In all things, it is always important to remember where we came from – and this is where Agence Europe comes in, as an indispensable memory-jogger in all European matters.
It was not even two years ago (25 January 2016) that the committee on employment and social affairs of the European Parliament held its inaugural debate on an own-initiative report concerning the insidious and explosive issue of “social dumping in the European Union” (see EUROPE 11476). It is an understatement to say that things looked bad at the outset, as “major differences of opinion in positions and levels of ambition” were noted at the time between the various political groups, some of them supporting European minimum salaries, others, including members of the EPP group, not even wanting to hear the words “equal pay for the same work in the same place for posted workers”.
The author of the report, French Socialist Guillaume Balas, was then rightly able to conclude that it would not be easy to try to stamp out “unfair competition” between workers, businesses and the member states, as it is true, he observed by way of preventative excuse, that “in the social field, we are still in the prehistory of the European Union and its construction, as the member states retain all or almost all of the prerogatives”.
Even so, not even two years later, the European Parliament (see EUROPE 11885) and then the Council of Ministers (see EUROPE 11890) managed to find common ground on the proposed revision of the directive on posted workers that was presented by the Commission on 8 March of last year (see EUROPE 11507). Although the two legislative chambers of the EU have yet to start singing from the same hymn sheet in the framework of the co-decision procedure, it is now undeniable that the bulk of the work to be carried out in this minefield is now done and dusted.
This, incidentally, allows us to gainsay a misconception that has oiled many a spiteful tongue (and served as fodder to too many media sources…): no, the EU does not always take years to make a decision. It’s just that this one is the outcome of negotiations seeking to ensure that the common interest takes precedence, without harming individual interests (too much). The result of this is what some people may take to be tedious, behind-the-scenes horse trading, but which is in fact very often simply a tribute paid to what democracy actually is: trying to take the options of the majority on board alongside the difficulties of the minority.
Does this mean that ultimately, the results achieved by the Council and the Parliament will lead to the best possible agreement? Well, no. A great deal more progress will be needed after its conclusion for ‘social Europe’ to evolve from soundbite to tangible reality. Even so, the Commissioner for Social Affairs, Marianne Thyssen, and President Juncker have the merit of having tackled the issue and held their course against violent headwinds from the East, raised against the proposed revision of a directive made obsolete by recent waves of enlargement.
With the Danish Folketing and the national parliaments of ten countries of Central and Eastern Europe showing their ‘yellow cards’ to invite the Commission to withdraw its proposed revision of the 1996 directive in the name of the principle of subsidiarity, the Belgian Christian Democrat was right to point out, loud and clear, that the single market was not an area where anything goes: it has to have its rules – and not just economic and commercial rules; it must also have social ones.
By sticking to its guns, the Commission – with valuable support provided by the subsequent arrival of Emmanuel Macron in the Elysée Palace – did the European cause two favours.
Firstly, it pulled the rug out from under the feet of populists who have never missed an opportunity to exploit any social weaknesses in the European edifice. It will probably not have managed to shut them up altogether; Jean-Luc Mélenchon promptly confirmed this by describing the ministerial agreement as a “cruel trompe-l’œil”, marking “a new blow to social Europe”. What is excessive (and stems from bad faith) is still insignificant. But at least, thanks to Ms Thyssen, this great adversary of the European flag can no longer stand by his outrageous comments of summer 2016: “the Europe that has been built is a Europe of social violence, as we can see in every country whenever a posted worker arrives, stealing bread from the mouths of local workers”. No: however unsatisfactory the revision of the directive to be set in place may ultimately be, it will, if it does nothing else, make it impossible for anyone to say anything so outrageously excessive and extreme.
Through the posted worker, it – finally! – brought the individual back into the debate on the future of European integration. In Warsaw and Budapest, it was argued that the revision of the 1996 directive would ultimately penalise the states of the East, suffering from a (quite natural, given their history) delay in their economic development. For instance, the Polish Prime Minister, Beata Szydło, issued a warning a few months ago that Warsaw would stand firm on its refusal to make any changes to the 1996 directive, because its position was “favourable to the interests of Polish workers”. Really? Is it really in the best interests of the Polish tiler, painter or plumber – poetically dubbed by our colleague Jean Quatremer the “bastard offspring of the notorious ‘Polish plumber’ and ‘free and undistorted competition’ who, in 2005, convinced much of the Left to vote no to the European Constitutional Treaty” (Libération, 23 August 2017; our translation) – to be paid, in some cases, 50% less than local workers when on a posting? No; Commissioner Thyssen was also quite right in pointing out that “the social market economy implies seeking upwards convergence, rather than a race to the bottom”.
In reality, however, Thyssen would only be entirely credible if she did not oppose the calls of the European Parliament for the legal basis of the revised directive to be expanded to article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Agreeing to this – which the ministers have taken pains not to do – would ultimately mean that the question of posted workers would no longer be dealt with solely from the economic point of view of the freedom to provide services, but also from the point of view of worker protection, as the Court of Justice would then be able to start to take an interest in their situation.
This would send out a strong signal that European integration is not just a matter of economics, but is also a matter of men and women. These men and women would then be more inclined to give their backing to a project that truly concerns them and they could even become active agents of a European renewal.
It is, therefore, time to go back to basics, those of Jean Monnet: no, it’s not about coalescing states and their interests, it’s about bringing people together!
Michel Theys