News
BackA number of third countries are currently negotiating new trade agreements with the European Union. If trade agreements until recently excluded public services, the Commission is now proposing to include these services in a discussion paper. A seminar of experts, organised this week by the European Federation of Public Service Unions EPSU, the European Office of the Austrian Trade Union Federation ÖGB and by AK EUROPA, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, put special focus on this issue and discussed the possibilities of taking appropriate counter measures.
At the centre of the discussions were considerations of the European Commission to restrict the current standard protection clause for public services and to include the public services sector in the EU-Canada bilateral trade agreement. All speakers, with the exception of the member of the cabinet staff of EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, voiced their concern that the aim of this suggestion was to strengthen the liberalisation policy via international trade agreements.
Krajewski proposes improvement of existing protective regulations
A study, prepared within the scope of a research project of EPSU and the Vienna Chamber of Labour by Markus Krajewski of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg shows how the new approach of the Commission restricts existing standards of protection and regulatory options in the public services sector. The study also clearly shows how the so-called negative list approach of the EU-Canada trade agreement favours stronger dynamics of liberalisation: whilst based on legal automatism, liberalisation obligations no longer need to be shown separately, the pressure is mounting concerning any exemption clause (“list it or lose it”). Against the background of these developments, there was, also particularly in the public services sector, the need to carefully review the scope and the legal certainty of protective regulations.
Krajewski proposes alternative options to the considerations of the Commission, which are leading in two different directions: on the one hand, legal texts are presented, which maybe directly applied to improve existing protective regulations. This includes a broad formulation of the so-called “public utilities” clause. This is to strengthen in particular the existing competences at national and local levels to determine the definition of public services. The other proposal is to guarantee more flexibility. Hence, it should be made easier in future to modify obligations within the scope of GATS or of bilateral free trade agreements. This would in particular increase the political scope to reassess past commitments.
Liberalisation measures have largely been a failure
David Hall of the Public Services Research Unit criticized that neoliberal tendencies had increasingly gathered in strength since the 1980ies. Today, the EU would give top priority to the single market; postal services, telecom and rail services for example had been liberalised. The agenda of the Commission would currently also include new regulations for public procurement and state aid rules for public services. However, the fact was that liberalisation was by no means always more efficient; apart from that services would often become more expensive.
In the Commission's opinion public services should not be liberalised
Damien Levie, member of the cabinet staff of EU Trade Commissioner de Gucht emphasised that social welfare could only be secured by more growth. Trade agreements could provide additional economic growth. Levie reaffirmed that the Commission had no intention to liberalise public services through the back door. The only objective would be to create a new framework, which was easier to handle. Subsidies for public services should not be influenced, said Levie.
MEPs demand more information from the Commission on current trade agreement negotiations
In his opening words, the Social Democrat MEP Jörg Leichtfried urged the Commission to provide the European Parliament with more details concerning trade agreement negotiations. Leichtfried criticised that the Commission’s only goal was liberalisation at all levels. However, the real problem was unequal distribution of wealth and unfair taxation, underlines the MEP. Apart from public services and proposals on tar sand and seal products, the proposal on the trade agreement with Canada would include a number of other points which he would reject. Leichtfried pointed out that he would vote against the agreement should it include public services.
Liberalisation pushes social and environmental targets into the background
Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives strongly criticised the negotiations on the EU-Canada Agreement. The new regulations would be contrary to the principle of public services. Practice had shown negative examples of the inclusion of public services in trade agreements, for example in the case of Costa Rica, who had been forced to liberalise her health insurance. Apart from that, Sinclair demonstrated, in particular on the example of the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA), how fundamentally regulatory options for social and environmental targets can be restricted.
The Commission is mainly committed to large companies' concerns
Pia Eberhardt of the non-governmental organisation Corporate Europe Observatory described the unilateral approach of the Commission during the negotiations on EU trade agreements. There were several working groups, where the Commission would exclusively talk to business leaders, for example the Market Access Working Group, whereas the civil society was excluded from the negotiation process. For example, only 6 discussions had taken place with representatives of the European Trade Union compared to 100 meetings with representatives of Business Europe, the European industrialists. Enquiries on the state of negotiations remained unanswered. Hence, the legitimacy of the Commission had to be seriously questioned, said Eberhardt.
