The proposed EU services directive is not the monster many suggest - it will offer consumers greater choice and is crucial to economic growth, writes Charlie McCreevy
The EU treaties - the union's basic law - promise the free movement of goods, people, capital and services, the "four freedoms". These underpin the internal market and are the bedrock on which the work of the European Union rests.
The free movement of goods generally works well. If I manufacture anything from a needle to an anchor in one member state, it is taken for granted that I should be able to offer it for sale in another one.
The same has not applied in the case of services. Despite the promise of the treaties, serious obstacles and barriers remain. These continue to frustrate the efforts of those who wish to engage in legitimate cross-border trade.
If everybody in Europe was riding high on the pig's back we might be able to ignore this state of affairs. But we are not.
Europe faces serious problems. While some member states are doing well, others, among them some of the largest economies in the union, are not attaining sustainable levels of growth. Our inability to get our economies moving and to create jobs is posing a serious challenge to the sustainability of Europe's social model.
Europeans, rightly, do not expect people to go through life without a safety net. We respect the dignity of work and demand standards in the workplace. We work for social inclusion and environmental protection. But our population is ageing, and the economic challenge from other parts of the world is growing. If we are to sustain our way of life we must act now.
Services make up 70 per cent of the union's GDP. Almost all new jobs created in recent years have come from this sector. As I have said before, given the sluggish nature of the European economy and the dynamic potential of services, you don't need a higher degree in economics to put the two together. To galvanise Europe's economy, you need to do something about services.
That is where the services directive comes in. Readers will be aware of the controversy that has come to surround this subject. Mary Raftery's column last week was a fairly typical example of the criticism it has faced. In a democracy, open debate is vital. I am disappointed, however, that so much that has come to pass as debate in this area has been so ill informed.
It has particularly saddened me that some of the criticism of the proposal on social grounds frequently heard in older member states has been motivated by a wish to prevent workers and businesses in the newer member states from enjoying the full benefits the union offers. That these arguments should now be advanced in Ireland, a country that has gained so much from the union, is profoundly depressing.
We should call a spade a spade. When some people speak about the services directive introducing "social dumping" - a phrase I particularly dislike - they mean that it will be made easier for businesses and workers from one member state, including new ones, to offer services in another.
And, frankly, they don't want the competition and they don't care if it will result in greater choice and lower prices for consumers.
So, let's get some facts straight. What does the services proposal set out to do?
Make it easier for people to set up businesses, and cut unnecessary red tape.
In some member states it takes over a year to set up a company. In others, an economic case has to be presented to justify the opening of a new shop. Such unnecessary controls need to be done away with. Encouraging entrepreneurship, not killing it, is what is needed.
Strengthen co-operation between member states so that cross-frontier provision of services can operate.
Ensure that workers sent from one member state to another are governed by the social legislation in the host member state, whose wage levels must be respected.
Ensure that customers have proper information on the quality of services and the companies providing them, and legal redress if things go wrong.
What does it not do?
It does not make it any easier, or harder, for workers to move from one member state to another. It changes nothing in this regard.
For example, it does not allow Polish workers to come to Ireland to work at Polish wage rates. Irish social legislation would apply, including Irish minimum wage rates.
It does not prejudice or compromise the responsibilities of member states in relation to services of general economic interest.
I have made it clear that I am open to accepting improvements to the text. If others regard it as helpful, it can be made crystal clear that workers' rights must be protected and that certain sensitive sectors will not fall within its scope.
But I do not think this is the real issue. It is more fundamental. I respect the views of people on the left and on the right. But no matter where you stand on the particular problem regarding the European economy, you have to conclude that standing still is not an option.
Nobody knows better than the Irish that keeping a market closed to trade may work in the short term but spells long-term disaster. Protectionism did us no good in the past and will do others no good now. If the logic of some who are opposed to the services directive were followed, there wouldn't even be a free market in goods.
We have to find the balance that takes into account the concerns of those in employment today and the interests of the millions who will be coming on the job market in the years ahead. If we do not have a vibrant economy there will not be enough jobs, no decent standard of living or social inclusion to defend.
I want to move this debate forward. I would like to build a consensual approach. Change needs a consensus. I will not be dogmatic in my approach and I ask the same from others. But there is a crucial challenge to boost growth in the EU. Avoiding difficult choices is not an option.