Democratic turning point. The upcoming votes at the European Parliament on the Services Directive and the REACH chemicals regulation are a turning point for democracy in the European Union. If the result of the votes is positive, the European Parliament will not only win amendments in draft legislation and impose some of its views as co-legislator, but it will also define in practice the compromises that make the existence of EU legislation possible in crucially important areas. The European Parliament has already been decisive on other occasions, over planned merger legislation for example, but it was opposed to that legislation. The fact it did not endorse the legislation led to the end of the Commission's proposal and the Council's 'common position' and paved the way a few years later for legislation taking a different approach. This time, the Parliament itself played the role of legislator, arbitrating between opposed positions and trying to reconcile contradictory interests.
The result of this long, patient work does not appeal to all, of course. It is logical for the chemical industry to feel that some of the planned rules are too strict and binding and it was predictable that defenders of the environment would want even tighter constraints. As for services, it was clear that ultra-liberal, free-market thinkers would prefer the initial Bolkestein Directive, while some defenders of public services would feel that the European Parliament's compromise went too far in the direction of opening up the market. But this is the role of politics - to make a synthesis of the interests at hand and define the general interest - listening to everyone's views, taking account of them and actually deciding at the end of the day. This is the justification for political power and the existence of the Parliament.
More to it than left and right. The above does not mean that it is possible to agree on legislation that will have unanimous support. In domains of this nature, compromises are indispensable for reaching a majority, but nothing lasts for ever and majorities can change. Every five years, citizens are asked to vote in a new Parliament. The deliberations over REACH and the services directive may help people understand that it is important for them to take part in EU elections and that there's no point protesting at a later date if one decides to go fishing on election day rather than voting.
Moreover, for REACH and the services directive, there is more to matters than simply divisions between left and right. On the relevant parliamentary committee, the report of Socialist Guido Sacconi on REACH won the support of British Tory MEPs, particularly the controversial issue of compulsory replacement of hazardous chemicals (see Aminata Niang's report in EUROPE 9283 for details of the vote). For the opening up of services, it is well known that the fault lines lie between groups of states rather than political forces.
The priority. Readers will have noticed that I have avoided expressing any preference among the various options available. This is not my theme for today - I am focussing on the requirement to respect democratic rules. After the votes, each political force will stick to its convictions and continue to fight for them. But the immediate objective is to ensure that EU regulations exist, which does not only mean reaching compromises at the European Parliament, but also striking agreement with the Council. For the draft REACH legislation, the plenary vote is still open and the final negotiations with the Council will not be a simple matter. The Council will have to make the effort to accept various options selected by the MEPs. For the services directive, the EP will have to stick to the current draft as much as possible because it has already won a lot and the Commission and Council have taken ample account of its views.
In both cases, the stakes are crucial. Without the REACH regulation, Europe will not have any special legislation to force the chemicals industry to take account of environmental protection and the health of citizens, despite broad consensus on the matter. Without a services directive, there would be deadlock again in a field where Europe has made progress unimaginable only a little while ago since the field is now recognised as one of the pillars of the European model of society. The significance of universal service and the need to protect it have been recognised, along with the need to introduce efficiency and competition in areas where structures are arthritic in parts. Much more progress needs to be made, but deadlock must be avoided right now. And this is the European Parliament's current responsibility.
(F.R.)