Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on "The 2003 broad economic policy guidelines"
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: economic planning, economic policy, single market

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/63

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The 2003 broad economic policy
guidelines’

(2003/C 133/14)

On 10 December 2002, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its
Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on ‘The 2003 Broad Economic Policy
Guidelines’.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 March 2003.
The rapporteur was Mr Vever.

At its 398th plenary session on 26 and 27 March 2003 (meeting of 26 March), the Committee adopted
the following opinion by 96 votes, with 8 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1.
The European Economic and Social Committee
approves the inclusion from 2003 onwards of the broad
economic policy guidelines (BEPGs, implementation report) in
the new ‘implementation package’ presented by the Com-
mission in January, which covers other related EU policies
(employment, single market, Lisbon reforms), and in the
‘guidelines package’ to be presented in March, all set in a three-
year time-frame. However, the Committee would emphasise
that this must not have the effect of making the priorities
more cumbersome or of watering them down, but rather of
identifying them with greater precision.

1.2.
The Committee stresses that the issues at stake over
the next three years are highly complex; they call for economic
policy to be tied in more closely with the euro, truly effective
support for the new Member States’ accession and more
effective implementation of the reforms agreed at Lisbon.

1.3.
The Committee notes that these objectives are them-
selves now more difficult to achieve due to the extremely
worrying deterioration in the economic climate over the last
two years, despite progress with the single market, the euro
and political processes for achieving economic convergence
between the Member States.

The Committee emphasises that the priority must now
1.4.
be to give new impetus to growth in Europe — needed to
boost employment — by giving the BEPG a sharper focus,
implementing them more effectively and providing them with
a more structured framework.

1.5.
Efforts to give the BEPG a sharper focus should,
without marking a break with the guidelines devised in 2002,
place more emphasis on the growth component of the
Stability Pact, give rise to more closely coordinated economic

governance to tie in with the euro and create more propitious
conditions for Europe to remain economically and technologi-
cally competitive.

1.6. More effective implementation of the BEPG should
entail consolidating the Eurogroup’s role in effective dialogue
with the European Central Bank (ECB), involving representa-
tives of socio-occupational
interest groups and the social
partners to a greater extent and at an earlier stage in
the proceedings and developing indicators on progress in
implementing economic guidelines and reforms, especially on
progress towards the knowledge-based economy.

1.7.
Steps to provide the BEPGs with a more structured
framework should speed up completion of the single market
in priority areas, securing fresh confidence and growth,
reactivating the Lisbon reforms,
including simplification of
legislation, and consolidating measures for joint economic
governance in the future Treaty being hammered out at the
Convention.

2. The Commission proposals

In September 2002 (1) the European Commission made
2.1.
a proposal to introduce, as of 2003, a new integrated annual
cycle for presenting and implementing the broad economic
policy guidelines (BEPGs), the employment guidelines and
recommendations and the strategic objectives for the single
market. The aim is to organise and coordinate the various
policies more effectively.

The Spring European summit in March will be of key

2.2.
importance in this new cycle.

In the run-up to the summit, the Commission has
2.2.1.
been publishing reports as of mid-January on progress in
implementing the BEPGs, the employment strategy, the single
market strategy and the structural reforms agreed at Lisbon.
These Commission reports for the summit also contain

(1) COM(2002) 487 final.

C 133/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

assessments of the Cardiff Process, the situation with state aid,
innovation and enterprise policy.

2.2.2.
The conclusions of the European spring summit, put
together by the Presidency, will then give rise in April to new
Commission proposals on BEPGs (for the EU as a whole and
by country), the employment guidelines and recommendations
and the single market strategy. As of 2003, these proposals
will be for the medium term, reviewable every three years (i.e.
2003-2006). During that period (i.e. in 2004 and 2005) only
limited adjustments will be made, in response to developments
which might warrant them.

The European summit in June will be called on to
2.3.
approve guidelines based on the Commission proposals after
a first reading by the specialised Councils (especially Ecofin,
Employment-Social Affairs, Competitiveness). The specialised
Councils will then formally adopt the guidelines.

2.4.
During the last few months of the year, the Com-
mission will collect reports from the Member States on
progress made in implementation and on the measures
planned, and examine these with a view to relaunching the
cycle in January.

