‘Flexibility’ translates in many different ways

Date: 30/10/1997

WHEN the Amsterdam Treaty was finally signed at the beginning of October many EU officials rejoiced in the fact that they would not have to sit through any more interminable discussions on the definition of the term 'flexibility'.

But the word used at Amsterdam to describe the principle of allowing some member states to push ahead with the process of European integration faster than others is already causing new headaches for EU governments - this time over its application to the jobs market.

Eagle-eyed observers have spotted that while the English version of the official conclusions from the June Amsterdam summit speaks of promoting “flexible labour markets”, the term is conspicuously absent from the French text, which talks of “labour markets capable of reacting rapidly to economic developments”.

Some experts say that the differences fall well within the margins of what constitutes an acceptable translation and argue that there is no essential difference between the two versions.

But others argue that the words 'flexible' and 'flexibilité' both exist in the French language and would be appropriate in this particular case, and claim the move was a deliberate one on the part of a Paris administration unhappy with some of the more 'de-regulatory' connotations of the term.

“The French are wary of the term 'flexibility' because of its connotations with the era of Margaret Thatcher,” explained one national diplomat.

Under the former UK prime minister, in the 1980s the rallying cry of “flexible labour markets” came to be associated with the systematic dismantling of most state-run industries coupled with a massive reduction in the power and influence of trade unions.

It is clear that France's newly elected socialist government, which came to power promising no more cuts in social and employment benefits, would find it difficult to sell a European policy based on such contentious terms.

The whole situation is somewhat reminiscent of the furore which blew up around the term 'federalism' at the time of the Maastricht Treaty negotiations. On that occasion, the UK's interpretation of the disputed phrase appeared to be almost exactly the opposite to that of its EU partners.

Recent comments by Luxembourg's Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker and Foreign Minister Jacques Poos suggest that defining flexibility is likely to remain a political hot potato throughout the Grand Duchy's six-month stint at the EU helm.

“They have made it clear that flexibility should not mean de-regulation and should not be used as an argument to deprive the labour force of hard-won rights,” explained one Luxembourg diplomat.

London, however, has no problems with the term. “Flexibility, in English, is exactly what we are after,” said one national official.

UK diplomats argue that, in any case, the whole debate seems to them to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. “As you cross the linguistic border from English into French there may be a change in emphasis, but it is all the same concept,” argued one.

Earlier this decade, many Brussels old hands said very similar things about the word federalism.