The interested parties have not laid down their weapons. The first legislative battle surrounding the single market for services is over, but its champions have not yet been exhausted. This is understandable, because nothing has been settled and much has been left ambiguous. Last week in this column we left that aspect on one side, since the priority was for the Parliament to draw up its compromise and for a majority to approve it. This aim was the priority not only because of the place occupied by services in the European economy, but also so that the legislative role of the EP would be reaffirmed and European decision-making procedures would acquire more visible democratic legitimacy. This has been done, the press and the television have discussed it at some length and we can consider, in particular, that the principle that services of general interest constitute a “key aspect of the European model of society” has been fully reaffirmed.
Now that this stage has been overcome, we need to acknowledge that nothing is regulated. This is not a negative comment, but simply a warning. The interested parties are also fully aware of this, being the ones who chose the most effective tactic, in their view: stating that the compromise is a bad one and that it distances Europe from its objectives. The employers (UNICE) stated that the Parliament has taken away from the directive its capacity to create growth and employment; in the view of the Greens, the directive remains an anti-social “monster” which has simply had a few teeth extracted, and the United Left group is even more radical. In addition to this, the geographical divide between the large majority of MEPs from Central and Eastern European countries on one side and MEPs from Western Europe on the other has not been overcome; the former voted overwhelmingly against the revised directive. However, opponents from both sides know that that if the Parliament followed their lead (no simple matter, given that their positions are diametrically opposed) there would be no services directive, since the majority of the Parliament would reject in the second reading a text which diverges too far from their own. The result would be: for the “neo-liberals”, seeing the disappearance of the measures which move in the direction they favour; for the “protectionists”, leaving the matter in the hands of the legal services and ultimately in the hands of the Court of Justice, which would take its lead from the text of the Treaty, where the free provision of services figures prominently. Adieu to political primacy! But this is self-evident: from the moment the legislative procedure begins, it is logical that the parties directly affected exert themselves to obtain improvements in the direction they advocate. But they should know that radical changes are not possible without bringing about the collapse of the entire edifice.
Some aspects which remain open. The legislative procedure is clearly outlined. Charlie McCreevy has indicated that the revised Commission proposal will be ready in April, which means that the Commission will wait for the European Council of 23/24 March before developing it. The Competitiveness Council will deliberate on the basis of the Parliament text and that of the Commission, and will decide by qualified majority (although in principle it would need unanimity to distance itself from the Commission text). The Parliament will then have a right to a second reading, seemingly in the autumn, and the directive will enter into force two years later. The “services” dossier includes many other aspects, however. The specific issues of “services of general economic interest” (SGEIs) are not solved by the compromise; a possible framework directive for SGEIs is still being demanded by some Member States and political forces, although others are opposed to it. The Commission is vacillating; in its White Paper of May 2004, it planned to come back to this issue… once the Constitutional Treaty (which provides a legal basis for such a directive) came into force. The consequences of the changes introduced during the final vote in Strasbourg will also have to be looked at in depth, particularly regarding the water sector (which is not entirely excluded from the directive) and consumer protection. The attitude of the Court of Justice as regards the “country of origin principle” (which is no longer in the directive, as we know, but will not disappear from European case-law, i.e. on the free movement of goods) also throw up question marks and create concern among some MEPs.
Assessments of the economic repercussions which the Bolkestein project will have had for employment leave me baffled. The millions of extra jobs heralded strike me as little more than demagogy. I would be more tempted to think that more open competition in the sector of the liberal professions would have more significant impact. But there is so much resistance on that subject…
(F.R.)