By Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP, EPP-ED UK, is a member of the European Parliament’sCommittee on Employment and Social Affairs - 11th April 2005
MEPs have the chance to lead the debate on growth and jobs. Or will the European Parliament be sidelined? Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP is looking for action.
When the Barroso Commission finally took office, it pledged real reform. A Portuguese European Commission president would at last deliver the Lisbon Agenda.
But while former Commissioner Frits Bolkestein once tellingly branded Lisbon as “all poetry and no motion”, that label is increasingly looking appropriate for the commission itself.
The words still impress: the lack of real action continues to disappoint.
Logic would suggest that the need for change is self-evident, but unfortunately logic does not always prevail in politics.
Unemployment is painfully high across continental Europe, and is getting higher.
The pain is borne by those out of work, particularly the young trying to enter the jobs market for the first time, the elderly trying to stay within it for the last time, as well as other vulnerable groups such as mothers trying to re-enter it while coping with the demands of a young family.
The so-called ‘European Social Model’, that ring-fences those in work with additional ‘rights’, ensures that labour markets are inflexible, that labour costs are high, and that high unemployment is perpetuated.
This ensures massive social injustice, and is hardly a model to be admired. A model that is notionally designed to prevent ‘social dumping’ ends up instead ensuring that many people are indeed socially dumped by being effectively excluded from work.
The need for a strong social safety-net is not in question. But the current social model is not just unjust, it is also financially unsustainable.
If the EU economy does not grow, the extra wealth needed to pay for greater social services is simply not generated.
In the global market-place Europe has to be competitive: nobody owes us a living. We cannot insulate ourselves indefinitely from the pressures of the real world, and expect the next generation to pay for it.
The whole social model has to be reformed, but member state governments in Old Europe continue to duck the challenge.
Those member states, notably France and
Germany trying to preserve their protectionist past, have much to answer for.
But then so does the commission. Barroso is still overreacting to the Socialist-Liberal Democrat Alliance bouncing of Buttiglione last autumn as prospective Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner.
The left faced him down, but Barroso blinked first. Unfortunately he is still blinking.
The much heralded programme to reduce/simplify the burden of EU regulation has so far produced a list of five whole directives that need to be changed.
These include the Plant Products Directive and the Medical Devices Directive. It should be no surprise that when businesses complain about the torrent of red tape, these two directives are hardly top of the list.
Barroso has largely wasted his first six months: he needs to make up for lost time fast.
He should rein in the independent
fiefdom of Employment and Social Affairs, that undermines Lisbon with impunity.
He should champion the Services Directive rather than accept its dilution: more jobs and better value to taxpayers demand it.
Of course he needs to aim for co-operation and consensus in the process: but the way to secure both will be via more cojones rather than more concessions.
But it is very easy to criticise the European Commission on the one hand and member states on the other.
The European Parliament itself has a major leadership role, and the next few months will show whether it will face up to its responsibility to deliver it.
Coming up the straight is a vote on the important review of the Working Time Directive, and the omens are not good.
The left has long disliked the opt-out from this directive. It allows flexibility. It permits individual choice. It bypasses trade unions. It gives “unfair” competitive advantage to those countries that currently use it. It has increasing appeal to those new member states that would like to use it, to help grow their fledgling economies.
It is understandable that the ‘old left’ wish to see it suppressed. The question is how many of the ‘old right’ will follow suit.
In May, when the vote comes to plenary, the parliament will have a simple choice.
Will MEPs show that they recognise the need for flexibility, and the importance of competitiveness? That they want to drive real reform?
Or will they show that they are still in a time warp? That they believe that tighter one-size-fits-all employment directives are the solution rather than the problem? That promoting more rigid labour markets will really create more jobs and more social justice? That they choose to sideline themselves in the debate rather than to lead it?
The vote will also be an early test as to whether the parliament too prefers just the poetry of Lisbon. Those of us who care about jobs, about freedom, and about the reality of poverty and social exclusion, will be actively pressing for motion.
Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP, EPP-ED UK, is a member of the European Parliament’s
Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
This article was first published in a special issue of the Parliament Magazine produced in partnership with Employment Week 2005
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.