Big things sometimes happen quietly. Although the Swedish EU Presidency has made several statements about long-term competitiveness being a priority, there has not been much media coverage on what it really happening in the Competitiveness Council and during the remaining weeks to the European Council 29-30 June.
When Ministers discussed the topic behind closed doors 22 May, there was in principle agreement on a new process for the preparations of the March European Councils. The Swedish EU Presidency had prepared a background note proposing inter alia:
“The existing annual structure to provide such input on economic issues to the Spring European Council meetings could easily be built upon and expanded to include the following components:
In January, the Commission publishes the Annual Single Market Report (ASMR) and the expanded Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard as a package. The Chief Economists’ Network with Member States could discuss the economic underpinning for the competitiveness indicators to prepare the Scoreboard revision.
The package is discussed and prepared at working party level and by the High-Level Group on Competitiveness and Growth. This package could be reviewed at the first Competitiveness Council each year as part of the Council’s contribution to the European Council.”
What does this mean in practice?
Well, first it gives the Competitiveness Council and the unelected High-Level Group on Competitiveness a stronger role in EU policy-making, with implications for many policy fields including workers’ rights, consumer protection and climate/environment. Judging from discussions in the High-Level Group during the Swedish Presidency, it could imply a shift from the present Commission’s concept of “sustainable competitiveness” to a more traditional and narrow view on regulation as an obstacle to business.
Much will depend on how the Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard is designed. The Commission proposal in March included 17 Key Performance Indicators ranging from R&D and venture capital to adult learning and renewable energy. However, business organisations have been pushing for a more narrow set of indicators with a stronger focus on “regulatory burden” for enterprises. On the other hand, the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) advocates a system where for example well-designed environmental regulations are seen as positive for competitiveness.
In addition, already in March the Commission proposed more extensive “competitiveness checks” of new legislation and sector-wide assessments. However, there was no initiative to better assess how the lack of legislation in some fields can reduce competitiveness.
As stated recently by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, Sweden is now pushing intensely for conclusions on competitiveness at the next European Council, taking further steps than in the March conclusions. The new process for assessing competitiveness is one of the topics.
The lack of public debate on this radical change is surprising.
Mats Engström 