Brussels, 12/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - At an event organised by the European United Left/Nordic Green Left group at the European Parliament, chaired by Francis Wurtz, in Brussels recently, three hundred European, national and local elected representatives, stakeholders and social and trade union activists met to discuss the strategy they want to see implemented for the vote in the EP's plenary on the draft directive on services in the internal market (aka the Bolkestein Directive and the Services Directive). Most participants favoured outright rejection of the directive, drumming up citizen support to put pressure on decision-makers. A few speakers doubted whether such outright rejection was such a good idea, given the unfavourable balance of forces for the Left at the European Parliament. Two Europe-wide demonstrations will be held in Strasbourg, on 14 and 16 February, ahead of the European Parliament vote, one of which has been called by the European Trade Union Confederation.
During the meeting, French Communist MEP Francis Wurtz asked how the participants could best cooperate in the final four weeks ahead of the vote, saying he thought the balance of forces was highly unfavourable. He said the only way to get out of the vicious circle was to get society to apply maximum pressure on the 'snoozing MEPs'. The President of the GUE/NGL group launched a call for European social stakeholders to mobilise European citizens, who underestimate their ability to get European leaders to take action. He said it was known that five Member States have called for the withdrawal of the draft directive through fear of social unrest. One of the five Member States is Austria, he explained, which currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU. Wurtz slammed the nature of the draft Services Directive, which would apply across the board and put the finishing touches to the EU's moves in the direction of deregulation by using putting out for tender in order to harmonise downwards. Later in the day at a press conference, Francis Wurtz said the call for rejection of the draft directive was not a last ditch attempt nor making the situation worse in order to further the GUE/NGL's own ends ('la politique du pire'), but was the real objective. We must welcomed social mobilisation and hope we'll be voting on a good compromise, he said, adding that the situation was pretty dire at the moment.
Sarah Wagenknecht (GUE/NGL, Germany) said the Services Directive was a venomous poison and her political party had tried to remove the most deadly molecules. She described the outcome of the vote at the European Parliament's Internal Market Committee, saying that the initial aim had been kept - to privatise willy-nilly. Exceptions had been introduced, of course, like healthcare, which she welcomed, but she explained that education was still in the full firing line of the draft directive. On the country of origin issue for deciding on legislation to cover the cross-border supply of services, Wagenknecht said that the European Parliament rapporteur, German Social Democrat MEP Evelyne Gebhardt, had tried to court conservatives by suggesting separating off access to services from the actual supply of the services, but this had been rejected by the conservatives who support the idea of the country of origin (calling it by a new name, the 'principle of the internal market') and also by the GUE/NGL, which view the rapporteur's amendments as risky.
According to Ms Wagenknecht, entrusting the host country with powers to monitor services and service providers is not “real progress” if one maintains the country of origin principle when it comes to the crossborder provision of services.
French Socialist Françoise Castex encouraged the initiative of the GUE/NGL Group, welcoming the first “intrusion of social mobilisation” into a European political issue. Disagreeing with the rapporteur (who, like herself, is from the PES Group), Ms Castex explained her rejection of the directive, saying: “From the outset, we have thought that this text could not be amended. It is not enough to exclude certain sectors for the problem to be resolved. The directive de-structures the European labour market and organises social dumping”. The directive inaugurates “a tussle between the Europe for employee protection and the Europe for employee competitiveness”, she protested. Voting for amending this is tantamount to “giving up all hope of harmonisation along these lines”.
Belgian Green member Pierre Jonckheer recalled that the position of the Greens/EFA Group is “very similar” to that of the GUE/NGL Group. His own group will, moreover, submit a new amendment in favour of rejecting the directive with a view to the vote in Strasbourg. Pragmatic as ever, Mr Jonckheer nonetheless warned against the dangers of a strategy that is purely defensive, saying: “Let us be quite clear, there is no majority (at the EP) for a simple refusal”. He went on to add: “We lost in internal market committee but by very little (21 in favour, 16 against the country of origin principle). We consider that the fight is not lost in plenary. It is not an acquired fact but it is not impossible. And if we don't give ourselves a chance, then I fear that the result will be bad”. Pierre Jonckheer evoked the position of MEPs of the new Member States who, even in the Socialist camp, do not look kindly upon the directive. He called for all restrictions to the free movement of workers from eight new Member States applied by the twelve “old” Member States except Ireland, the United Kingdom and Sweden since enlargement to be lifted. . “It would be a positive signal for workers”, he said. In May 2006, the above three Member States should decide whether they wish to keep such measures in place for another three years.
The Belgian Green member considered, moreover, that the “Vaxholm affair” results from the fact that “the directive on posted workers is not precise enough and does not cover certain provisions of the collective agreements”. The Greens will therefore push for a change in European legislation. We recall that the affair which opposes the Latvian enterprise, “Laval un partneri”, to the Swedish trade union, “Byggnads”, had broken out last spring when the Latvian company refused to apply the Swedish collective agreements on the salaries of its Latvian employees posted to a renovation worksite in Vaxholm (see EUROPE 9056 and 9049). The matter was taken before the Court of Justice of the European Union.