Brussels, 17/02/2006 (Agence Europe) - During the vote on the amended draft services directive after the adoption of the Gebhardt report (see EUROPE 9133), some political groups were united and others divided. Among the 213 no votes, the Greens/EFA group voted against en bloc, the GUE/NGL almost (Swede Sjöstedt abstained), similarly Independence and Democracy (Czech Zelezny abstained), whereas the Union for a Europe of Nations group voted against the new Member States' MEPs (except the Lithuanians Pavilionis and Didziokas who voted for, just like the Irish Crowley, Aylard, Ryan, O'Neachtain, while the Italians Muscardini, Angelilli and Musumeci abstained), and almost all the non-attached members voted against (except the Belgians Dillen and Vanhecke and the Briton Helmer who abstained). Among the 391 votes for, an overwhelming majority of the EPP-ED group (apart from MEPs from the new Member States, who either voted against or abstained, and the German Stauner and the Briton Evans who voted against) and the PES group (except the French Socialists - with the exception of Rocard and Savary who abstained - Belgian Socialists, who voted against apart from Van Lancker, who voted for, while the Greeks Aranoutakis, Batzeli, Beglitis, Lambrinidis, Matsouka, Sifunakis, Tzampazi and Xenogiannakopoulou who abstained) and the ALDE group (but all the FDP MEPs who cast their vote voted no, along with the Italian radical Bonino, the Dutchwoman in't Veld, the Austrian Resetarits and several MEPs from the new countries, whereas the Briton Bowles abstained). There were a total of 24 abstentions. The resolution accompanying the Gebhardt report (which we will publish in full) was approved by 394 votes to 215, with 33 abstentions.
From the PES, the chairwoman of the Internal Market Committee, British Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy stressed that the opening of this market could create 600,000 jobs: with more than 53 cases before the European Court of Justice arguing for their rights to provide services across the EU, it was high time to provide some rules, she said in a press release. DS MEP Marta Vincenzi spoke of the importance of the directive for tourism and welcomed the wide pacific mobilisation from the working world (compared with recent violent demonstrations by dockers over port services). From the French Socialists, Gilles Savary recognised that the text no longer should be known by the name of its liberal devisor, but by the name of the German Socialist Evelyne Gebhardt. In a press release, Kader Arif, Harlem Désir and Stéphane Le Foll explained they had voted no because of the considerable steps back during the course of voting, with notably the removal of amendments seeking to exclude education, culture, research, water services and postal services from the directive (on this issue, Mrs Gebhardt said in a press conference that it had been a bitter pill for her), and also the amendment proposing the adoption of a framework directive on services of general interest and services of general economic interest.
In the EPP-ED, Helmut Nassauer considered that Germany was the country that would benefit most from this directive, while Astrid Lulling from Luxemburg feared that the removal of the country of origin principle from Article 16 of the directive could lead to legal insecurity for the supplier who would have to play it by ear guided by the Court of Justice. She added that, given the text as a whole, she felt she had to vote for, but it was with a heavy heart. UMP MEPs were very happy, and Françoise Grossetête hoped that this vote would break the false idea that the Commission decided everything. Among Forza Italia MEPs, Giuseppe Castiglione noted that services represented around 70% of the European economy, but only 20% of providers operated across national borders.
In the ALDE Group, Frenchwoman Marielle de Sarnez welcomed Parliament's bringing this inspired profound change to the directive, and Polish MEPs, who would have preferred to retain the “Bolkestein” proposal, said in a press release that, even in its modified form, the directive could “become the instrument of creation of chances for numerous Polish entrepreneurs and employees”. The Italian radical Emma Bonino, on the other hand, claimed that it was a directive for the rich, pushing the others away. This was not Europe, she said, it was the selfishness of the Fifteen against the others, and a victory for a few consolidated lobbies.
Among the Greens/EFA, Frenchman Jean-Luc Bennahmias considered the text left room for the danger of social dumping and competition between countries in the EU. The “Bolkestein” directive was a monster, and our group helped to pull out some of its teeth, but now it was confused and potentially dangerous, commented Frenchman Gérard Onesta in the same press release. Another Frenchman, Alain Lipietz, noted that even half “de-Bolkenbsteinised” and rid of its most scandalous parts, the directive still moved in the direction that the Right wanted. In a press release, the German Heide Rühle, Greens shadow rapporteur on this dossier, protested the “great Parliamentary coalition compromise” had been rejected.
Leader of the GUE/NGL, Francis Wurtz regretted two significant last minute steps back (removal of the social and consumer protection policies from the scope of the directive). This text “is not worthy of the impressive mobilisation across Europe against the directive,” he said, adding, “Our group believes itself to be in tune with the expectations of millions of Europeans … having proposed the rejection pure and simple of the directive. The Greens did the same and a not insignificant minority of Socialist MEPS rallied to this position. That must be a commitment for the battles to come”.