The positive side of the Bolkestein directive. European democracy is making progress, but too many people haven't noticed yet (or are pretending not to), by finding bones to pick with Europe even when congratulations would be more appropriate. The best example of this is the draft directive on the liberalisation of services, the infamous “Bolkestein” directive. Whatever your views of its contents, we have seen the extent of the debate it has caused, which has been quite without precedent for a Community draft, and the efficient functioning of institutional procedures. European Parliament is discussing it in depth, the whole business has come up to the level of Presidents (Jacques Chirac) and the heads of government (several), the Commission (without withdrawing its proposal) has promised to clarify all its effects, representatives of civil society have spoken heatedly, we have even been treated to street demonstrations. All of this for an EU directive! And in all openness, in all possible transparency.
But the pleasure of denigrating what Europe is doing is too much for some to resist; one MEP even said- pleased with his find and the hoped-for effect of his words- that he could never vote in favour of a Constitution which made such a directive possible. Apart from the fact that the European Constitution is not yet in force and that it has nothing to do with legislative activities, this Constitution: a) recognises that SGIs (services of general interest) are an essential part of the European model of society and that they contribute to the “social and territorial cohesion of the Union”; b) clearly paves the way for a “European law” on services of general economic interest (SGEIs) and sets in stone the principle that these services should not come fully under competition rules. The Constitution reinforces, the Constitution reassures. I'm not saying it's any kind of miracle, just that the correct functioning of European institutional mechanisms has removed the risk that such an important text could become a European law almost on the sly, at expert level.
Stakes clarified. What's at stake with the draft directive has been clarified. It is recognised that services represent one of the pillars of the single market and that “freedom of movement” is applicable to them as it is to goods, capital and people, to the advantage of competition, growth and employment. But it must not legitimise “social dumping” or harm access to high-quality services of general interest for all citizens. Studies carried out or being carried out within the institutions and other bodies (especially the association “Confrontations Europe”) prove that the questions to be answered and conditions to be respected are extremely numerous and complex. Our bulletin sums these up regularly; it would be a long list indeed if I had to quote all the articles published on this subject; I will restrict myself to three comments.
1. There are a few exaggerations and a dose of populism needed to establish a link between the advantages to the European economy of service liberalisation and statistics on the weight of these very services in GDP and employment terms in the EU. In reality, a good chunk of services are and will remain national. You don't go abroad to find someone to fix your car or your telly, to wash and iron your laundry, for an injection or to get your hair cut. You look for someone in your own town, preferably someone local. If there is a lack of nurses, taxi drivers or cobblers in one town, you can recruit some from another Member State; but this comes under free movement of workers or, for freelances, right of establishment, and this has nothing to do with freedom to provide services. Furthermore, certain professions are already regulated at European level, and the case of temporary secondment of salaried workers (in construction or other) already comes under an ad hoc Community directive, the objective of which is at the opposite end of the scale to the “principle of country of origin” which Mr Bolkestein took as the basis for his draft.
2. It is very important for businesses to have competitive, high-quality services (telecommunications, energy, banking services etc), but this does not depend on the Bolkestein directive.
3. The debate brought about by Mr Bolkestein's initiative is most definitely useful and positive, because it gave a new dimension to discussions on services of general interest and helps to improve our understanding of an essential part of the European model of society, by helping the citizen to understand better the extent to which European activity directly affects his or her working conditions and daily life, and influences the standards of living of his or her family, the quality of his or her children's education, healthcare.
(F.R.)