[Article]EU leaders agree to protect Europe's social model

gandalf

I am not sure if this was posted already, I have done a quick scan but didn't see it so apologies if this is a repeat.

Was reading this article and I am not comfortable about this "country of origin" part of this legislation has actually been dropped. Basically my understanding of this is that your employment rights will be based on where your company has its headquarters so the fairly decent rights that employees have here could be void.

EU leaders agree to protect Europe's social model
23.03.2005 - 00:24 CET | By Honor Mahony

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – EU leaders meeting in Brussels on Tuesday have agreed on a carefully worded compromise concerning the controversial proposal to liberalise the services market.

To appease both supporters and detractors of the directive, the wording of the conclusions at the end of the summit on Wednesday is to say that while the EU supports a complete opening of the market in services, the European Social model has to be protected.

Luxembourg Prime Minister and current head of the EU, Jean-Claude Juncker, said that the current draft does not fully meet those requirements.

He added that the directive would not be withdrawn as this would give the impression that opening the services market had "dropped off the agenda altogether" but he stressed that "changes will be made to take the social model into account".

"Nobody can sensibly dispute the fact that we need to open up the services sector in Europe ... but it must be done with respect for certain sensitivities and convictions", said Mr Juncker.

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said, "We have achieved in our debate an important consensus".

He said withdrawing the directive - which is the prerogative only of the European Commission - would go against the wishes of both the European Parliament and the council.

This puts the ball firmly in the court of the European Parliament which is due to finalise its report on the directive before the end of May – and before the French referendum on the Constitution.

The French debate on the Constitution has become embroiled in popular fear about the directive leading to concerns that this could result in a no in the referendum.

However, member states are split on their support for the directive.

Some member states – particularly from eastern Europe but also the UK and Ireland – support the directive as they believe it will create thousands of jobs.

But opponents of the directive, mainly France and Germany, say that it will lead to a reduction in wages and working conditions - particularly due to the 'country of origin' principle, which enables service providers to operate anywhere in the EU under their own domestic rules.

France against
The move by governments came after French President Jacques Chirac told his colleagues on Tuesday that the text is "unacceptable for France as it is for other social partners" and called for it to be re-written.

Mr Juncker, who earlier said that the Luxembourg Presidency is for liberalisation of the services market but against social dumping, added that he wants to be able to tell his citizens that "that this directive means ABC".

This is in reference to the confusion that has arisen from the current draft.

Slutmonkey57b

Interesting proposal. Basically the French and Germans were running scared that the services industry would decamp wholesale to Britain or Eastern europe where unions are nonexistant and entitlements are minimal. Hardly suprising. I'm all in favour of screwing the services industry where it hurts - profit margins are scandalous as it is.

Bri

It's a good idea, albeit flawed. Free movement isn't exactly all it should be without it. It's always going to be opposed substantially from those scared of loss of profits (not rights).

Anyway, they've agreed 800+ reforms to be tabled - mostly driven by a scared French government seeing a potential "no" vote to the constitution after recent protests. As usual it's quite stupid; people misunderstand the EU or use one outlet to articulate their objection to another. At least that's how I'm reading it.

Mary Raferty (IT) wrote today that she could see an Irish consumer being forced to goto Hurgary (as an e.g.) if they had a legal dispute with a firm who was using a different country of origin, or having no case at all...

bonkey

Bri wrote:

Mary Raferty (IT) wrote today that she could see an Irish consumer being forced to goto Hurgary (as an e.g.) if they had a legal dispute with a firm who was using a different country of origin, or having no case at all...

Which is a reason why the Irish customer may choose to deal with an Irish company, even if that means a higher price.

And, of course, once you get to a large enough scale....international disputes are common fare as it is.

Of course, one can imagine that a more unified legal process would be the inevitable follow-on to an opening of markets.