Briefing Paper On The Bolkestein European Directive On Services

Date : 20th of February 2005

From : Mrs ORS, communication advisor

To : President Jacques CHIRAC

Object : The Bolkestein directive on service : how to defuse this bomb

Dear M. President,

The constitutional referendum is approaching, and in this context, the proposition of a European directive on Services (commonly called Ð'« the Bolkestein directive Ð'») became a tricky issue, blithely used in some argumentations of some of the Treaty's opponents basing on misinformation. It appears thus essential to clarify this point for the French citizens, so that they really understand its stakes, and vote with full knowledge of the facts.

Here is a synthetic presentation of the Bolkestein directive, the truth and lies said about it, and a few strategies to use as we're urged to defuse this bomb before the ballot.

1. The content of the directive : differentiate facts from rethoric

1.1.Why this directive

1.2.Content

1.3. Application field

2. The fierce debate

2.1. Reactions in the context of the constitutional referendum

2.2.Replying to false accusations

2.3.Stressing the aim and advantages of the directive

2.4.Adjusting our aim

1.The content of the directive : differentiate facts from rethoric

1.1.Why this directive

The core objectives of the European Union's economic policy are to tend towards the total freedom of circulation of workers, capital, goods and services . Yet the liberalisation of services has quite a lot to catch up while it's one of the most important sector (70% of Gross European Product -GEP).

The proposition of the European Commission issued on the 13th of January 2004, resorting to drastic measures, aims at creating a general legal frame to be shared by all the concerned sectors. It is considered one of the main means to implement the Strategy of Lisbon, and make the European economy more competitive, thanks to this reasoning :

1.2.Content

Two freedoms :

Freedom to settle anywhere

single counter  simplification of procedures

more transparency about procedures, criterias, etc ...

banning of any list of requirements based on nationality, living place of stakeholders, ...

possibility to have demands in case of pressing general interest motives

Freedom to provide a service

Country of Origin Principle : one can provide a service in another member state without being settled there, and will be submitted to the clauses of his country of origin. The country of origin is responsible for the control of this service provider.

Main dispensations

_ the minimal working conditions set by the law of the country where the service is provided must be respected (minimum wage, time of work )

_ some exceptional dispensations can be granted as an exception case by case (for public order, public security, environment protection, public health)

_ services such as gaz, electricity and post are excluded from the COP

1.3. Application field

Non economic services (as defined by the Court) are excluded. These are services provided by States while fulfilling their public service mission without any economic considerations in the fields of : welfare, culture, education, justice

Financial services are excluded (they're dealt with in another directive)

Services of general economic interest (electricity, water, postal service, ...) are concerned by this directive (but only as far as freedom of settling is concerned)

2.The fierce debate

This issue is monopolising the debate arena , whereas it is not directly linked to the referendum question. The public opinion is very sensitive to the misinformation and rethoric provided by opponents to the ECT (European Constitutional Treaty).

Of course the proposition of directive is far from satisfactory, and should be further discussed, but the first stake is to calm down the public opinion and clarify the topic, so that we can renegotiate the content of the directive later on.

2.1.Reactions in the context of the constitutional referendum

The Bolkestein directive has been galvanized and transformed in a symbol of the liberal European Union, as opposed to the Social European Union.

The protest have been particularly strong in Belgium and France, but the electoral context make this issue even more tricky and mythical.

The directive, which is still only a proposition , and should be discussed in front of the Parliament, was used by opponents to the European Constitutional Treaty to prove their point, which is that the EU is encouraging an harmonization based on dumping.

2.2.Replying to false accusations : negative argumentation

Here are a few answers to reply to the most common accusations. Ð'« What to not say Ð'» sections feature indirect information and conclusions which we can avoid to mention but should be tackled with later on.

Accusation 1: this directive is threatening public services

What to reply :

Non economical services provided by States while fulfilling its public service mission without any economic considerations, are excluded from the directive.

Services of general economic interest (water, electricity, postal service) are indeed included in the directive as far as freedom of settling is concerned (but not freedom of providing services), but only in so far as these services are already opened to competition. The directive is not, in any