European Innovation

Here is an editorial of mine published in this week’s European Voice, a first reaction to plans of imposing sanctions on economic non-performance. In a nutshell, my argument is that countries that don’t grow and that have high unemployment don’t need punishment from Brussels, as they are already punishing themselves (see Spain with 19% unemployment or Greece teetering on the brink of fiscal ruin). Building a domestic consensus – and a broad understanding – of the need for change is the best way forward for reforms, a process which Brussels can certainly underpin and support but can never unilaterally impose.

Read the editorial here

Author :


    New jobs begin with innovative pebble droppers, people making waves and wakes, the entrepreneurs who start business ventures. The “soil” must nurture them, not discourage them. Pebble droppers must be saved and admired for the service they provide. Instead, they are envied by the few, taxed and punished by government whose only purpose is to protect all people against injustice. SAVE PEBBLE DROPPERS & PROSPERITY defines a pebble dropper and the environment that is best to encourage their success. Today’s politicians are dismantling the American ideal of a prosperous, free nation. The 2008 election did seek “change,” but made community interests superior to individual interests. What has happened to the voices who believe in the importance of the individual? That is why America differs from the rest of the world. If “change” is inevitable, will we lose that which sets us apart from the Old World.

  2. How about communicating and debating EU2020 in the first place?

    Ann, I agree with all your points.

    I am also surprised that:
    a) Barroso held his cards so close to his chest since the EP elections, apart from the policy guidelines issued in Septembre. Which few media have commented upon, apart from eg EurActiv on its EU priorities section )
    b) various directorates general from the Commission have been discouraged from communicating on these topics, between June and now. Out of worry to take clear positions before the hearings?
    But the lack of debate at national level was one of the pitfalls of the Lisbon Agenda, should one not learn from this?
    c) there was not debate on the name itself. Two workshops held by Fondation EurActiv have shown that many alternatives were thinkable:
    and indeed ‘la messe n’est pas dite’ on this point

    Unless a major debating and communication effort is launched in the coming months, EU2020 or the Madrid agenda – whatever it is called – will not bring the surge of innovation in policies and businesses that Europe requires.

    Christophe Leclercq

Comments are closed.