An inescapable dossier. The signs are all there: the services of general interest (SGI) dossier is currently at the centre of European current affairs. It has become unavoidable within reflections on the European model of society, on the completion of the great single market without borders, on the liberalisation of services, the Lisbon Strategy, and certain political forces have even made it into an issue in the ratification of the Constitution. I feel that this last aspect is unjustified. Those who claim that the Constitution will endanger the continuity of public services are superficial or ill-informed: I believe that the opposite is true. The Constitution reinforces, and thus reaffirms, the significance of the SGIs for the European model of society, and paves the way for an ad hoc piece of European legislation in their favour. Of course, the Constitution does not lay down the content of this legislation; that will be established under the procedures of European democracy, and all will therefore come down to the results of future elections.
Now that that point's cleared up, all of the rest is still under discussion. And, as always, the further we go into the discussion the better for Europe, because what's at stake becomes clearer, the rhetoric gets left behind, and compromises which reflect the general interest start to get sketched out. However, we mustn't kid ourselves: there will be no definite decisions for several years. This is not to say that nothing will happen until then; life goes on: SGIs must be safeguarded, and at the same time, the single market must be completed. Sectorial or partial measures will be taken, but they must neither mortgage the future nor set doctrine in stone. It has taken ten years of analysis and compromises to establish a sound conceptual and legal basis, on most of which agreement exists, and we now have the framework for action, either within the European Parliament, within the services of the Commission, within local and regional powers (which are aware that one of their essential responsibilities, the provision of services of general interest to the citizen, is at stake) and elsewhere. Philippe Herzog's organisation, "Confrontations/Europe", will continue to play an essential part by offering all concerned the opportunity for their positions to meet head on and be discussed.
Beyond extreme positions. In this context, the first development to be highlighted is the fact that two extreme positions have now been left behind- rejection out of hand or unconditional support- to the "liberalisation of services" directive proposed by the Commission, which is known as the "Bolkestein directive" for its originator. Today, everyone agrees that services are a constituent part of the four areas of freedom of movement, which are the basis of the greater single market without borders (persons, goods, capital and services), and that the internal market cannot be considered complete until these, too, are liberalised. But a special regime must be reserved for SGIs, and this cannot simply take the form of temporary derogations (as provided for by Frits Bolkestein). On this, the hearing held last week by the competent committee of the European Parliament (see our bulletin of 13 November, p.15) confirmed just how much opinions differ; one only needs compare the positions of EuroCommerce and the European Confederation of Trade Unions, ETUC, to see this. The ETUC has made it into a deeply political issue: it feels that as it stands, the Bolkestein draft threatens social cohesion in Europe, and the impact analysis of measures proposed is neither a serious piece of work nor a correct one. Open the markets up, fine, but without destroying SGIs and the concept of society which underlies them. The idea of applying the country of origin rules to the provision of services abroad was not only rejected by the workers' representatives, but it was also partly demolished by legal professionals and politicians. As well as the minutes of the meeting, which are nicely to the point, I refer you to our bulletins of 10 November, page 15, and of 11 November, page 13, for a few telling examples of opposing points of view.
Time for thought. A second comment I would make is that the speedy adoption of the Bolkestein directive has been ruled out. Positions within the Council differ on various essential points, and the European Parliament will need months to approve all its modifications. I would advise you not to take too much notice of the statistics indicating that the services sector generates between 50 and 70% of Union GDP and makes a 60-70% contribution to employment. We must not deduce from these figures that the liberalisation of services may lead to a boom in intra-Community trade, similar to what happened with goods. Sectors which use much labour and generate much GDP, such as education or health, will in any case remain national, and if your telly's broken or you've got a leaky tap, you're more likely to call your local repair man than look for one in another country.
I can't reproduce the entire debate here, but our "European Library" will sum up Philippe Herzog's "Quand l'Europe s'ouvre aux services publics" (When Europe Opens up to Public Services), and the letter by "Confrontations Europe" in which André Ferron takes stock. (F.R.)