Differences will persist. The debate on the relaunch of the European single market is getting to heart of the matter. At the European Commission the clash of ideas has, on certain aspects, been quite heated and it promises to be likewise at the European Parliament and within the different organisations and associations defending a variety of often contradictory interests. The four months in which the different interested parties are invited to respond to the Commission document (see this column yesterday) will bring, at the same time, both clarity and confirmation of the differences. The Commission will have to make certain choices and outline certain possible compromises. The debate will then involve the member states in the practical implementation of the measures envisaged. The stakes at play are so high that we cannot but believe in a positive outcome, involving progress on a comparable level to that currently being accomplished in Europe in the area of monetary affairs and economic governance.
Avoiding a debate on doctrine. The debate essentially focuses on the balance between freeing up the market and free competition, on the one hand, and limits on certain prerogatives held by member states and the public authorities, on the other. In practice, we have been debating these matters since the birth of the Community. This debate has accompanied the entire history of the common market because it involves political and economic forces and even public opinion at the time of the polemic surrounding the Bolkestine directive. This polemic had a significant effect (even though it was partly unjustified, with the denunciation of the non-existent danger of the Polish plumber) on why the constitutional treaty partially failed. We now have to avoid another theoretical or doctrinal debate, which would lead us down a blind alley. The differences, however, linked to different traditions, national mindsets and history, will inevitably affect what orientations are decided upon and which measures should be planned.
Divergences we are aware of. Some divergences are well-known and involve, for example, the status of the public services of general economic interest; the level of reciprocity in access to national public markets; and European technical standards. Other aspects are of a more general nature: industrial policy (whose very principle has been contested by certain member states for a long time); the explicit reference to a “social clause”; and aspects of tax policy which can, or which must, be harmonised. In practice, to what extent can the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital be left to the free initiative of the member states? To what extent should it be regulated?
These are not questions to which the consultation document can comprehensively and definitively respond. The title of the Commission document sums up the efforts of conciliation and outlines the objective of a social market economy. It also adds that this social market economy must be highly competitive. Michel Barnier had stressed the demand for the adjective social to be included in the title and explained to the press that it is impossible to “pursue European integration without the citizens”.
A clear adviser. His special adviser, Philippe Herzog, was even more explicit and stated that “if we do not bring the single market closer to the citizens, it is going to disintegrate. Consolidating the common economic area is good for jobs and citizens”. Given that he is not beholden by any duty of discretion, as imposed on civil servants, Mr Herzog recognises (interview with Jean Quatremer) that the task is still a difficult one and he admits that divergences exist at the Commission: “developing the social dimension in the Community area is a long-term political battle… DG Competition or the directorate general in charge of economic and monetary affairs have not changed their doctrine and resistance may therefore be forthcoming”. Everyone, in fact, has their own responsibilities; those responsible for competition must ensure that this is fair and take action in this connection. Responsibility for decision-making will be up to the Commission, and as a last resort, the European Court of Justice. Mr Herzog has not been slow in highlighting a number of his orientations on a few sensitive subjects such as, for example the significance of public services of general interest and maintaining them; opportunities for attempting to ensure that company restructuring, even at the level of multinationals, is always preceded by a social dialogue. He even took position on a number of current issues such as the European Commission's failure to approve a document, which had already been prepared, on European Union space policy.
Mr Herzog did say, however, that he was aware of the necessity for “mutual concessions inspired by a common will to achieve reform” (see this column yesterday). This is not the line taken by certain political forces (including some of those at the EP) or some pressure groups, which are sticking to their positions. This is quite normal because everyone seeks to maximise the profile and resoluteness of their convictions.
At some stage, the Commission will have to reach a decision and outline the possible solutions.
(F.R./transl.fl)