2.5.
The Commission also proposes including in the cycle
the open method of coordination for social protection issues.

Based on the above, the Commission submitted its first

2.6.
‘implementation package’ on 14 January 2003, consisting of:

2.6.1.
an assessment of implementation of the 2002 broad
economic policy guidelines (1): over and above the differences
between the Member States’ situations, the overall picture is
considered to be rather disappointing mainly because of the
slowdown in growth and the worsening budget positions of
several Member States, while there are still delays in opening
up markets — infrastructure and energy — and in pushing
through structural reforms designed a) to improve the func-
tioning of the labour market and b) to restore a financial
balance in the various social welfare schemes;

2.6.2.
a report looking towards a new employment strat-
egy (2): the objective of full employment is complicated by an
ageing population, and quality and productivity at work need
to be improved while taking account of disparities in labour
market access;

2.6.3.
a report on the state of progress of the European
internal market (3): the assessment is cautious, given that the
progress achieved, albeit only partial (e.g. financial services,
opening up energy markets, public procurement procedures),
is tempered by persistent delays (cf. pension funds, fiscal
harmonisation, Community patent);

2.6.4.
a report on progress with the Lisbon strategy
reforms (4) (the spring report): the report confirms the findings
highlighted in the above-mentioned reports and stresses the
need to step up efforts to push through economic and social
reforms in line with the objectives on competitiveness agreed
by the Member States.

3. The Committee’s comments

3.1. With regard to the revision of procedures, the Com-
mittee approves:

3.1.1.
the steps to secure greater consistency between the
broad economic policy guidelines, the employment guidelines,
measures to complete the single market and the Lisbon strategy
reforms, which should bring real progress in view of the close
interrelation between these different issues;

3.1.2.
in particular, the link thus established between the
different ‘processes’ — Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologne —
and the Lisbon strategy, which itself was updated in Gothen-
burg and then Barcelona;

3.1.3.
the intention to make the political guidelines more
constant basing them on a broader perspective, with a time-
frame extended to three years;

the simplification of the cycle, with efforts to com-
3.1.4.
bine reports, guidelines and ‘processes’;
these have been
proliferating over the last few years, and this has created
cumbersome, parallel and sometimes conflicting procedures,
hallmarked by a lack of overview.

3.2.

However, the Committee would emphasise:

3.2.1.
the need to avoid overloading the Commission’s
synthesis reports and the annual cycle of economic and
employment guidelines by adding more analyses and prescrip-
tions instead of incorporating them;

( 1) COM(2003) 4 final.
( 2) COM(2003) 6 final.

(3) SEC(2003) 43 final.
(4) COM(2003) 5 final.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/65

3.2.2.
in particular, the need to identify genuine economic
governance priorities at European level, to base these on a
detailed macroeconomic analysis and to provide them with
political — and not merely technical — impetus and follow-
up, involving the EU institutions and Member States on the
basis of sufficiently convergent and consistent guidelines, even
though account must also be taken of the diversity of national
and regional situations.

3.3.5.
inflation remains within reasonable limits overall —
in some quarters there is anyway more concern about
deflationary pressures than about renewed inflation — even if
the changeover to euro notes and coins at the start of 2002
was perceived by many consumers as a factor in price increases
for some everyday items despite the fact that economic
institutes and statistical indicators generally refute this;

3.3.
As far as the content of the synthesis report and
particularly the assessment of the implementation of the BEPG
are concerned, the Committee points out that the Commission
analysis and the proposals accompanying it have been submit-
ted at a time when the economic and social situation of the
European Union is giving extreme cause for concern:

confidence has plummeted since September 11 2001
3.3.1.
amongst
the various economic operators (investors, busi-
nessmen, consumers, savers and employees), especially in the
face of the renewed threat of war in the Middle East and the
ensuing international tension on the political, economic and
financial scene as well as oil markets, with a sharp fall in
financial and stock markets in 2001 and again in 2002, all of
which has served to keep the economic cycle in a trough;

3.3.2.
growth is weak, with an average EU growth rate
which hardly went beyond 1 % in 2001 and 2002 and which
will remain well below 2 % in 2003 due to the combined
effects of slack internal demand and slower exports caused by
the euro’s rise in value. These growth rates are well below the
3 % annual growth target set in the Lisbon strategy. In contrast
to other regions of
the world, the EU does not have a
macroeconomic policy robust enough to jack up its growth
potential, which would put it in a better position to tackle the
economic downturn head-on, boost confidence and underpin
internal demand;

