WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Statement made by a Member of the European Commission in favour of the model of capitalism developed in Europe being replaced by the American model.
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, economic and social cohesion, economic policy, market economy, public statement, single market, sustainable development

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/29

(2002/C 147 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Statement made by a Member of the European Commission in favour of the model of capitalism

developed in Europe being replaced by the American model

Has the Commission noted the statement made by one of its Members, Mr Bolkestein, at the
1.
‘Ambrosetti Annual Forum’ on ‘Intelligence 2001 on the world, on Europe and on Italy’ in Cernobbio, Lake
Como, Italy, in which he said that, now that individual Member States had lost the power to regulate their
economies by monetary means, the social welfare state - also known as the ‘Rhineland Model’ - which
had characterised Western Europe for half a century would have to be replaced by a hard and unfeeling
capitalism along American lines in which shareholder profits were more important than job security for
employees, that the EP and the trade unions were forces of conservatism and that painful liberalisations
were required in the energy, transport and postal sectors?

Does the Commission share the view of its Member, Mr Bolkestein, that agreements reached at the

2.
Lisbon Summit in March 2000 are irreconcilable with the maintenance of the ‘Rhineland Model’?

3.
Is the Commission aware that, in recent years, it is precisely in the United States that an increasing
number of doubts have been expressed about the model in force in that country and that those doubts at
state and municipal level have led to more government intervention in the fields of energy supply and
public transport?

4. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that the ‘Rhineland Model’ in Europe has already been
seriously damaged as a result of factory closures and relocations, increasing income disparities, a reduction
in collective provisions, pension restrictions,
likelihood of periods of
unemployment, reduction in income as a result of changing jobs, and an increasing number of people
affected by incapacity to work?

stand-by contracts, greater

5.
Is the Commission prepared to try and protect from further encroachment by the American law-of-
the-jungle model, which in practice has resulted in high incomes for a few but in a record number of
homeless people, beggars and convicts, what is left over from the increase in equality and partnership
between all people, as seen in the restriction of income disparities, the accessibility to education and health
care for all and in the position of the trade unions as the interlocutor of governments and business, which
we experienced in the 20th century?

Is the Commission prepared to distance itself publicly from the statement made by its Member,
6.
Mr Bolkestein, and to spell out clearly which values the EU wishes to defend against the American system?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

1.
The Commission has been informed on the speech, delivered by its Member responsible for the
Internal Market on 8 September 2001 at the Ambrosetti Annual Forum, in which the Member addresses
the issue of micro-economic structural changes in the years to come and the Conclusions of the European
Council in Lisbon of March 2000.

2.
The Union has a very clear strategic ambition. The Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon
European Council in March 2000 laid down the overall objective. This objective is for the Union for the
next decade ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-base economy in the world capable
of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’.

This strategic objective reflects the importance the Union attaches to the dynamic and positive interaction
between economic, employment and social policy. The Commission is fully committed to working towards
this objective.

C 147 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

It is reflected in the Social Policy Agenda, the road map for social policy until 2005. The Commission has
made it very explicit that the modernisation and the improvement of the European Social Model is crucial
for increasing employment creation and hence a high level of labour participation as well as for fighting
social
inclusion and improving social protection. Social policy in this sense is a productive factor,
underpinning economic performance, while contributing to the goal of solidarity and social fairness.

The role of the social partners is crucial here and the Commission has made clear that it wants to
encourage the full participation of social partners in this process of modernisation. It gives preference to
the social dialogue and negotiations between the social partners - in line with Articles 138 and 139
(ex Articles 118A and 118B) of the EC Treaty - to put in place concrete answers to the challenges Europe
is confronted with in those areas for which the social partners are responsible.

3.
The Commission is aware that in the United States, like in the Union, a public debate is held on the
most balanced way to ensure public services. The Commission puts the emphasis, as the EC Treaty
prescribes, on services of general economic interest and refers to the document which was adopted in its
meeting of 17 October 2001 and which has been based on an earlier Communication of the Commission
regarding this important subject (1).

4.
The Commission believes that adhering to the Conclusions of Lisbon will be the best way to keep the
European economy on a dynamic and modern track. In particular, a well-timed process of modernisation
and proper adjustment to new circumstances will ensure the vitality of the European economy. The
Commission is not aware of any reduction of social security or limitation of pension claims.

5.
The United States has the highest average living standard as measured by the gross domestic product
(GDP) per capita. The relative positions of the United States and the Union in this respect have been fairly
stable for a long time (2), although with some advantage for the United States in the second half of the 90s.
This seems to indicate that in terms of economic welfare and in terms of the employment rate the United
States at least in aggregate terms has been doing better. However, a number of questions concerning social
cohesion have been raised as to the American-model. The Lisbon conclusions should be seen in this light.

6.

The Commission fully supports the Conclusions of Lisbon.

(1) COM(2000) 580 final.
(2) See paragraph 2 on page 12 of the 2000 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, COM(2001) 105 final.

(2002/C 147 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Pressure on Member States to harmonise their tax rates by reducing the price of petrol and diesel

fuel

1.
Does the Commission recall that the increase in the price of crude oil in summer 2001 also resulted
in a rise in the price of diesel fuel and that, as a reaction to that rise, road haulage companies carried out
campaigns to force the governments of the Member States to offset their increasing payments to the oil
companies by a reduction in the long-standing taxation on liquid fuels for road transport?

2.
Does the Commission also recall that various Member States reacted in different ways by taking
measures which benefited the competitive position of the road haulage sector in their own country but
that the United Kingdom, in particular, did not bow to this pressure for a tax cut?

Can the Commission confirm the report which appeared in the issue of the Sunday Times published
3.
on 9 September 2001 that,
it will be asking the British
in a White Paper to be published shortly,
Government to reduce the cost of petrol by 10 % as a contribution towards tax harmonisation within the
European Union?