Brussels, 17/01/2011 (Agence Europe) - In response to a letter from John Monks to Commissioner Olli Rehn (economic and monetary affairs), the director-general of BusinessEurope, Philippe de Buck, has expressed his complete disagreement with the substance and tone of this communication. In it, John Monks voiced the reservations of the European trades unions (ETUC) on the implementation of the EU-IMF rescue plans for Greece and Ireland (see EUROPE 10291). Philippe de Buck has sent copies of his answer to everybody who received a copy of John Monks's letter: President of the Commission José Manuel Barroso, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion László Andor, President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, Director-General of the International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn, President of the Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet and to Prime Minister of Hungary (which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council of Ministers) Viktor Orban.
Here is Philippe de Buck's reply to John Monks in full:
“Dear General Secretary,
I read a copy of the letter you addressed to Commissioner Rehn with attention, and disagree with both its substance and its tone.
In a process aimed at restoring confidence and taming acute market instability, external financial assistance has been called upon by Greece and Ireland, subject to a negotiated conditionality programme. The EU-IMF funding agreement with these two countries and related memorandum of understanding provide much-needed certainty around public finances and the path to recovery.
These are exceptional circumstances implying exceptional decisions and particular responsibilities for national, European and international institutions. Prior to finalisation of policy recommendations, according to the information gathered from our members, the national social partners were consulted. The subsequent monitoring of their implementation is within the mandate of the European Commission. It goes without saying that the EU Treaty provisions and the competence of national social partners must be fully respected in that regard.
Social dialogue and constructive industrial relations are critical at present and must be based on a sense of collective responsibility, including vis-à-vis current European initiatives. It is difficult to see how an aggressive and unjustified attack on this process - combined with inappropriate historical references - will help to find answers to the very difficult problems that the governments, social partners and people of the country concerned are facing today.
The focus of attention must entirely be on finding effective ways of restoring stability, competitiveness and rising employment in the years ahead. Acknowledging the challenges and accompanying the necessary reforms will better serve the interest of citizens and workers than sterile anti-European rhetoric.
I am copying this message to the addressees of your letter.
Yours sincerely”. (G.B./transl.fl)