The European Parliament decided by a very narrow majority, to postpone sine die the vote at first reading on the revision of the regulation on the coordination of social security systems on Thursday 18 April.
The request for the adjournment of the vote, made by Helga Stevens (ECR, Belgium), was adopted by a narrow majority (291 votes in favour, 284 against, 6 abstentions) to the general surprise of MEPs, judging by the uproar triggered by the result of the vote and the reaction of Ms. Stevens herself, who jumped for joy behind her desk.
According to the results of the roll-call vote, the EPP, ECR and ALDE groups supported the postponement by an overwhelming majority, with a few exceptions, including the French (and Belgian EPP) delegations. The EFDD group was, as usual, very divided, with the Italian delegation supporting the first reading vote.
To the left of the hemicycle, geographical divisions have weakened support for rapporteur Guillaume Balas (S&D, France). Dutch MEPs from the GUE/NGL and S&D groups voted in favour of postponing the vote. So did some Danish and Polish MEPs, for a total of 15 MEPs. The Greens/EFA group voted en bloc against postponing the vote.
According to one source, four French MEPs from the EPP group as well as Maltese MEPs voted in error. "It could have turned the vote upside down”, commented a bitter source.
“Very angry”
"I didn't expect this rejection”, Guillaume Balas told EUROPE. “The reality is that there was a coalition between the conservative right on the one hand, and then a few left-wing voices, especially socialists, who allowed the vote to be postponed”, the MEP analysed, expressing "a very great anger" against some social democrats whom he considered "irresponsible" and “pseudo-socialists”.
"They have themes that have nothing to envy of the conservative right on social issues”, the rapporteur added. He concluded: "When you imitate the nationalists, you end up a nationalist".
This vote puts Parliament in difficulty before the EU Council," Mr Balas continued. He also feared that the next Parliament would be even more conservative and that it would advocate the return of indexation of family benefits to children's places of residence - as suggested by amendments tabled by German MEPS, particularly from the right, and conservatives (amendments 187 and 188). But if re-elected, the MEP confirmed that he would try to get the dossier back. "I will certainly fight,", he promised.
Mr Balas also singled out the European Parliament’s internal procedural flaws, regretting that a group of MEPs could question a vote in plenary and delete a vote from the agenda. The Parliament had reintroduced the first reading vote on Monday at the opening of the plenary session by a very small majority of three votes (see EUROPE 12238/5).
Fuzzy procedure
It is therefore the only legislative text in the social field that will not reach the plenary stage during this parliamentary term. According to a parliamentary source, it is very rare that such a situation occurs. For this source, the next steps remain unclear.
At the beginning of a new mandate, our source explained, the new Committee on Employment and Social Affairs determines by a vote whether or not it confirms the position of the previous European Parliament on an unfinished dossier. However, the source expects that the new Parliament to emerge after the May elections will start from scratch, as the chances of survival of the Balas report are virtually nil.
The report, as adopted in December, provided for several elements: - the export of six-month unemployment benefits; - total rights from the first day; - a maximum posting of workers at 18 months; - prior notification by the company to the host State before sending a worker; - a deposit system in the event of poor cooperation between national authorities; - the "free choice" left to frontier workers to decide which Member State is responsible for social benefits and monitoring (see EUROPE 12141/13). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)