Two good reasons for approving the revised “services” directive

Expressing my wishes that the European Parliament approved the compromise submitted to it for completing the Bolkestein directive (see this section yesterday), I was aware that the political forces who regard this text as one that goes against the rights of workers and social balance, will fight till the end for its total rejection. But this is very much a minority position. The most important revisions to the initial draft have allowed for the elimination or correction of aspects that would have effectively threatened certain social rights. The compromise explains that the directive on the detachment of workers (which will impose the laws and rules of the host country on detached workers) and the sectoral directives (gas, electricity, transport) focus on the opening up to competition of activities, while activities related to social protection (including social housing) are, with several other sectors, excluded from the directive.

Philippe Herzog says “yes”. Not being an expert, I considered that the approval of Evelyne Gebhardt guarantees that workers' rights have been safeguarded. On the eve of the vote, an additional factor came into play: the position taken by Philippe Herzog. At the beginning of the week when I pointed to the essential role played by Herzog as an MEP and in the clarification of the stakes at play in the definition of the basic principles maintained by the Parliament, I didn't yet know that, as president of the “Confrontations Europe” association, he would support the compromise with such characteristic clarity and lack of ambiguity (see yesterday's bulletin). He initially pointed out the economic stakes at play: the absence of the single services market “creates a shortfall in terms of growth and competitiveness, which only makes Europe increasingly lag behind its competitors”. He then indicated that the compromise on the table safeguards the essential: it sets out the principle of freedom of access but leaves it up to the host country “to decide on imposing justifiable rules” by avoiding “unbridled competition” that the principle of “country of origin” would have created. This compromise also excludes competition from all services that work in the area of social protection, social housing, pharmacies, services for children, culture and socially significant SGEIs. This is why Philippe Herzog concluded by affirming that he would vote for the compromise as it provided the necessary openings for the creation of a single services market, while ruling out the principle of the country of origin and leaving the door open to the elaboration of common regulation principles. Tuesday's debate in Strasbourg indicates that several political forces are going in the same direction (even those whose first option was rejecting the directive) and we have seen that among the demonstrators in the streets of Strasbourg, this orientation was winning ground.

Re-establishing the constitutional aquis. Another consideration in my opinion justifies approval: the directive in its revised form reintroduces, as far as is possible, the acquis of the constitutional treaty. Without any doubt a constitutional text would have a different weight and a different legal solidity. Article III-6 of the Constitution states that, taking into account the role that Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) play in “the promotion of social and territorial cohesion”, the Union and its Member States “will ensure that these services function on the basis of principles and in conditions, notably economic and financial, that enable them to accomplish their mission”. Article III/55 explains that, “companies in charge of managing SGEI…are subject to the provisions of the Constitution, notably its rules on competition, insofar as application of these rules do not hinder the accomplishment 'legally or in effect', of the particular mission imparted to them”. It is therefore clear that the rules of competition apply when they do not obstruct accomplishment of “legally or in effect” the missions of public service. Why have so many French people understood the opposite of this? It's simple: because they got it wrong, because they were lied to. I saw and heard it with my own eyes and ears Olivier Besancenot, prophet of the “no to the Constitution, quote Article III/55 and solemnly halt at the words “rules of competition” as if they had a point to them but avoided reading what followed and what is essential. He's a cheat. Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for competition, observed that the “no” to the constitutional treaty had “got rid of the legal basis on which it would have been able to establish a legal text for public services” and Philippe Brochet of the University of Paris X explained that the blockage on the Constitutional treaty had led to “a significant shortfall in the recognition and organisation of services of general interest in the EU”.