Barriers that remain” “

“Apart from the merely economic dimension of this directive, what we need to understand is whether the 25-member Union is able to find appropriate solutions to tackle extremely complex and delicate problems”, declared José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. Barroso deserves credit for having drawn attention to the most controversial aspect of the debate generated in the EU over the last two years on what has now become the former Bolkestein directive, which resurfaced in the Parliament in Strasbourg this week. The provision still faces a long uphill task: the text, recast and watered down by the Assembly, still has other hurdles before it, in the Commission, in the Council and once again back in the European Parliament. Meanwhile, it should be pointed out that the by now famous hypothetical “Polish plumber” has now become a more likeable chap because people are less afraid of him.The directive, a legal form with binding effect in the member states of the Union, in principle boasted of various objectives, the first of which was to realise the “freedom of circulation of services” prescribed in the founding Treaties of the EEC. That was essential for completing the single market, but has so far remained on paper. In process of time, and especially after EU enlargement to Eastern Europe, growing attention had been concentrated on the directive: its adoption was supposed to release the energies of, and make more competitive, a sector in expansion, which already represents 70% of the entire wealth produced in Europe. It was supposed to create “quality” jobs. In this sense, it was – and remains – one of the key measures of the Lisbon Strategy, aimed at making EU firms and markets more competitive, safeguarding consumers and creating employment and social cohesion. When the first draft of the provision was presented, in early 2004, many people applauded the “liberal” intentions of the Commission, even though objections to the directive’s supposed merits were not lacking either. In the first place the principle of “country of origin” was contested, for many reasons. According to this principle, a firm that moved abroad to provide a service would remain subject to the law and tariffs of its country of origin, raising the spectre of unfair competition and jeopardizing the rights of workers. But the determination of the field of application of the provision also gave rise to other concerns: the lists of fields to be excluded from it thus began to take shape, beginning with services of general interest, too significant to be placed at the mercy of the free market.Since then the anti-directive front has grown. It has in the meantime forgotten its good intentions in terms of solidarity, aimed at promoting the economic development of the new member states. The ranks of the “no front” have been gradually joined by many governments of Western countries, a large part of the trade-union movement and left-wing political groupings (which justly point out the risk of social dumping), a part of the nationalist and protectionist right, and various corporations anxious to defend their own patch. We will have to await the final text of the directive (perhaps in a year’s time?) to pronounce a lucid verdict: but already today, now that its original form has been eliminated, numerous exceptions and derogations on its applicability inserted (public utilities, health-care, financial and legal services, communications, various professions, even gambling, have for example been excluded), the provision no longer raises spectres. And perhaps it has lost its primary objective: the Berlin Wall may fall, the political frontiers may be overcome, but the barriers in the services sector remain intact.