3.3.6.
in addition to this Europe-wide data, and without
economic governance being more coordinated and better
integrated than the BEPGs allow at present, the gap between
national economies is still considerable, both within the EU
and — perhaps more paradoxically — within the euro zone
itself;

these gaps will only increase with enlargement from
3.3.7.
15 to 25 members, officially scheduled for May 2004; although
the acceding Member States are achieving growth rates which
are often double the rates in the existing Member States, their
level of development remains lower by nearly 50 % and they
still have to complete and consolidate their adjustments to the
market economy and the Community acquis.

3.3.8.
Apart from the more visible cyclical downturns, it is
worth pointing out the negative indicators on underlying
structural data, such as the extremely unfavourable demo-
graphic outlook, the fragmentation of tax systems in the
internal market, the burden of taxation and statutory labour
charges in Europe, which is excessive compared to that of its
main competitors,
in particular due to a deterioration in
taxation structure in Europe (cf Monti report), the improve-
ments needed in the labour markets and the fact that the
European economy needs to generate far higher job-creating
growth than does, for example,
the American economy.
Overall, the problem is really Europe’s inadequate autonomous
potential for growth and its lack of attractiveness and competi-
tiveness in certain areas, which might well jeopardize the very
feasibility of the ambitious objective for 2010 set in Lisbon in
2000 in an economic climate which, it is true, was far more
promising.

3.3.3.
after a period in 2002 when it seemed to be holding
up in the face of the economic downturn, the employment
situation is rapidly deteriorating again; the first few months of
2003 saw a sharp fall in employment affecting both young
and old on the labour market;

3.4.
The indifferent economic and social situation together
with these hazards for the Lisbon strategy are especially
worrying given that they follow real progress in legal harmon-
isation, monetary unification and the development of many
ancillary political instruments.

3.3.4.
public sector deficits are particularly high in four
Eurozone countries (Germany, France, Italy and Portugal),
giving rise to warnings with regard to the 3 % limit fixed by
the Stability and Growth Pact; other countries are now also
succumbing to this tendency to run up higher deficits;

3.4.1.
Thus, progress in legal harmonisation has continued
towards completing the single market (e.g. elimination of
checks between the Member States, many new directives,
standardisation etc.), even though there are still delays 10 years
after the 1992 deadline.

C 133/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

3.4.2. Monetary union has been a reality for four years,
with 12 Member States currently belonging to the single
currency and with the introduction of euro notes and coins in
January 2002.

that

four years after the single currency was introduced. Nowadays
many parties advocate relaxing the Stability Pact to some
the countries having difficulty
extent, pointing out
complying with it, first and foremost Germany and France,
account for a large part of European GDP and that the austerity
of the Pact is hampering their growth potential. It should
nevertheless also be pointed out that during years of stronger
growth the countries concerned made little effort to prevent
this from happening.

3.4.3.
A number of common guideline instruments have
been implemented in the context of the BEPGs: the very
objective of the ‘implementation package’ which the Com-
mission presented in January was to take stock of interactions
between the various processes involved. In June 1997 the
Amsterdam Treaty provided for the European Council to draw
up annual guidelines for the Member States to take account
of in their employment policies. The Luxembourg Process
launched in November 1997 then specified the content of
these guidelines for employment. In June 1998 another process
agreed on in Cardiff provided for an annual review of structural
reform in the markets for goods, services and capital in order
to improve the functioning of the single market. In June 1999
a new process was adopted in Cologne to come up with
recommendations for a European employment pact. And
finally, at the March 2000 European summit in Lisbon, the 15
agreed on an ambitious multi-annual strategy to give new
impetus to the European single market and to carry out
economic, social and administrative reform, both at European
and at national level, with the aim of making Europe ‘the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the
world’ by the year 2010.

