On the eve of a key vote at first reading, the debate in the plenary session of the European Parliament on the revision of the rules for the coordination of social security systems highlighted, on Wednesday 17 April, the strong divisions that still separate MEPs, revealing political and geographical rifts.
The debate was initially tense, as the text was put on the plenary agenda at the last minute by a majority of only three votes and against the opinion of the group presidents of the EPP, ALDE and ECR (see EUROPE 12236/15).
"Stop this constant parliamentary obstruction! Let the debate take place, let us vote so that we in Parliament can have a strong position for the next mandate! So, yes, let us vote on this proposal at first reading!", said the rapporteur, Guillaume Balas (S&D, France), recalling the progress on this legislative text advocated in December by the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12141/13).
A somewhat geographical rift? The rifts in Parliament seem, in general, to correspond to the geographical divisions seen in the EU Council (see EUROPE 12225/15). MEPs from Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland and the Czech Republic took a stand against the report, while French, Spanish and Romanian MEPs expressed their support for the text on the table.
The shadow rapporteur, Sven Schulze (EPP, Germany), called for the report to be rejected. For him, the European Commission presented the text much too late, in December 2016, and the negotiations have not fully developed. Mr Schulze's position reflects that of a majority of the delegations of the EPP Group. However, the French delegation of the Christian Democratic Group is reportedly quite supportive of the report.
In the Social Democratic camp, opposition to Mr Balas' position has also emerged. Agnes Jongerius of the Netherlands denounced the risks inherent in exporting unemployment benefits that are too lengthy, which could encourage, without naming it, 'social tourism'. For his part, the Dane Ole Christensen said he would vote against the 'Balas' report, considering it unbalanced.
On the other hand, MEPs from groups traditionally opposed to progressive positions expressed support for Mr Balas. For example, Joëlle Mélin (ENF, France) wanted the text to get past the plenary session, emphasizing the issue of prior notification.
Responding to Mr Schulze, Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner Marianne Thyssen said that the Commission's proposal had not been presented too late. She urged MEPs to adopt the report in order to resume interinstitutional negotiations with the EU Council as soon as possible.
The return of indexing family allowances. Although the European Parliament did not vote in favour of indexing family allowances based on where children live, this provision was mentioned by many MEPs.
This proposal could also be put to a vote by MEPs. If an amendment on indexing were to be adopted, the balance of power would be reversed, with the Greens/EFA, GUE/NGL and a large majority of the S&D group opposed.
By the end of 2018, the 'Balas' report had been adopted by 58 votes, thanks to an atypical majority ranging from the radical left to the far right, but without the support of the ALDE, EPP and ECR groups (see EUROPE 12157/19). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)