Double political success. Reading in our bulletins about the often contradictory reactions of MEPs to the services directive as it was definitively voted on, some readers still appear disconcerted. Should the final result be considered as a shattering European Parliament success, as affirmed by the three main political groups, or as a bad result, as declared by other groups and some MEPs speaking in a personal capacity?
There are no contradictions, rather a misunderstanding that needs correcting. The compromise attained on this extremely controversial directive (some observers said that it had been on of the main causes of the no vote in the French referendum on the Constitutional Treaty) effectively represents a great success at the EP, which has definitively asserted itself as a legislator. We were able to see that it is not simply a matter of saying yes or no to the European Commission's proposal and the Council's “common positions” but that it is itself also able to define texts allowing for a conciliation of positions that are at the outset opposed to each other. The draft initially proposed by Mr Bolkestein could have quite simply been rejected. The majority of parliamentarians, however, from Member States are convinced that in principle, the free movement of services is useful to the effective functioning of the wider market without borders and can contribute to economic expansion. The EP therefore considered it preferable to amend the initial draft by defining, despite the divergences, the compromises which finally got majority support at parliament. It also, above al,l succeeded in imposing this text, for the most part, at the European Commission (despite some reticence on certain aspects) and at the Council.
It is therefore a double political success: providing Europe with a text that is generally regarded as being useful to the European economy and consolidating the democratic character of the Community's institutional method. Public opinion, at least in part, will take this on board.
Political forces keep to their orientations. Nevertheless, at the same time, and here is the source of the misunderstanding, political forces maintain their convictions and logically continue to fight to affirm them, because the services directive is far from being complete. Certain political groups consider that the current directive does not go far enough in its liberalisation objective; others believe that it does not sufficiently protect services of general economic interest and the social services. The sectors affected (health services, anti-poverty organisations etc.), as well as consumer representatives and those defending the “European social model” maintain their demands and defend them, sometimes fiercely.
The battle continues, therefore, as long as the current directive is far from clearly responding to all questions; according to some observers, the compromises attained on the controversial aspects are open to different interpretations, with the risk of applications that will not be uniform and with the inevitable result of ending up at the Court of Justice (for example, this is the opinion of the co-president of the Greens, Monica Frassoni). Commissioner McCreevy made a declaration in an EP plenary session, in an effort to provide reassurances on application of the directive, but some MEPs pointed out that his declaration contained no legal significance at all. Speaking for the Greens, Pierre Jonckheer again called for a framework directive on Services of General Interest (SGI), which in his opinion represents the key to the European model of society. This framework directive should: define the criteria and objectives of the SGI; limit the impact of competition rules in their regard; guarantee the right and capacity of the public authorities (national, regional and local) to finance and manage these services as they see fit, with the aim of pursuing social and territorial cohesion, environmental protection and cultural diversity. The European Commission, we know, has misgivings about this initiative, and doubts its efficiency.
Responsibility of the states. The previous remarks have been confirmed by reactions from the interest groups. I'll go to the wide-ranging and illuminating summary made by Mathieu Bion in our bulletin 9313. Even the bodies that still have reservations welcome the result attained by the EP; the most critical of them speak about a “partial victory”. Representatives from the category most affected, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, defined the text as, “the best possible legislation for improving opportunities for enterprises while maintaining a controlling interest of the state”. Attention and concerns now focus on the transposition of the European directive in the legislation of all Member States, so that they are effectively applied everywhere as from 2010. This is the new challenge and it is a substantial one.
(F.R.)