3.5.
The question which must therefore be asked is: Why is
it that progress towards the single market, introduction of the
euro, implementation of the BEPGs and the many convergence
and reform processes that have accompanied them have not
yet restored growth, competitiveness and employment in
Europe? There are three possible explanations:

3.5.1.
It is fair to say that, despite their merits, the broad
economic guidelines can still be criticised for approximation
and lack of focus. It is apparent in particular that the countries
of the euro zone have received more mediocre scores overall
(cf. public finances, labour market, product markets) than the
three other EU countries which are still outside the euro zone.
Of course, the intention here is not to question the benefits
brought by the euro, which the Committee has always been at
pains to point out. The point is that the euro has not yet been
backed up with a sufficiently coherent and coordinated
economic policy which is suited to this single currency. Under
these circumstances, applying a single monetary policy and
single interest rate to economies and policies which still vary
considerably creates problems. The right policy mix to go
hand in hand with the euro still has to be devised and applied,

It

is also fair to say that

3.5.2.
the broad economic
guidelines are badly implemented by the Member States. It is
very clear that progress has been somewhat offset by delays,
both in completing the single market and in national reforms.
As for the single market, the fact is that, ten years after the
1992 deadline, we still have not managed to do away with all
cases of double taxation within the Community, to put in
place a simple and definitive system of VAT, to open up —
and secure free interconnection between — energy networks
or to make any really decisive progress towards opening up
services. At the same time, there are excessive delays in the
transposition of directives into national
law. The essential
reforms planned in Lisbon to boost research and training, to
modernise the labour market through negotiation and to
ensure the balance and sustainability of social protection
systems have fallen behind schedule in many countries. These
shortfalls in implementation go a good way to explaining the
poor performance of the European economy.

3.5.3.
Lastly, it may also be argued that the broad economic
policy guidelines are still inadequate in themselves. Certainly,
one improvement from 2003 onwards will be the reform
whereby the BEPG guidelines and subsequent objectives, the
employment guidelines and measures to promote the single
market and to implement the Lisbon structural reforms will be
presented in a single package. However, this collation will
undoubtedly be inadequate if it is not accompanied by more
solidly based priorities. For example, not enough is being done
to reduce the fragmentation of the tax system, while optimising
European tax structure. The question of how attractive Europe
is for international direct investment in the face of economic
globalisation is not really addressed, even though it relates
directly to the lack of dynamism in the European economy.

4. The EESC’s priorities

The Commission has announced that it will be pre-
4.1.
senting a package of guidelines on the BEPGs in early April
2003, in addition to the employment guidelines.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/67

4.1.1. With this in mind, the Committee would highlight
one requirement for 2003: securing the conditions for a
to economic growth, upon
significant,
which other priorities depend, including social and environ-
mental priorities.

long-lasting boost

4.1.2.
Given that the BEPGs operate in a three-year time-
frame, part of this requirement will be to ensure steps are
taken to assert a common economic policy linked to the euro
and to be attentive to new support and cohesion needs after
the 10 new Member States join the EU in 2004. This calls for
a firm, active macroeconomic policy based on circular-flow
relations in the economy, which shores up confidence amongst
investors and other economic operators, thus stimulating
growth.

4.2.3.
The Committee notes that the arrangements for
implementing the Stability Pact have been at the centre of
recent months’ debates on economic issues in the Union,
particularly because of the March 2002 Barcelona Summit’s
decision to set 2004 as a deadline for restoring a balance in
public finances. This deadline was later deferred to 2006 at the
Commission’s initiative due to the economic downturn which
was causing deficits to widen. In the current climate, the
Committee advocates a realistic interpretation of the Stability
and Growth Pact, not altering the spirit of the pact — the need
to reduce deficits lies at the heart of achieving sustainable
development — but reducing the risk of negative economic
repercussions in the short term. The Committee thus rec-
ommends that:

4.1.3.
To this end, the Committee proposes three areas for
improvement: giving the broad economic guidelines a sharper
implementing them more effectively and providing
focus,
them with a more structured framework.

4.2.3.1.
the Commission issue regular reports on develop-
ments in the public finances of each Member State, and make
public any recommendations from itself or the Council
directed at a Member State which is manifestly drifting away
from the public finance criteria,

4.2. Giving the BEPGs a sharper focus

4.2.1.

