Debates that "have a tonic effect on Europe". The spirited and often dramatic debates surrounding the hurdles to the creation of a harmonised financial market, takeovers, golden shares and asymmetry in the process for deregulating the energy market have a tonic effect on Europe. I am not referring here to what has so far been achieved by these debates (moreover, everything is still in a state of flux) but to the fact that the Community institutions are arguing passionately, conflicting proposals are being made and all the institution are now mindful of what is at stake. In addition to the admittedly key legal aspects, these challenges all generally involve a social choice. Both sides of business are taking an active part and this, too, is a welcome sign.

Let us consider for a moment the components of the present upheaval, which I believe form a whole. First of all the balanced yet legally negative votes concerning the takeover Directive. Second, the "conclusions" the Commission reached about restrictions on Community investments. Third, the opinion by the EU Court of Justice's Advocate General to the effect that golden shares may be legal (contrary to what the Commission believes) except in cases of discrimination on the grounds of nationality..

The Commission makes mistakes as well. I have done my best twice within this column, within the limits of my capabilities, to draw attention to the key issues at stake. I do not wish to repeat myself so I will confine myself to summing up the articles. On May 15 I opined that the takeover controversy was based on different ideas about major aspects of European economic and social policy. On 30 May I dealt with the EDF-Montedison affair, suggesting it is only one aspect of a broader problem linked to the European social model. I do not think that this meaning was universally understood to start with. There were one or two belated awakenings, which probably succeeded in making a dent in the search for a compromise on the takeover Directive. I believe Mr Bolkenstein has to share some of the blame, not for the ideas he upheld (he is entitled to his opinions), but for the way he put across the opposing view, even in the wake of the Parliamentary vote. He suggests that the failure to endorse the Directive, which has been on the boil for 12 long years, is tantamount to opposing the aims set by the Lisbon Summit (making the EU "the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world" by 2010), because a key ingredient is missing, an effective and transparent financial market in the EU. The real situation is less back and white. A agreement was reached on almost all strands of the Directive and all the institutions, including the Parliament acknowledge the urgent need given that takeovers act as a cornerstone of industrial restructuring. However, the various parties are still at variance over the procedures used to protect a company that comes under attack from a hostile takeover bid. If a compromise is reached on this point, the Directive will go through like a knife through butter. It is a bit arrogant to claim, as Mr Bolkestein did that "it is tragic to see the general good of the European integration process being sacrificed on the altar of one or two vested interests. » Half of the Parliament (obviously including MEPs of all nationalities and political stripes) voted against. 273 MEPs all beholden to vested interests ? Along with the German Government, and all the other governments who have in turn started to have doubts ?

The broad-based debate has to continues. The truth is that even in high places the meaning of the affair is understood only when specific cases arise, creating a danger of a given country losing control of a key component of its economy. Or alternately, the risk of a time-honoured economic activity disappearing in a specific region. Admittedly, the arguments to support the Bolkenstein theory are rock-solid and should not be overlooked. But the opposing arguments are just as strong (I used my column on May 15 to seek to outline some of the arguments). The various stakeholders have to press on with their debate. This refers first of all to the Commission, which has to pay heed to all the factors: the Parliament's vote, the Court ruling due to be issued in a few months time in reaction to the Advocate General's opinion, plus the work already undertaken at the bidding of Commissioners Bolkenstein, Monti and de Palacio. Above all, the EU's executive arm has to avoid reacting out of spite so as to abandon the takeover Directive or let it drag on: the project rejected by the Parliament may resurface in a few weeks time after a spot of tweaking. The Commission needs to have the courage to make consistent decisions, instead of adopting one stance when discussing Commissioner Diamantopolou's plan and a diametrically opposed one when giving its verdict on a Bolkenstein initiative. The Parliament has to be even clearer about its decisions (the argument about secure investments for retired people is not good enough, as the retired folk/shareholders are often American whereas the companies under attack are European). And the Member States have to be aware of the importance of what is at stake, even though most them seem to pay heed solely to the opinions of legal experts and the business community. (F.R.)