On Wednesday 13 December in Strasbourg, MEPs held a heated debate on the European Pillar of Social Rights. Some of them support the project and interpret it as progress towards a more social Europe, whilst others see it as an example of European interference. The debate was held ahead of the European Council, which will be principally focusing on the social dimension of the EU.
The debate was included in the plenary session agenda at the request of the S&D group. The objective: exert pressure on the European Commission and European Council to translate into action this base adopted at the Gothenburg Summit (see EUROPE 11906, 11907). During the debate, attended by the European Commissioner for Social Affairs and Employment, Marianne Thyssen, sharp divisions appeared.
Maria João Rodrigues (S&D, Portugal), rapporteur on the inter-institutional proclamation on behalf of Parliament, welcomed the adoption of the pillar but immediately added that “the time to keep our promises” had now come. The MEP highlighted the importance of taking swift action to ensure “decent and transparent” employment contracts in reference to the “written declaration directive” - due to be presented by the European Commission next Wednesday (see EUROPE 11906) – and to coordinate national level policies by way of the “European Semester”. Similarly, Tom Vandenkendelaere (EPP, Belgium), the shadow rapporteur said they had to do more and do it “in practice", as did Laura Agea (EFDD, Italy), who is also the shadow rapporteur and who called for them to “fill up the vase” with concrete proposals.
Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium) and Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL, Germany), supported the pillar but highlighted its limitations. The former stated, “this catalogue of rights is at this stage just a statement of intent and we cannot yet see … a majority being obtained for transforming it into binding legislation” and referred to the Budgetary Pact for Stability and Growth as a reason for the situation. Ms Zimmer explained, “this is the snake that is biting its own tail” because no social progress can be achieved as long as we make the cardinal principle the reduction of national debt.
Ulrike Trebesius (ECR, Germany) took a clear position against the European pillar and saw it as a European Union tool to take over national level competences. Auke Zijlstra (ENF, Netherlands) thought that this pillar went against national democracies and also denounced the socialism erected as “state religion".
At the end of the debates, Commissioner Thyssen pointed out that the proclamation of the European pillar marked the beginning of a process. She explained that the Commission would use “a maximum flexibility" with the Stability and Growth Pact in an effort to avoid penalising the member states. Nonetheless, she considers that it is impossible to have a sustainable social policy without a sustainable tax policy. With regard to subsidiarity, the Commissioner highlighted respect for subsidiarity and suggested reading the preamble to the European pillar, particularly clauses 17 and 18 on the shared responsibility of the EU and member states and, above all, explained that the pillar did not extend to the work carried out by Parliament. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)