The BEPG priorities in 2002 were to:

— ensure growth and stability-oriented macroeconomic

policies;

— improve the quality and sustainability of public finances;

— invigorate labour markets;

— re-ignite structural reform in product markets;

— promote the efficiency and integration of the EU financial

markets;

— encourage entrepreneurship;

— foster the knowledge-based economy; and

— enhance environmental sustainability.

The Committee believes that these various objectives
4.2.2.
from 2002 remain valid per se not only for 2003, but also for
the 2003 to 2006 period. On the other hand, the Committee
would underline that more direct emphasis should now be
placed on certain requirements which have a direct impact on
economic recovery; this concerns the implementation of the
stability pact,
fiscal harmonisation and the promotion of
innovation.

4.2.3.2. more account be taken of the ‘growth’ component
of the Stability Pact, particularly by incorporating criteria
which are complementary to the public deficit and public debt
criteria; this might concern inflation, employment, sustainable
development (retirement, health, investments), taxation and
statutory tax and social security contributions, and

4.2.3.3.
lastly, if a deterioration of the international situ-
ation — in the wake of military conflict in the Middle East —
were to warrant it, exemptions be granted from strict appli-
cation of the Pact on an exceptional, temporary basis, so as to
prevent economic problems deteriorating further in the short
term.

4.2.4.
The Committee also highlights the need to begin
coordinating economic governance more closely in order to
tie in with the euro. Since the countries of the euro zone have
the greater share of economic clout in the European Union,
and this will remain so after enlargement, setting up a properly
coordinated economic policy between these countries will
have highly positive repercussions for the European Union as
a whole. One economic policy objective should be to launch
greater fiscal harmonisation. Such harmonisation could focus
on closer alignment of tax bases and safeguard the freedom to
set rates, offsetting excessive competition by using minimal
measures and bearing in mind the need to secure an invest-
ment-friendly fiscal balance in the European Union and to
reduce the present excessively heavy tax burden on labour.

C 133/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

4.2.5.
The Committee also stresses the need to do more to
strengthen the industrial and technological fabric of businesses
in Europe — which cannot be arbitrarily separated from the
equally vital, parallel development of services — and, in so
doing, to foster the innovation process. As underlined at the
Lisbon Summit in March 2000, innovation should provide a
vital engine for economic growth in Europe. Greater synergy
should of course be created between the European framework
programme for research and national programmes. However,
steps should also be taken to encourage training, research
and innovation in businesses, inter alia by introducing tax
incentives. One particular priority for economic growth in
Europe is to prevent the best-qualified young people from
leaving Europe for other horizons on a long-term basis.

4.3. More effective implementation of the BEPGs

It is not enough merely to adopt properly focused
4.3.1.
economic guidelines, they must also — and above all — be
properly applied. This presupposes, amongst other things, an
improved structure for the Eurogroup and the Ecofin Council,
greater involvement for representatives of economic interest
groups and the social partners and additional indicators for
assessing implementation.

4.3.2.
Better implementation of the BEPGs first of all entails
improving the structure of both the Eurogroup and economic
cohesion within the euro zone; this affects twelve out of the
fifteen Member States. The Eurogroup has to become a genuine
economic government in the euro zone, backed up by the
Commission and capable of developing permanent, effective
dialogue with the European Central Bank, as is the case in the
United States with the dialogue between the executive and the
Federal Reserve. Early interest rate cuts would also help to give
the economy a boost. 2003 will be a good time to secure such
a change in the role of the Eurogroup: although the arrival of
the ten new Member States in the EU in 2004 will barely alter
the economic clout of the Euro zone relative to the enlarged
EU, in that their joint GDPs make up less than 10 % of that of
the EU as a whole, it will nonetheless tip the balance in the
ratio between the number of members and non-members of
the euro zone from the current 12:15 to 12:25.

4.3.3.
Representatives of economic interest groups and
the social partners should also be more involved in the
implementation of the new annual cycle of the EU’s economic
and social guidelines. One key element of progress is that since
the 2002 Barcelona summit, tripartite summits have been held
between the social partners and the presidents of the European
Council and the Commission on the eve of the Spring Summit.
This meeting has to constitute the culmination of more
permanent dialogue between the economic and social partners

on the one hand and the Commission, Ecofin Council and
Eurogroup and the Social Council on the other. Moreover,
such dialogue must also be developed at national level with a
view to the Spring Summit. In particular, employers’ and trade
union organisations should submit their own observations to
their national public authorities every year regarding the stage
reached in economic and social reforms, also highlighting their
initiatives and their contractual negotiations and agreements.

