Brussels, 13/09/2005 (Agence Europe) - With the support of the GUE/NGL Group in the European Parliament, several trade unionist movements such as the Fédération syndicale unitaire (the main French trade union for national education) and citizens' organisations (Forum social bruxellois, URFIG, ATTAC) set to work on 12 September in Brussels to discuss the form and content that they hope to give to the campaign for mobilisation against the proposal for a services directive in the internal market. They conducted a general survey of national initiatives foreseen for 15 October in the context of a European Day of Action and were informed of negotiations underway at the European Parliament on possible compromises on the most controversial points of the proposed “services” directive, namely its scope and the principle of country of origin.
Participants at the meeting recalled the importance of large-scale mobilisation to put pressure on the work in progress. There seems to be a majority move within the organisations present for rejection of the draft directive on services, but the hypothesis of beginning work on amendments to the text was also envisaged. After the fashion of the spring 2005 campaign, that of 15 October should go beyond the context of the “services” directive to encompass other issues such as the role that services should play in the Doha Trade talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
President of the GUE/NGL Group, French Communist Francis Wurtz, noted three different political movements on the “services” directive. The first quite simply calls for the legislative proposal to be withdrawn. Mr Wurtz said his group would submit a motion for rejection although it “does not expect the motion to be accepted”. He admitted that the second political force at the EP, to which Social Democrat Rapporteur Evelyne Gebhardt belongs, suggests amendments that are “by no means negligible”. However, in his view, these amendments are insufficient to “overcome the essential problem” posed by the directive, namely the enormous risk for social standards. Finally, Mr Wurtz spoke of the third movement of opinion, the “toughest”, composed of the Council and Commission and which hopes to keep the essential part of the proposal as it is. Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL, Italy) objected to the privatisation of services as an instrument for relaunching the European economy as well as to the “highly venal” idea that Tony Blair has of the European Union, whereby the market is the sole promoter of society. He took a stance in favour of European-wide mobilisation before the plenary vote in order to counter the British prime minister's offensive.
Without wishing to speak on behalf of her group, French Socialist Françoise Castex presented the views expressed within the PES Group. “There is a small Socialist minority in favour of withdrawing the draft directive”, she said, including herself in this minority which calls for a timetable for the prior harmonisation of services as well as a framework directive on services of general interest (SGI). She recognised that the amendments by the committee on employment and social affairs “restrict the perverse effects” of the proposed directive (EUROPE 8990)-. However, “if there is no prior harmonisation, it is not enough to restrict the scope”. The French Socialist warned: ”It would seem that the position of the EP right-wing is getting tougher” and this creates the “risk of a very negative power struggle”. The internal market and employment and social affairs committees are negotiating on identification of the amendments to the Van Lancker report that would be directly subject to a vote at the plenary session in accordance with the strengthened cooperation that links the two committees (see EUROPE 8949). “Social mobilisation is essential”, Françoise Castex concluded.
Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL, Netherlands) briefly explained the state of progress of negotiations underway at the EP to seek to reach compromises before the vote in internal market committee. She stressed how difficult it was to find common ground on the most controversial points such as the principle of country of origin. A positive point, however, is that “everyone seems to agree that SGI should not be covered by the directive”. But no-one knows how these services should be defined. Ms Liotard pointed out that concrete proposals should be made during the next in camera session, on 15 September. According to an MEP familiar with the dossier, “everyone is working to keep to the timetable” but “if there is no large majority on both key points, it will be very difficult to hold a plenary vote in October”.