at least on the level of financial stability the EU is taking the right road: "fiscal compact", bail-out funds (temporary or permanent), "European semester", "six pack" and various other provisions taken, or at least planned, are all instruments of it. These measures now need to be effectively implemented. Yet the EU as a whole (EU institutions, member states, social partners, citizens) has also understood that rigour in keeping public accounts under control, however much it is an essential prerequisite for economic consolidation and revival, is not in itself enough to kick-start economic growth, boost the recovery of the labour market, restore confidence, protect incomes and stimulate consumption. The watchword with which all – and I mean all – the protagonists of the European Council of 1-2 March arrived in Brussels was: rigour in itself is not enough; steps also need to be taken to support growth.Having said that, it almost seems that every summit of the Twenty-Seven has to start out from scratch, just like Penelope. How can growth be revived? – was the question posed in the run-up to and during the two-day summit of heads of state and of government. It’s almost as if Europe’s leaders had forgotten that not more than a month ago, more precisely at the extraordinary European Council on 30 January, they had signed (except for Sweden, for reasons of parliamentary order) a declaration with the eloquent title: "Towards growth-friendly consolidation and job-friendly growth". This document indicated precise commitments to be made by the signatory governments, with a view to pursuing three main objectives: stimulating youth employment, supporting small and medium enterprises, and completing the Single Market. The document spells out a number of priority and "concrete" steps that need to be taken to achieve the hoped-for results. A second document given the official stamp of approval by the European Council, in pursuit of growth, jobs and social justice, concerns the Europe 2020 Strategy "for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth", drawn up and signed by the member states of the Union in 2010, with a mid-term perspective and this time aimed at five ambitious targets to be achieved within a decade: "75% of persons aged between 20 and 64 must have a job"; "3% of the GDP of the Union must be invested in research and development"; "the 20-20-20 targets in terms of climate and energy" (energy efficiency and saving, recourse to alternative sources) "must be achieved"; "the rate of school dropouts must be reduced to less than 10% and at least 40% of youth must be graduates"; "20 million persons less must be at risk of poverty". So many verbs in the imperative, and objectives that are interconnected and fundamental for our global success", comments the Strategy. There followed a smart, though perhaps obvious, proviso to the effect that each member state should adopt Europe 2020 "in its specific situation", by translating the common objectives into specific "national processes". So the Union’s road towards growth, jobs and social justice seems to have been already traced: what is now needed – albeit amid the myriad understandable difficulties of the moment, especially linked to the scarcity of resources to be invested – is to transform the written pledges into decisions that may have a real impact on the ground. If Penelope’s goal was to defer ad infinitum the completion of her tapestry, no deferment or indecision could be justified in the case of the European Union.