Following the seminar, further meetings of the labour representatives are to take place to prepare measures against the plans of the Commission.
Krajewski proposes improvement of existing protective regulations
A study, prepared within the scope of a research project of EPSU and the Vienna Chamber of Labour by Markus Krajewski of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg shows how the new approach of the Commission restricts existing standards of protection and regulatory options in the public services sector. The study also clearly shows how the so-called negative list approach of the EU-Canada trade agreement favours stronger dynamics of liberalisation: whilst based on legal automatism, liberalisation obligations no longer need to be shown separately, the pressure is mounting concerning any exemption clause (“list it or lose it”). Against the background of these developments, there was, also particularly in the public services sector, the need to carefully review the scope and the legal certainty of protective regulations.
Krajewski proposes alternative options to the considerations of the Commission, which are leading in two different directions: on the one hand, legal texts are presented, which maybe directly applied to improve existing protective regulations. This includes a broad formulation of the so-called “public utilities” clause. This is to strengthen in particular the existing competences at national and local levels to determine the definition of public services. The other proposal is to guarantee more flexibility. Hence, it should be made easier in future to modify obligations within the scope of GATS or of bilateral free trade agreements. This would in particular increase the political scope to reassess past commitments.
Liberalisation measures have largely been a failure
David Hall of the Public Services Research Unit criticized that neoliberal tendencies had increasingly gathered in strength since the 1980ies. Today, the EU would give top priority to the single market; postal services, telecom and rail services for example had been liberalised. The agenda of the Commission would currently also include new regulations for public procurement and state aid rules for public services. However, the fact was that liberalisation was by no means always more efficient; apart from that services would often become more expensive.
In the Commission's opinion public services should not be liberalised
Damien Levie, member of the cabinet staff of EU Trade Commissioner de Gucht emphasised that social welfare could only be secured by more growth. Trade agreements could provide additional economic growth. Levie reaffirmed that the Commission had no intention to liberalise public services through the back door. The only objective would be to create a new framework, which was easier to handle. Subsidies for public services should not be influenced, said Levie.
MEPs demand more information from the Commission on current trade agreement negotiations
In his opening words, the Social Democrat MEP Jörg Leichtfried urged the Commission to provide the European Parliament with more details concerning trade agreement negotiations. Leichtfried criticised that the Commission’s only goal was liberalisation at all levels. However, the real problem was unequal distribution of wealth and unfair taxation, underlines the MEP. Apart from public services and proposals on tar sand and seal products, the proposal on the trade agreement with Canada would include a number of other points which he would reject. Leichtfried pointed out that he would vote against the agreement should it include public services.
Liberalisation pushes social and environmental targets into the background
Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives strongly criticised the negotiations on the EU-Canada Agreement. The new regulations would be contrary to the principle of public services. Practice had shown negative examples of the inclusion of public services in trade agreements, for example in the case of Costa Rica, who had been forced to liberalise her health insurance. Apart from that, Sinclair demonstrated, in particular on the example of the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA), how fundamentally regulatory options for social and environmental targets can be restricted.
The Commission is mainly committed to large companies' concerns
Pia Eberhardt of the non-governmental organisation Corporate Europe Observatory described the unilateral approach of the Commission during the negotiations on EU trade agreements. There were several working groups, where the Commission would exclusively talk to business leaders, for example the Market Access Working Group, whereas the civil society was excluded from the negotiation process. For example, only 6 discussions had taken place with representatives of the European Trade Union compared to 100 meetings with representatives of Business Europe, the European industrialists. Enquiries on the state of negotiations remained unanswered. Hence, the legitimacy of the Commission had to be seriously questioned, said Eberhardt.
Following the seminar, further meetings of the labour representatives are to take place to prepare measures against the plans of the Commission.