By Chris Jones - 2nd December 2005
French MEPs from the centre-left and centre-right have had a very public falling out over their positions on the much-vilified Services Directive.
Fears that the legislation would lead to social dumping – the flooding of the market by low-cost workers from Eastern Europe – helped fuel anti-EU feeling during the French vote on the constitution.
So when French centre-right MEPs on the European Parliament’s internal market committee voted against amendments designed to prevent social dumping at a meeting on November 22, they opened the door to a barrage of criticism from their centre-left rivals.
The members, from France’s ruling UMP party, were accused of double standards over the directive, which Jacques Chirac has personally denounced.
The UMP’s Jacques Toubon claimed that the directive had been “substantially changed” by centre-right amendments approved by the committee.
But his centre-left rival Béatrice Patrie said that the UMP’s support for the country of origin principal – which means that workers are subject to the laws of their home,rather than host, country – meant that French jobs remained under threat.
The disagreement was made public earlier this week in a series of open letters between the two political groups.
The UMP struck first, accusing Patrie, the leader of the French socialist MEPs on the internal market committee, double standards over the country of origin principle.
“[Patrie] is the author of an amendment retaining the country of origin principle in the case of access for service providers,” the UMP said.
“The country of origin principle appears to be no threat when it is supported by the French socialists.”
The UMP added that it had “ensured that employment regulations will not be covered by the directive, which means that there is no risk at all of social dumping”.
“A services directive that has been substantially rewritten and improved, with a more limited scope and which preserves the European social model is major opportunity for France, Europe’s biggest exporter of services.”
Patrie reacted angrily in another open letter.
“There are no exceptions to the country of origin principle in the amended services directive, contrary to what the UMP claims,” she said.
“The right claims that it has ensured that the country of origin principle will not apply to postal services, transport, retail and the supply of gas, electricity and water.”
“But postal and energy services were never included in the scope of this directive as they are subject to earlier legislation.”
“I would also like to point out that I have never suggested that the country of origin principle should apply to service providers.”
“What I said was that any service provider from within the EU should be able to ply its trade in any other member state, provided that the service it provides meets the required standards of the host country.”
“I see no reason why we shouldn’t allow Hungarian hairdressers to come and work in France, as long as they meet the necessary French standards.”
She also accused the UMP of playing with semantics over their claims that public services would also be excluded from the scope of the law.
“The French definition of public services is different from that understood by Brussels.”
“Services of general interest (police, legal services, environmental control, air traffic control, etc.) are excluded from the scope – which is not surprising as these have always been managed at a national level.”
“But services of general economic interest are included, no matter whether they are supplied by public or private companies.”
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.