I am probably going to make a number of readers shudder, but I think that, no matter what eventually comes from the debate on Tuesday and Thursday's vote in the European Parliament on the “Bolkestein Directive”, what is happening is a victory for European democracy. A complicated and in part abstruse proposal put forward by the previous Commission in a climate of general indifference later provoking one of the fiercest and most open debates that Europe has ever known, with impassioned public opinion being mobilised. A confrontation of opposing sides allowing all the implications to be worked out, thanks to the involvement of specialists from all areas concerned. Difficult negotiations that allowed, through reciprocal concessions, a compromise to be reached which could lead to a text that has broad support. The formal undertaking of the Commission to amend the project it had inherited, based on the European Parliament decision. The Council awaiting the outcome of the Parliamentary debate and the Commission's revised proposal to begin its deliberations. It is all an example of what, in my opinion, European democracy means.
Two essential principles that must be safeguarded. Reality, however, is not completely idyllic. There will be demonstrations in the streets to try to influence, even to disrupt, the majority decision of the Parliament. National debates, which sometimes have no relation to the contents of the text, will sweep into Strasbourg. Despite the efforts of the two main political groups to find a compromise, opposition on principle will still remain. Some call for the total rejection of the project, stating that the amendments still leave negative elements. Others, on the opposite side of the debate wanting full opening of markets, fear that too much will have been conceded. But there cannot be a solution that is totally acceptable to the opposing sides of the argument. If a decision is to be reached, compromises which safeguard the essential points have to be accepted. What are the essential points? In my opinion, there are two:
the recognition that services of general public interest, “public services” in French terminology, are one of the pillars of the European social model, implying the right of all the citizens wherever they may be in Europe to have good quality services at reasonable prices. Let those who claim that these are just banal, self-evident statements go tell that to the billions of men and women throughout the world who do not have access to drinkable water, to electricity or to healthcare.
the recognition that it is the right of Member States to subsidise the service providers in question insofar as is necessary for them to fulfil their role. This right has been recognised by the Court of Justice, which has said explicitly that the subsidies in question do not constitute State aid.
From Philippe Herzog to Evelybe Gebhardt. It took two decades of European political battles for these two principles to be confirmed. At the start of the long march, inspired by Jacques Delors and Karel van Miert, the very notion of the services in question was incomprehensible in some Member States. And at this time when compromises are being found, I believe that two names at least should be mentioned from among the MEPs who have helped clarify the issues and make possible this fundamental debate. The first is Philippe Herzog, who, in the previous legislature, helped define the basic principles recognised today and had them accepted by vote. Before leaving the Parliament, he stressed that the task had not been completed and the objectives for which he had fought had not been achieved, in particular the principle of a horizontal Community directive covering services of general economic interest (SGEI) as a whole had not been reached. But the foundations had been laid. The second name is that of Evelyne Gebhardt who was patient and stubborn and lucid enough to draw up the final compromise proposals, and especially politically brave enough to defend certain points which, for her political group, were concessions.
If the Parliament wants to count … Those who want to get rid of the Directive completely and those who want it to be retained exactly as Mr Bolkestein had framed it have to admit that there is a majority in the EP which is for neither one exteme nor the other. Everyone has the opportunity to argue his/her convictions right up until the last minute, but with the political balance as it is at the moment, only compromise can let Parliament influence the next phase of Community procedure, up to the final decision.
(F.R.)