Bolkestein or a storm in a teacup

1 – The directive in question has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is based on the earliest European treaty, the Treaty of Rome (1957), which provides for the free movement of goods and services. Whether the Constitution is adopted or rejected will have no impact on its future. That is shown by the fact that most of the unions that demonstrated against this draft directive in the streets of Brussels on 19 March 2005 are also campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote.

2 – Services account for the most dynamic sector of the economy, the area in which most jobs are created and France is strongest: we are the second-largest world exporter. Yet a plethora of national regulations are still distorting competition in this vital area.

That is why, in 2000, the Lisbon European Council, in which three quarters of the heads of government were socialists (including Lionel Jospin representing France), asked the Commission to propose a package of measures to breathe new life into trade in services in Europe. As a result, on a proposal from the Netherlands Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, the Prodi Commission adopted a draft directive (European law) in January 2004.

Under the existing treaties, this text cannot enter into force until the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament have given their assent: the Commission proposes, the political authority disposes.

3 – On its publication, this document did not provoke any strong reaction. It looked so anodyne that during the European campaign that followed, in spring 2004, no political party mentioned it, neither the communists, nor the socialists, nor Philippe de Villiers, nor the French National Front. Nor did the matter arise during the internal socialist party debate in October-November 2004. It was only in early 2005 that the ‘no’ campaigners realised they could use it as a weapon, wielding it in an unorthodox but clearly effective manner: Bolkestein = the spread of ultra-liberalism likely to condemn notaries, plumbers and all French services of general interest = draft Constitution = Frankenstein. The ignorance of the media did the rest.

4 – The main reproach than can be levelled at this document in objective terms is that it seeks to regulate, on the basis of single law, the fundamentally different cases of dozens of services: personal services, legal services, tourism, industrial services, certain services of general interest, etc. For example, the principle of the application of the law of the country of origin is perfectly acceptable in some areas (e.g. electronics) but unacceptable in others.

5 – In line with the usual procedure, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament each began to examine the text. Both reached the conclusion that it was not a good working basis. The European summit reflected that view and the European Parliament had already voted along those lines in February. Everyone agreed that José-Manuel Durão Barroso’s Commission should review the matter in line with the political guidelines to be provided by the European Parliament – probably in July or September thereafter, given the complex nature of the subject. As of now, the President of the European Council (the Luxembourg Christian Democrat Jean-Claude Juncker) and Parliament’s rapporteur (the German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt) have insisted on the need to prevent any social or fiscal dumping, while the Barroso Commission has agreed that education and health services must be dealt with separately.

As such, the Bolkestein proposal is, therefore, as good as dead and buried. It has been agreed that the whole matter will be reviewed on a new basis.

6 – The merit of that episode is that it has taught us something about the way the Union works now and the radical changes the Constitution will bring about.

Today, citizens have the irritating feeling that they are merely spectators. One day in December 1999 they learned that ‘Europe’ had decided that Turkey could open accession negotiations. One day early in 2005 it was ‘revealed’ to them that a certain Mr Bolkestein, whom they did not know, whom they had not elected and who, moreover, was no longer in office, was apparently plotting against their jobs. Whatever happens, for better or worse, the same will happen elsewhere and they will not even have the right to express their opinion.

The Constitution will bring about three major changes.

1.- The Commission will no longer be a super administration, but will be the Union’s political executive. Its President, Mr Barroso’s successor, will no longer be appointed by the governments but will be elected by the citizens themselves, via the election of the European Parliament, which in turn will be elected on the basis of a legislative programme. Of course we will require our candidates to provide specific undertakings on this issue, as well as every issue that matters to us. Citizens are becoming actors.

2.- The smooth working of the single market, which is now the Union’s prime objective, will simply become one objective among others, serving the Union’s political values and objectives as listed in Articles. 2 and 3: full employment, social progress, combating social exclusion and poverty, equality between women and men, sustainable development. These priorities now include the smooth functioning of services of general economic interest, whether local, national or even – and this is new – European (Articles 96, 122 and 166).

3.- The national parliaments become the judges of respect of the European Union’s competences. On publication of any Commission proposal, they have the power to issue a warning (‘yellow card’) or to bring the matter directly before the Court of Justice (‘red card’) if a Union act encroaches on national competences. An example would be a European law that sought to regulate local services of general interest in an improper manner.

A European draft law to that effect will be drawn up by an authority elected on a manifesto, taking account of the need for both social and economic progress and under the constant scrutiny of the national parliaments. That is also bound to lead to more prompt and informed reporting by the media themselves.

Alain Lamassoure, 21 March 2005