Generally, European law is agreed to be about as interesting as watching paint dry.

Specific European laws are usually perceived to be even more dull; like watching dry paint. But this is a sad, possibly even deliberately designed, state of affairs. Approach European law with a different attitude, and you find deals which wouldn’t look out of place in a Mafia social club; together with a totalitarian master plan of such dazzling brilliance (or imbecility, depending on how you look at it) that it makes the average Bond villain look like a rank amateur with an attitude problem.

Consider the latest piece of legislation on the table: the European Directive on Services, due to become law in 2007. Overall, according to the European Commission, the Directive will achieve ‘a genuine Internal Market in services by removing legal and administrative barriers to the development of service activities between Member States... When service providers from one Member State wish to establish themselves in another Member State...or wish to provide a service from their Member State of Origin into another Member State..the proposed Directive would guarantee service providers the legal certainty they need in order to exercise in practice these two fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EC treaty’.
European Commission document 13/1/04
(italics by Corporate Watch)

The European Commission has helpfully provided a document answering ‘frequently asked questions’ about the Directive - despite the fact that most people haven’t even heard about it . ‘Is such a broad initiative not too ambitious?’ it asks itself. Well, yes. But it will be ‘for the mutual benefit of all’. So that’s all right, then.

In fact, the Directive on Services admits it was designed solely to give businesses the ‘large scale adminstrative simplification they asked for’. In practice, this means opening up the oyster of European countries to just about any multinational with a desire to expand, ie all of them. And never mind the centuries which have gone into developing legal protection for citizens (or ‘service users’ in EC terms) against the overriding interests of unscrupulous companies.

According to the Commission’s more detailed answers:

•Countries will have to abolish restrictions under which new businesses can only enter markets if demand is unsatisfied by existing operators. Instead, a ‘different list of restrictions’ are proposed, such as the ‘requirements limiting the number of outlets per head of population’, whatever that might mean. One supermarket for each family?
•There will be a ‘systematic screening’ of any attempted restrictions.
•Businesses will only be required to respect the rules and regulations of their ‘country of establishment’ when operating in other countries.
• Bans on multi-disciplinary activities ‘would have to be lifted’ - for example, the Commission notes approvingly, a ban on supermarkets selling petrol.
•The Directive excludes transport, financial services, and telecommunications, which have their own EU legislation. Covered, however, is just about everything else, from security services and postal services to environmental services and health services - indeed, ‘any business activity that constitutes a service’.
•Redress against any provider will have to be in the member state where the provider is registered. People seeking compensation or redress against a company registered in Lithuania, but operating in the UK, would have to take their case to Lithuania.
•The Commission confidently promises that the proposal will ‘increase choice and reduce prices for service users’. However, the same document cheerfully admits that the Commission ‘has not made an overall estimate of the economic impact that can be expected because it is not possible to do so with confidence’.

Campaigner and journalist Linda Kaucher believes the Directive to be one of the most frightening pieces of legislation currently to be hanging over the heads of European citizens (or service users). ‘All the advantages are to the corporations, and all the limitations on democratically elected governments’ she writes. ‘Instead of this Directive we need one which prioritises sustainable development. In disallowing regulation this Directive will work against it. It’s obviously driven by the Services lobby, made up of the world’s biggest corporations seeking unrestricted access to profit from trade in services’.

The Directive is currently going through a ‘consultation’ process before it becomes law. In the UK, this consultation was launched at a presentation by the Department of Trade and Industry on March 26th. The launch was attended almost solely by business representatives.

‘Today, it is above all, the big corporations that seek to destroy social forms and create an atomised mass society made up of egoistic and competitive individuals with no social or ecological obligations of any kind and whose interrelationships are of a strictly economic nature’
Edward Goldsmith, ecologist (www.edwardgoldsmith.com)