These national

4.3.4.
from socio-occupational
reports
associations should provide a valuable contribution to the
development of better indicators on progress in implementing
economic guidelines and reforms. Comparative benchmarking
should be introduced systematically and should cover those
indicators which allow better measurement of steps to foster
the knowledge-based economy and its contribution to boost-
ing economic growth. Finally, there should be a debate on
both good and less good — or bad — practices: a candid
assessment of the initiatives and their results is vital for making
progress towards better economic governance.

4.4.

Providing the BEPGs with a more structured framework

4.4.1.
The presentation of a synthesis report situating the
economic and social guidelines more clearly among other
Community policies
should provide an opportunity to
improve the way these Community policies are used to back
up growth policy. Three issues seem to be of priority
importance for providing the BEPGs with a sturdier framework:
completion of the single market, improved implementation
of the Lisbon reforms and successful reform of economic
governance procedures in the wake of the Convention.

4.4.2.
As regards completion of the single market, the
Committee would underline that over and above the measures
needed to ensure its upkeep and secure its final completion,
there are five or six crucial measures currently lacking and
often blocked, which, if there were the political will to do so,
would allow a major leap forward here in the short term, with
all
that this entailed for increased economic growth and
employment. While welcoming the recent compromise
the Council at last allowing adoption of the
reached at
Community patent to go ahead, the Committee would point
out that there are other shortcomings which must be remedied,
requiring inter alia the abolition of all trans-national double
taxation — making it possible to put an end to the current
hotchpotch of bilateral agreements — definitive, Europe-wide
VAT arrangements simple for everyone to use, and a European
company statute open to businesses of all sizes.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/69

4.4.3.
The Committee shares the Commission’s concerns
about delays in implementing the reforms agreed in Lisbon.
Everyone is aware of the reforms to be undertaken or furthered,
but
they are not being implemented quickly enough to
meet the Lisbon competitiveness objectives. The Committee
therefore stresses the need to speed up these reforms, which
will not be possible without considerable involvement of
socio-occupational interest groups and the social partners, as
underlined by the Committee in this opinion.

4.4.4.
In the context of these reforms, the Committee
especially underscores the need for simplified and better
quality legislation at both national and European level; it has
unceasingly stressed the urgency of this over the last few years
and has put forward specific proposals in this connection. By
freeing up resources and giving a free rein to entrepreneurship,
the simplification of regulation would also help give a
significant boost to the European economy’s growth potential,
especially encouraging rapid development of businesses of all
sizes. The Committee will continue to monitor this require-
ment steadfastly through its opinions on the various subjects
referred to it, and also because it has itself undertaken to
implement its own code of conduct for simplification.

4.4.5.
The Committee would lastly highlight the need to
give European governance in the EU more structure by
consolidating the Treaty’s procedures following the work of
the Convention. It would be especially valuable to include
provisions in the new Treaty to take account of the following
points:

Brussels, 26 March 2003.

4.4.5.1.
the European Commission’s role in the broad
economic policy guidelines should be stepped up for matters
coming under the Community’s responsibility rather than the
open method of coordination; the Commission should thus be
allowed to make proposals and not just recommendations,
thus requiring unanimity at the Council
for them to be
amended;

4.4.5.2.
the same should apply to Commission intervention
in matters relating to the Stability and Growth Pact: the
Commission’s recommendations,
including those on sanc-
tions, should in fact be proposals requiring a unanimous
decision by the Council for them to be changed;

4.4.5.3.
decisions on economic and monetary policy in the
euro zone and on euro-related problems should be taken by
euro-zone finance ministers meeting in the Ecofin Council —
notwithstanding the expansion of their own internal economic
dialogue and their dialogue with the European Central Bank as
part of the Eurogroup’s activities;

4.4.5.4.
unified, mainly through the Commission; and

external representation of

the euro should be

abandoning

4.4.5.5.
for
decisions on fiscal matters directly related to the single market
should make it possible to undertake fiscal harmonisation —
all the while leaving Member States free to set tax rates.

the unanimity

requirement

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH