The Lisbon Strategy: What is Wrong? The revised version(2005) In 2005, it would have been wise to correct this deficit between the ambitions and the means, but one must recognise that it has not been done. There were corrections but these corrections did not aim at increasing the resources. These corrections aimed at decreasing the ambitions, and, surprisingly, at reducing the means. So what has the revised version of the Lisbon Strategy brought in 2005?  Fewer objectives: the priority is from now on given to the economy. This means that the EC institutions will concentrate on policies that boost growth and employment. Social and environmental objectives are largely abandon­ed. They are now at the bottom of the priority list.  Less coordination: the European Commission had to point out member states which were successful in the reforms and those which were not successful, but even this has been given up.  Less appropriation by the EU: the member states are more than ever respon­sible for finding most of the resources. So one must wonder: where now is the added value of the European approach (Pisani-Ferry and Sapir, 2006)? We can now see, in this revised version, two contradictions. Firstly, there remains a strong discrepancy between the ambitions and the means. Secondly, it has become more difficult to convince public opinion. We want to convince people to accept difficult reforms, but at the same time we have reduced the perspectives that we offer them. In conclusion there are two problems. There is a means problem(instruments and process). If the problem is so fundamental, means should logically be increased. There is also a communication problem. A lot of people do not feel committed to a programme which has no social and environmental perspectives. This creates a communication problem. People want a positive perspective. The revision of the Lisbon Strategy has reinforced the“doom and gloom” aspect of the strategy and reduces the involvement of average citizens in the reforms. 65