On Thursday 18 January, during a session of the EU Council working party on social questions, a majority of Member States expressed their support for a restricted scope when revising regulations on the coordination of social security regimes. Additionally, a considerable number of countries endorsed the Belgian Presidency’s proposal to focus on the four chapters where consensus already exists, while deferring discussions on aspects concerning unemployment benefits for cross-border workers and rules on applicable legislation, as reported by multiple sources.
According to one source, 13 countries would have supported this option and six others the second option proposed, which would consist of validating these four chapters by adding to them the consensual elements of the two other problematic chapters (see EUROPE 13328/1).
Other countries, on the other hand, continued to express their difficulty with this ‘division’, notably France and Italy, and reiterated their commitment to a revision including the chapter on unemployment in its entirety.
On the evening of Monday 15 January, most of the political groups in the European Parliament expressed strong opposition to this limited scope for revision, but the rapporteur, Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, Germany), gave them until the evening of Thursday 18 January to clarify their views (see EUROPE 13329/23).
According to several sources, all the groups have reiterated their rejection of a limited revision, to which Ms Bischoff is also opposed, but the EPP group has agreed to resume discussions with the Presidency and possibly explore the avenues already on the table.
The EPP Group would like to at least try to push forward some useful elements of this revision, for example on family allowances or long-term care benefits.
In any case, several options were being considered at the beginning of the week by certain groups, such as a vote at first reading to secure the European Parliament's mandate for 2018 or a resumption of negotiations with the Presidency.
When asked about the meeting that took place on 17 January with the Belgian Presidency of the EU Council on this subject, the MEP’s office had not responded to EUROPE’s requests by the time of going to press. A further meeting of the rapporteurs is scheduled for 24 January.
Nor did the Belgian Presidency give any further indication, on 18 January, of how the work would continue, for example with a new date for a meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives or the launch of new trilogues.
Construction sector sceptical
Questioned by EUROPE, the European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC) expressed its reticence about these options, even considering a two-stage revision rather problematic, with the risk that the two outstanding chapters would be forgotten. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)