The way the European Parliament debated, amended and endorsed the services directive confirmed that we are in the presence of an encouraging example of European democracy in action (see my column in issue 9130). It is understandable that until the last moment, every MEP fought to defend measures they approved of, but at the end of the day, the big political parties felt a reasonably balanced solution (imaginative too, and we have Eveylne Gebhardt and Malcolm Harbour to thank for that) had been respected, mid-way between liberalisation and the demand for social legislation to be preserved. Nothing has yet been definitively decided yet because the legislative process is continuing, but there are immeasurable positive effects both in terms of saving the European model of society and gradual rebirth of trust in Europe. But ambiguity, sometimes serious ambiguity, remains.
1) The Bolkestein Directive is no more, given the innovations in the revised text. This is not about defining terms but about genuine substance because the Bolkestein Directive (the old name) was almost the symbol of an anti-social European Union going hell for leather for the unfettered free market. The current text will allow, within certain limits, a common market in services to be established and for the universal nature of services of general interest to be retained, along with public funding of them, to the extent necessary for them to fulfil their mission. The constitutional treaty would provide greater solemnity and detail (see my column in issue 9132), but the directive, its 'recitals', its exceptions to the free market rule and the accompanying EP resolution are a partial solution to the deadlock over the constitution.
2) Parliament has consolidated its legislative role. In the remainder of the legislative process before the directive is finally adopted, the European Commission and the Council will now be able to take full account of the EP's vote. If the EP's amendments are accepted in their current form by the Commission and approved by the Council, the directive will automatically be approved in the form in which the European Parliament voted upon it. But we should not have any illusions. The Commission has pledged to use the European Parliament text as the basis of its review. This was confirmed by Jose Manuel Barroso, pointing out that the Commission would support all aspects supported by a large majority at the EP. More prudently, Charlie McGreevy (who some MEPs fear wants to see wider liberalisation) said the EP text is a 'solid basis for moving on', adding that the Commission's modifications would be based on the EP vote. At the Council, there is a wide range of opinion, but the Member States which want a services directive can only support the EP compromise, because in second reading, the EP would reject a text too far removed from its own, which would mean the end of the services directive. This puts the EP at the centre of the EU's decision-making process on a crucial issue.
3) The debate did not play to the audience. This outcome was possible because of the positive and constructive behaviour of the political parties. With a few exceptions, the debate did not play to the audience. No political parties could get all its initial demands accepted, so most agreed to give something up to ensure a solid majority. The attitude of a few political parties and national sub-groups, however, requires more detailed analysis - I will be returning to this.
4) Trade union wisdom and maturity. Democracy is not limited to parliaments. Most trade unions, led by the ETUC and its Secretary General, John Monks, believed the changes to Bolkestein's draft directive were sufficient to make it important to register them. But UNICE, representing European employers, slammed the European Parliament compromise for removing from the directive most of the capacity for creating jobs and growth. I think that rather than being a rejection, this is a tactic to win other concessions in the remainder of the legislative process. The same attitude is being taken by various left MEPs who voted against the compromise to win more progress (in the other direction).
5) What remains open. To my general comments, I should add that a) the adopted compromise leaves a series of ambiguities opening the door to an avalanche of cases at the Court of Justice; b) there is ample room for interpretation by Member States over various aspects of the text; c) the economic repercussions have, in my view, been hugely exaggerated; and d) the services issue is far from over.
Ample food for thought for future comments.
(F.R.)