A rare event. It's rare for a European Commissioner to become the specific target of a popular demonstration. This happened to Frits Bolkestein last Saturday. Six Belgian political parties, Belgian unionists affiliated to various European confederations, the country's main mutual benefit associations and many NGOs arranged a demo against the "Bolkestein directive", which aims to liberalise services in the European Union. Some 5,000 demonstrators took part.
This event confirms that the political and social forces, and also public opinion, understand the importance and significance of Community activity. The EU is not seen as an abstract entity, far removed from the daily interests of the citizens: people are starting to realise that European politicians largely determine their everyday life. The day will come when the average voter will understand this too, and the election of the European Parliament will mobilise political forces and the crowds just as much as a national election campaign. Its is true that for the time being, it's mainly protests that have been heard: people march against Europe more often than to express their enthusiasm for it. The reason is quite simple: the discontented are the ones who demonstrate. If agriculture is still alive and kicking in Europe, we owe this to the EU; but farmers take to the streets when some of their advantages, however excessive or unjustified, are taken away, and not when the European Summit guarantees the financial support of the EU until 2013. European funding (Commission subsidies, EIB loans) make large transport infrastructures possible, but the only public displays are in protest at delays (which, in reality, are national). People (wrongly) accuse the euro of pushing prices up, and only the experts know that the euro has protected Europe from the financial crises of recent years, and has helped to keep oil prices under control; but as we know, experts don't march.
The responsibility to decide. I could go on with this list, but I'd rather return to the "services" affair. The Bolkestein directive is just a draft. The Commission proposed it, but the decision belongs to the Council (i.e. the governments) and the European Parliament; therefore, it depends on the voting citizens. If the citizens were fully aware, in this case as in others, of the value of their vote, the turnout for the European elections would be over 80%.
That said, we must try to understand why the Bolkestein draft has proved so inflammatory. In the European Parliament, for example, Belgian Socialist Jean-Maurice Dehousse voted a motion of censure against the Commission because of this draft, saying it was "impossible for a left-winger to trust a Commission which proposes a directive such as the Bolkestein one, which puts public services in danger of their life". According to Green MEP Pierre Jonckheer, "it is clear that this directive could open all types of service up to competition, including education, health...". On the other side, during a radio interview, Mr Bolkestein's spokesperson, Jonathan Todd, accused various Belgian unions of spreading lies about the draft in question, which, predictably, provoked strong reactions.
My impression is that there's a kind of "ideological war" going on, reminiscent of the situation in the 1990s on public services, when any dialogue between the opposing forces was impossible in practice. In that situation, a decade was needed to clarify what was at stake and to look into all the possibilities for compromise (see this column of 28 and 29 May). Here, the points of departure are just as far apart. Frits Bolkestein's objective is to extend the reality of the single market to the field of services, which now represents a priority chunk of employment and GDP in the Union. In principle, the Brussels Summit of 25 and 26 March agreed. Point 19 of the "conclusions" of this Summit (the chapter of "Completion of the Internal Market") says: "in the sector of services, which remains highly fragmented, increased competition is needed to improve efficiency, boost production and employment and to serve the consumers' best interests. Examining the draft directive on services and keeping to the envisaged timetable must be absolute priorities". The "Competitiveness" Council, accordingly, began examining.
It appears that the above-mentioned firm opposition and the differences of opinion which sprang up in various Council bodies do not relate to the principle of bringing single market rules into this field per se, but to various specific and essential aspects of the draft, on the categories of service to be liberalised, the risk of "social dumping", healthcare, etc. Painstaking work to clarify all of this is indispensable, as changes to the current draft will no doubt also prove. This is the job of the Council and the Parliament, using the "Community method". I will return to this tomorrow.
(F.R.)