Strasbourg, 15/02/2006 (Agence Europe) - Supporters and opponents of the Gebhardt-Harbour compromise clashed during the extended debate on Tuesday evening at the parliament on the “services” directive (see other articles and EUROPE 9131). This solution, according to Jacques Toubon (EPP-ED, France) “”constitutes a block on social dumping…is based on subsidiarity…it is a genuine compromise”. Toubon also said that “the European Parliament draft takes the monopoly away from the Court of Justice, which it has been exercising for fifty years by implementing the principles of the Treaty”. Luxembourg socialist Robert Goebbels warned that if parliament did not do its work, the Court of Justice would do it. Goebbels defends the specific character of public services while opposing its “deification” (he asked whether they really were always in the general interest). Belgian Green Pierre Jonckheer, was concerned about clarity and legal security and overall asserted that it increasing competition was not enough to create jobs. Fellow Belgian Marianne Thyssen (EPP-ED) said that the revised directive would be able to fill in the gap between the institutions and citizens, as well as that between new and old Member States. Austrian Othmar Kara (EPP-ED) deplored the fact that they had played too much with the citizens' emotions in this discussion, a sentiment echoed by Bernard Lehideux (ALDE) who attacked “the Commission's lack of political judgement” which “was unequalled, except by the of the French government authorities, which revealed themselves as a particularly unexpected partner in this clumsy waltz”. This criticism was shared by his compatriot Philippe De Villiers (Independence and Democracy) but much more vehemently. He rejected the directive by denouncing the “masked ball” of the Bolkestein directive and the “scandal” of claiming that the rule of the country of origin had been excluded thanks to a compromise between Conservatives and Socialists. Several Italian MEPs from all sides opposed the directive: Roberto Musacchi (Rifondazione comunista), saw the demonstrations around the Parliament as containing the potential for creating a new Europe. Mario Borghezio (Northern League) and Roberta Angelilli (National Alliance) also opposed it. The Danish June Movement will vote no announced the co-president of the Independence and Democracy group Jens-Peter Bonde, for whom the compromise proposed “will certainly lead to a transfer of power from workers and their organisations to the European institutions”. The President of the GUE/NGL, Francis Wurtz was calmer in his contribution. He accused those of peddling a compromise as having avoided “any explicit reference to the country of origin principle” and to have patently overestimated “the scale of the social guarantees they said have been introduced”. Therefore, he said, “a company established in a country with low social standards will only have to offer its service's through the Union via the intermediary of so-called self-employed workers for the host countries to lose all jurisdiction on it over respect for local legal rules”. According to the French Communist “in such a precarious and completely ambiguous context…any room for interpretation will be left to the Commission and Court to rule on”, as jurisprudence “systematically protects companies providing services, attached to the country of origin principle and always goes against the rules of the host country accused of 'impeding' their activities”.
Among the rapporteurs for committee recommendations was the president of the economics and monetary committee, French Socialist Pervenche Berès who spoke on behalf of rapporteur Sahra Wagenknecht (GUE/NGL, Germany), who called for the directive the be purely and simply rejected. Berès said that the majority of her committee had not supported the recommendation but still insisted on the exclusion of services of general interest from the directive. Several rapporteurs from the committees rose against it claiming that the Gebhardt-Harbour compromise had been done in the corridors of power and had ignored the work of the committees. This was not the opinion of Anne Van Lancker (Belgian Socialist), rapporteur for the employment committee, who described the compromise as a good one. Speaking for the culture committee, Marie-Hélène Descamps (EPP-ED, France) asked for the specificity of cultural services to be recognised, notably in the audio-visual remit.
The president of the Council Martin Bartenstein, in his brief reply highlighted the great symbolic strength of the draft and provided assurances of the Austrian presidency's willingness to find a solution that would be satisfactory to all.