Brussels, 20/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - When it enlarged to ten new Member States, eight of them in central and Eastern Europe, the EU was well aware that it was taking serious risks on the social front, explains French economist Daniel Vaughan-Whitehead, leading advisor to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in his new book: 'L'Europe a 25: un defi social' (published by 'La documentation francaise', Paris, 2005, ISSN 1763-6191; http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr ). The book paints a detailed picture of the situation along with comments on the 'logic' that might emerge in a 25 member EU. The author looks at whether the European social model will be strengthened by enlargement through convergence towards generally advanced social standards or whether it will be challenged by a more free market outlook favouring flexibility above all else and encouraging deregulation. (The author was one of Jacques Delors' advisors at the European Commission). In his view the answer is clear - social Europe is in danger and enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States could challenge the very survival of the European social model. But Vaughan-Whitehead argues that the rejection of the European Constitution, recommended by some parties to defend social Europe, may well prove totally counter-productive in this situation.
Against the backdrop of the referendums, Vaughan-Whitehead looks at what the Constitution does and does not cover with regard to social affairs. He admits that the Constitution is 'disappointing' because it let slip the opportunity to hoist the flag of social affairs and the European social model as one of the vital elements of the EU project, along with economic and monetary issues. But at the same time, he argues, the big advantage of the Constitution is that it consolidates the 'social acquis'. The author says he believes one has to tell the truth, even when it can be rather unsavoury, about all the social problems and risks of the enlarged EU, which many of the supporters of the 'Yes' vote tended to avoid doing, he explains. He argues that it is not the benefits of the Constitution that have to be highlighted, but rather the costs of not having the Constitution, since renegotiating the current document would lead to less rather than more in the social field given the growing influence of new Member States with free market ideas. He concludes that accepting the Constitution is only the first step since far more effort will still be needed to make progress with social rights in the enlarged Europe - and this is what the social challenge involves.