The issue of revising the regulation on the coordination of social security schemes, discussed on Friday 17 November by the ambassadors of the Member States to the European Union (see EUROPE 13295/2), is provoking divergent reactions. Certain sources once again, on Monday 20 November, referred to the existence of a group of 14 to 15 countries having difficulties with the avenues suggested by the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council for resuming negotiations with the European Parliament, as EUROPE had written, whereas the Spanish authorities denied this and assured EUROPE on the same day that they had “received the support of a majority” of member countries in favour of its proposals.
Several other sources pointed to a more nuanced outcome, noting strong support from countries such as France, Germany and Italy for Madrid’s approach to relaunching negotiations with the European Parliament, while also pointing to the existence of critical positions from another group of Member States.
According to these sources, the Presidency’s approach of talking to the European Parliament again has indeed been supported, even if, according to our other sources, the reported blockages relate above all to the content of the note submitted to the Member States.
As a reminder, no vote was held on Friday. Nor was it a question of requesting a new formal mandate, but of outlining the options for a future revised mandate to be sought from the Member States following these new exchanges with the European Parliament, according to the explanations given.
However, according to one of our sources, who referred to a more nuanced discussion, there is “no clear qualified majority” in the EU Council on this issue. Adjustments will therefore have to be made in conjunction with the European Parliament.
According to the people we spoke to, during this exchange of views, the Member States expressed a variety of concerns, with some countries raising a difficulty over the issue of prior notification, which some want to make compulsory for the construction sector prior to any posting of workers. Other countries mention the length of the period of work beyond which the last country of activity becomes responsible for unemployment benefits for an unemployed worker in another country of residence.
Germany, for example, which supported Madrid, reportedly drew a red line on the duration proposed by the Spanish Presidency, i.e. 5.75 months of uninterrupted work, and could not go any further. Poland is also said to have declared its support for the Spanish approach, even though it rejects the sectoral derogations for prior notification, which would once again impose these pre-clearance postings on the construction sector.
Sweden, for its part, is said as well to have expressed concern and surprise at the fact that it is once again addressing the European Parliament without any real new mandate from the EU Council.
The Spanish Presidency and European Parliament representatives will meet again on Tuesday morning for a trilogue. European Parliament negotiators were due to meet again on Monday evening in Strasbourg to take a position. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)