A non-existent dividing line. Not long ago, I wrote that José Manuel Barroso has one skill nobody could disagree with: his tactical ability. But I'm not sure we've seen much evidence of it over the Bolkestein directive. Firstly, he supported the notion of a dividing line between the new and the old Member States, which is not quite what you'd expect from a President of the Commission. Secondly, he handed the French anti-Constitution movement an argument for their anti-European cause on a plate. I'm leaving aside all opinions on the content of the directive; clearly, everyone is entitled to think as they see fit; Frits Bolkestein was quite convinced that he was acting in Europe's best interests. But a Commission President ought perhaps to think a bit more about the knock-on effects of the stances he or she adopts.
First things first. In his speech to the “Lisbon Council” (see our bulletin of 15 March, p.9), he said that “some people (…) have not yet grasped that the Commission's role is not to protect the interests of the Fifteen against those of the new Member States. They are wrong.” This, as far as I am aware, is the first time that an institutional source had made any reference to any such split between two categories of Member States. He didn't speak of differences of opinions between any two or more countries (these are entirely understandable), but of conflicting interests between the old and the new, which isn't even true because the Netherlands, for example, are in favour of the directive, with a few tweaks here and there, and some of the new Member States have taken the opposite position. The “bloc against bloc” illustration is both inappropriate and plain wrong.
A gift to the anti-Europeans. As for the arguments against the Constitution, this is what happened in France. According to the Socialist Henri Emmanuelli, Mr Barroso's words represent “a strong refutation” to those claiming that the draft directive had fallen by the wayside: “nothing other than social dumping at home awaits us after 29 May” (date of the referendum in France) and “voting no is the only way to avoid this disastrous policy”. According to the sovereignist Philippe de Villiers, by defending the principle of country of origin, Mr Barroso is “throwing the lies of the yes movement back in their faces”. Both sides published statements to take advantage of the situation. Obviously, their arguments are wrong: the Constitution has nothing to do with this, the Bolkestein directive can be approved or rejected just as easily with the Constitution in place as without it, and it isn't the Commission's decision to take in any case: all it can do is make a proposal, the decision is up to the European Parliament and the Council, and there is such a majority building in favour of a radical revision of the draft that- as I have already written- if there is anything certain in Europe today, it's that the directive will never be adopted in the form Frits Bolkestein wrote it. But this is still no reason to provide the opponents of the Constitution with ammunition right in the middle of an election campaign.
In favour of reasonable solutions. Happily, apart from a few clumsy stances and a bit of populist rhetoric, the Institutions are carrying out their analyses so seriously that it could almost be said that never has a draft piece of Community legislation been examined and discussed in such detail, with the involvement not only of political decision-makers, but also of civil society and academic circles; the first meeting of the “ad hoc group on the Services directive” (set up within the European Parliament's committee on the internal market) has allowed yet more light to be shed on the reality and what's at stake. This group has the job not only of increasing knowledge on the dossier (which is legally and technically complicated, with ambiguous bits that need to be clarified), but also of creating dialogue with the European Commission and the Council. The Greens group proposed an alternative solution, summed up thus by group members Pierre Jonckheer and Jean-Luc Bennahmias: “withdrawal of the Bolkestein directive; framework directive to protect services of general interest (SGIs); replacement of the principle of country of origin with one favouring the host country in terms of freedom to provide commercial services; adoption of the open method of coordination rather than the legislative path to achieve gradual convergence of national instruments on freedom of establishment for service providers”. At the same time, ISUPE has relaunched the idea of a European Charter for SGIs (see our bulletin of 15 March, p.18). This is a melting pot for ideas and initiatives. Conditions appear to favour solutions which take account of the importance of services for the smooth functioning of the single market and of the guarantees needed in terms of access for all citizens to services of general interest. Any levelling off should be done upwards, not downwards. (F.R.)