Brussels, 21/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - On 17 March, the European Parliament's committee on the internal market and consumer protection welcomed Jeannot Krecké to take stock of the recent Competitiveness Council (see EUROPE of 8 March) and debate the directive on services in the internal market. Evelyne Gebhardt (PES, Germany), the rapporteur, came out against any discussion of any “conflict between the old and the new Member States” on the controversial Bolkestein directive. MEPs from the EPP/ED group asked her to present her draft report as soon as possible. Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Margot Fröhlinger took pains to reassure MEPs of the Commission's “open-mindedness”. Frits Bolkestein, the former European Commissioner behind the legislative proposal, wrote off fears of dumping voiced by opponents of the directive (see below) as “sheer idiocy”.
This proposed directive has led to an “acrimonious” debate, but “people expect clear answers”, Jeannot Krecké told the MEPs. He voiced his hopes that the Commission “would remain clear”, acknowledging that he was “not absolutely certain that this is the case at the moment”. Within the Competitiveness Council he chairs, there is consensus in favour of opening up the services market, due to its high growth and job creation potential. “The text [of the legislative proposal] will never be adopted as it stands”, the Luxembourg minister explained, adding that in his view, it should “avoid certain sectors altogether”, such as health, social security and services of general interest. The ministers agree that “the principle of country of origin should be kept for sectors where this will not cause problems”, he said.
“You said that we must not deny the rights of the new Member States”, said Evelyne Gebhardt, reacting to Jeannot Krecké's words. “This is true, but it is not a question of old and new, it is a question of taking on board 25 situations with legal differences on employment, social and environmental laws”, she said. The German Social Democrat quoted the example of veterinary surgeons in Poland to illustrate the point that the debate is not “one-way traffic”, and that the “Bolkestein directive” is a matter of concern for certain professions in the new Member States too. “Evelyne Gebhardt is right”, said the French UMP member Jacques Toubon, it is not “a war between the new and the old”. He called on the Council to move towards “public and media opinion” to “explain what is really at stake and to try to avoid flights of fancy and illusions”. We must “reduce the scope to what is beyond question, incontrovertible” and replace the principle of country of origin with “a principle of mutual recognition of the service provision legislation”, he said.
According to British Conservative Malcolm Harbour, MEPs from the new Member States are wondering “why so much is said about social dumping in the context of the internal market” when “we have a directive on seconded workers?”. Mr Harbour called on his colleagues to return “to the heart of the debate”, an attitude which was seconded by Jeannot Krecké. According to Malcolm Harbour, a business which wants to provide services in another Member State should quite simply be able to decide for itself whether it wishes to establish itself in that Member State or provide services remotely. Alexander Stubb (EPP/ED, Finland) said that he was “more and more worried and saddened” by the climate surrounding the debate, which “mixes nationalism, protectionism and arrogance”. He referred to a recent Estonian law bringing in maternity leave of 12 months on full pay. “Let's not complain when the citizens have a text like this”, said the French Socialist Benoît Hamon, criticising the “dishonesty” of pitting the old Member States against the new. “Let us move forward on a framework directive on services of general interest”, if we are moving towards excluding these services from the scope of the current directive, he said.
José Manuel Barroso's recent remarks on the “services” directives attracted strong reactions. Amongst other things, the President of the Commission said last week that “the role of the Commission is not to protect the interests of the Fifteen against the new Member States” (see EUROPE of 15 March, p.9). Since then, surprised by all the criticism, he has asked whether one can “really talk of social dumping in an integrated market”, whilst calling on the new Member States not to adopt “nationalist positions” (EUROPE of 18 March, p.6).
The hearing of GUE/NGL, ATTAC and the International Democratic Women's Federation highlights
the stakes of the “services” directive
On 18 March, the French Communist Francis Wurtz, who chairs the GUE/NGL group, addressing over 300 people representing over a hundred union and civil society organisations, there for a debate before demonstrating in defence of employment and social rights, in Brussels on Saturday, condemned the “deregulatory sound and fury” underlying the proposed directive on services.
He exclaimed that to say that this directive is necessary, “José Manuel Barroso would be better supporting the four fundamental freedoms”. And to “quote from the master”, Commissioner Charlie McCreevy during a speech in January, “The internal market is easily the biggest example of deregulation in recent history”. Vittorio Emanuele Agnoletto (GUE/NGL, Italy) condemned the “dangerous words” that aim to present the services directive as “the revenge of the poor against the rich” and which have a certain impact on the new Member State.
Speaking of the European Confederation of Trade Unions, Wolfgang Kowalsky reiterated the positions of his organisation on the legislative proposal: yes to liberalisation of services on the conditions that the social dimension of the internal market was taken into account: elimination of all the “dangerous elements” such as the principle of the country of origin, which “gets the different national systems competing against each other and “encourages relocations” to Member States where tax, labour law and social and environmental demands are weakest. He warned, however, against mixing up the directive on services with the Constitutional treaty, whereas Francis Wurtz alluded to the link between the two texts.
Representing the European Centre for Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) Laurent Gékhiere deplored the fact that, “the Commission is still not agreeing to the Community structuring of services of general interest”. He asked about the “compatibility of the services directive with the Community acquis”, notably with regard to the jurisprudence of the Court on authorisation systems”. On a pragmatic note, Nathalie Lhayani asked on behalf of the Confrontations Europe association, chaired by former MEP Philippe Herzog, and asked about the need to get the draft directive withdrawn is it was in danger of failing. Giving the example of the high standards in Hungary with regard to temporary work agencies, she was against any attempt to set new and old Member States against each other.
Jorgo Chatzimarkadis, rapporteur on the opinion supports sensible
application of the country of origin principle
Jorgo Chatzimarkadis (ALDE, Germany) rapporteur on the industry committee's opinion on the services directive insisted on keeping the principle of the country of origin but recognised that a compromise on the application of this principle would be needed. In a press release he said described his position citing the example of the driving licence, indicating that, “with a German drivers' licence one could drive without any restrictions in the United Kingdom but had to, however, respect British rules” on driving. Services inspections: “the idea, for example, that the Portuguese authorities are monitoring Portuguese drivers working in Germany is absurd. Inspecting the service provider falls to the country where the service is rendered”.
Frits Bolkestein denounces “”short-sightedness” and “xenophobia”
of French opponents
In an interview on Dutch television, the former European Commissioner for the internal market, Frits Bolkestein did not hold back. On Sunday he said that it was “pure idiocy” that the draft directive he launched in January 2004 would lead to “social dumping”. He indicated that he would be going to France in two week's time to give some interviews and in the Monday edition of the Figaro he denounced the xenophobic attitude of the French towards him.