Respect principle of collegiality. The European spirit blows as and when it sees fit. This time it's European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy who provides the proof of this. So much the better for the EU, as its tasks at the European Commission are fundamental: the single market, the basis of European construction, depends upon it. He arrived in Brussels with very set ideas and a determination to make no exceptions to the rule, even when the Commission as an institution was going in another direction. For example, the commissioner for taxation, Laszlo Kovacs, spoke out in favour of a uniform tax bracket for corporate taxation and the Commission, together with its president at the head, tended to favour the same line and a formal proposal has been announced for next year. Mr McCreevy, however, was speaking in total sincerity when he publicly came out against the uniform tax band, affirming that it would inevitably lead to a uniform basis for all tax rates, something which he rejects.
Obviously, no-one is asking the c0ommissioner for the internal market to tone down his convictions. But he has to respect the principle of collegiality and take the opinions from other member states into account (not just the opinions of one or two of them), as well as the results of studies and analyses that he himself requests. This is what he has just done, by informing MEPs of his intentions for the future in regard to corporate legislation. He is going back on what he previously announced and is planning on new initiatives that he earlier ruled out (see the report point by point of Mathieu Bion in EUROPE 9516). McCreevy arrived in Brussels at the end of 2004 with very closed ideas: total economic liberalism mainly inspired, for the legal aspects, from British and to a certain extent, Irish experience. It was in this spirit that he initially announced his determination to assert the principle of “one share, one vote” in companies; his intention to propose a directive on the transfer of a company's central office from one member state to another; and his intention to oppose the initiative in favour of a private European company. He has revised his position on all three points and has said that he will be requesting a feasibility study on the status of a European Foundation and giving his opinion on possible European measures for auditing firms at the end of the year.
Reality. It is quite normal that Charlie McCreevy has his own ideas and preferences. But he has admitted that: a) the principle of “one share, one vote” will be added to an additional layer of European legislation that already provides several instruments for guaranteeing company management transparency and which already governs take-over bids; b) the status of the European private company is very much wanted by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); c) the transfer of the central office of a company from one member state to another is already possible in the right conditions, conditions which will soon be improved with the entry into force of the directive on cross-border mergers.
On the different points cited, Mr McCreevy shows that he has therefore modified his projects and given priority to economic reality over positions of doctrine. There are 23 million SMEs in the EU, which employ 75 million workers and are therefore at the centre of economic growth. It is quite normal that the wishes of the SMEs are duly taken into account and their activities are facilitated as much as possible (a specific European programme in their favour does exist).
A highly political question. The one share, one vote affair is highly political. Despite the legal objections, several member states are adamant in their wishes to retain their golden share in formerly state owned but now privatised companies. It is in fact another European commissioner, Peter Mandelson, who suggested making the golden share legal in order to prevent sovereign funds from China, Russia or other countries becoming the owners of strategic European companies. The enquiry ordered by Mr McCreevy himself has revealed that 44% of companies asked do not practise the one share, one vote principle but still obtain positive economic results by protecting themselves effectively against short-term speculative incursions. In some member states (France, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) barely a third of companies apply this principle of equality. We are able to see that economic reality does not always lend itself to radical economic liberalism.
McCreevy's conversion hasn't pleased everyone. London and other countries are opposed to it. The small shareholders' organisation says it is deeply disappointed but there's no denying it, there has been a turnaround.
(F.R.)