Why?

The roots of this EU 2020 strategy can be traced back to the year 2000, when EU leaders convened in the Portuguese capital to launch an ambitious ten-year plan with grand targets: The Lisbon Strategy. By 2010, it was said, the EU should be "the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion and respect for the environment".

Despite the obvious hampering effects of the financial crisis, we can today safely conclude that these targets were far from being met - even despite the fact that this Lisbon Strategy of 2000 was re-launched five years later due to a perceived lack of initial progress. As a corollary, it is therefore equally safe to conclude that on the whole, the Strategy was not particularly successful - or, to put it a bit more bluntly in the words of ELDR President Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck "we should agree on one thing when it comes to the Lisbon Strategy: it was a dismal failure".

This is though not the same as saying that it lacked glimmers of hope altogether. Some Member States did very well indeed; making good progress and doing their utmost to reach most of the set targets; but they unfortunately constituted forerunners rather than the average.

This ushers into a number of unfortunate effects. To mention only a few; the EU is still not where it should be in terms of investment in research and development (R&D). The Union is still spending way too much on agriculture through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). And although it has made some steps towards becoming greener, the negotiations of the UNPCC in Copenhagen in late 2009 proved that we still have a long way to go.

The latest state of play

Despite these setbacks, the European Commission does not seem deterred. Scanning through its first proper communication on the EU 2020 Strategy that was unveiled yesterday (3 March), and which follows on from a comprehensive round of public consultation, it seems clear that the two strategies are still closely interlinked and constructed via the same formula.

They are both constructed around ten-year plans. They both have ambitious targets. And the same process of peer pressure, where underachievers should feel obliged to change their behaviour once confronted with their poor statistics, still seem to be part and parcel of the idea of the EU 2020 - with the slight alteration of now rather referring to "the Member States having full ownership of the Strategy" than to a method of open coordination. So what is new? Why would things be different this time?

One of the main lessons for the EU from the Lisbon Strategy should be that initial progress is important even though the targets feel distant. Given the vast challenges confronting the EU in the coming decade, one could indeed hope that the EU would manage to get off to a jump start on this and thus refrain from mirroring the Lisbon habits of re-launching because of lacking initial interest. So what is the next step in the realisation of this?

Liberal Prime Ministers' Lunch & European Union Summit, Brussels, 25-26 March.

- This is when EU Leaders are to convene in Brussels on the first major Summit of the year, with the EU 2020 Strategy as one of the primary items on the agenda.

In due tradition, ELDR also host its Liberal Lunch Summit in conjunction with the European Council, convening prominent liberal stakeholders ahead of the summit to discuss the items on the agenda and streamline a coherent, liberal voice for the Summit.

Will the Strategy be adopted already here? - Most likely not. Although thorough discussions are foreseen, an adoption is still expected to linger until the next summit, which takes place in June. Therefore, preparations and discussions should also continue until then. In order to get things up and running, there is though every reason to hope that this March Summit together with the follow up of the Commission's communication will produce the kick-off Europe needs.

What do the liberals want?

For European Liberals; the need for Europe to improve on efficiency, competitiveness and sustainable development over the coming decade can hardly be exaggerated - and are equally relevant for the external and the internal dimension.

For examples of the former, we need to look no further than the quick rise of the emerging markets and the arising potential competition from the so called 'BRIC' countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) to realize that Europe constantly needs to develop to maintain its current standards of living.  For the latter, we are facing the constant decline in birth rates across the Union leading to heavily imbalanced demographic structures tied together by a difficult equation - that of an ever diminishing ratio of people in active working life compared to those outside of the labour market.

A good example of this is Europe's relative position in the world in 1950 compared to today. Sixty years ago, 15 % of the population and 28 % of the share of global GDP was in Europe. Currently, the corresponding figures are 7 % and 21 % respectively, due to further decline.

For European Liberals, two things are therefore crystal clear: we urgently need to improve. And we cannot afford ten more years of political and economic stalemate. This is also why we follow the development of another ten-year plan with apparent similarities to the former one with caution and emphasise three priorities that we would like to see the leaders of the EU heralding:

1.     This strategy needs proper preparations before we throw ourselves into it - and the targets need to be feasible for our Member States.

-  It is evident that the Commission should be visionary in setting bold targets, so that significant change can be reached by 2020. But real progress in results should be prioritized to bombastic targets that draw media interest.

What the EU does not need is another intensely launched Strategy that raises the hopes of European citizens only to then fail to deliver. More than anything that leads to an unfortunate downturn in the EU's credibility among its citizens. We cannot have a habit of promising things that are far from realization.

Therefore, the EU should refrain from putting in place overly ambitious general targets in absolute numbers that all countries have to reach. In a cooperation of twenty-seven, a one-size-fits-all policy rarely works smoothly. All Member States have different starting positions, which is why progress needs to be measured and judged in relation to these. These targets need to be ambitious, but enforced together with, rather than imposed on, the Member States.

It is the belief of the European Liberals that getting every member on board is vital for success and to reach beyond an approach of merely finding the lowest common denominator.

2.     The Commission should play a better role in the monitoring of development.

- It is difficult to see how more of the same could significantly contribute to the badly needed improvement of the results. While it is vital that the Member States are integrated into the process - it is clear that the procedure of peer pressure didn't work as well as the EU would have needed for the Lisbon Strategy to be successful.

If the choice is to go for another ten-year strive, some things need to change. Therefore, it is regrettable that the Commission still acknowledges the European Council to have full ownership of the process.

As stated, all members undoubtedly need to be brought on board for the initiative to work. But equipping the Commission with increased and concrete sticks and carrots to use whenever it notices a too large deviation from the set targets should increase the chances for the total output to reach the goals substantially.

A larger role for the Commission would also ensure a possibility for coherent follow-up of the Strategy. The first major follow-ups of the progress could then be made in 2012 and 2014, at the half-way mark and full mandate of the current Commission.

3.     Whatever the format, we need to shy away from protectionist and nationalist instincts.

- The current financial crisis has had negative effects for the lives of many European citizens. One of its few positive sides is that it has given the status quo a good wake-up call.

Not since the aftermath of World War II and the creation of the so called 'Bretton Woods system' in 1944 has the world been so open to new ideas and models for economic and political governance. We should make the best of it. For European Liberals, this implies the following:

a)    Following World War II, the establishment of a European Single Market for goods, people and services has been one of the cornerstones of European prosperity. It is important that we safeguard and expand this concept as much as we can - especially in these times of economic hardship.

b)    It is perhaps understandable that these tough circumstances give some people instincts of protectionism and nationalism. This is however not the path to follow. What today's globalized world needs is more, rather than less cross-border cooperation.

Therefore: whatever the format; whether we are going for ten-year plans along the lines of the Lisbon Strategy or something else, we need to make sure that members of the European Union already in the medium term obtain maximum synergy effects from the cooperation, benefiting from an internal market of over 500 million citizens and a total GDP level above that of the US as well as Russia.

To do that, Europe needs to work coherently and efficiently. Over the coming decade; the EU needs to further strengthen its global profile and raise its voice. Properly handled, the EU 2020 can be a part of that puzzle. But it cannot be pursued in isolation to other projects nor spiced with the same sorts of sprawling, narrow-minded pet projects that were detrimental to the Lisbon Strategy.

The EU simply cannot afford another Lisbon. Put simply, therefore: it is high time to leave the kindergarten mentality behind and instead focus on getting Europe properly equipped for the 21^st century.