AFTER THE CONSTITUTION – WHAT NOW FOR SOCIAL EUROPE?

Jean Lambert Speech to Greens in Denmark, September 2005

It was very interesting to hear the earlier debate about the role of the EU. It reminded me of discussions in my own Party. My Party took the decision to campaign against the Constitutional Treaty in the UK referendum. That has now been effectively cancelled. The Party felt the Treaty was too supportive of a free market economy, that increasing cooperation in the military field was not what the EU should be doing and that we wanted a Treaty that was more about sustainability and human rights.

However, I would have voted for the Treaty, although twenty years ago I was standing for the Greens on a policy of withdrawal from the EU. This may sound familiar to some of you! For me, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the intention to sign up to the ECHR are important steps in changing the balance within the EU away from the primarily economic direction. It is not yet enough, but it is progress in my view.

You will know that the social dimension was a big battlefield in the Convention. It took a lot of campaigning from some socialists and the Greens, together with the Trade Unions and a number of ngos, to even have a social working group as one of the thematic groups within the Convention. That Group managed to agree on a number of points but were frequently reminded during plenary debates, not least by the UK Labour Government, that certain points would be vetoed in the IGC. Not even all the agreed points made their way in to the final Convention text, for some reason.

One of the lessons to be drawn from this, is the importance of working at both the EU and the national level, so that Governments can be held to account for their actions when acting at the EU level. Too often, people are presented with a particular version of the national interest, with no idea as to what the international action might be.

The “European Social Model” is now in the spotlight. This year’s October Summit is being replaced by an informal summit on the issue of the European Social Model. Blair threw down a challenge to the EP in his speech on taking over the Presidency when he asked why people were so keen to defend a social model that has millions out of work. I find it interesting that he thinks it is the social, rather than the economic model which has resulted in so many unemployed, but his words struck a chord. Chirac and Schroeder, viewed as defenders of the current social model, are seen as being on their way out. Barroso, President of the Commission, is part of the economic old guard, who made in clear in a speech on the Lisbon process earlier this year, that the economy must come first and then the social and environmental policies can follow.

What response should we be making to this debate? What is it that we want to protect and develop from a more Nordic version of social Europe?

I think we should take Article 1.2 of the proposed Constitutional treaty as our “text”, our basis. It concerns the Union’s values and says: The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail.

 To me, this is an inclusive statement which values individuals and has implications, too, for equal treatment of third-country nationals: it values the individual and is not just about workers’ Europe. A social Europe is more than that.

If we are to uphold the values of non-discrimination, it means we must implement and extend the so-called Article 13 Directives. For some Member States (MS) this is the first time such legislation has appeared on their statute books. For the UK, it is the first time that discrimination in the field of employment has been forbidden on grounds of sexual orientation or belief. From what I have seen over the last few days in Denmark, I feel there is much that the UK could learn from you in terms of the integration of people with disabilities. Perhaps you could learn from the UK on issues concerning the integration of people from Black and Minority Ethnic Groups (BME). While we are no perfect this field, we have a lot of positive experience.

If we are to respect human dignity within the EU, we must eradicate poverty. There is nothing dignified about being poor. Many countries could learn from the Nordic countries where you have the lowest gaps between rich and poor within the EU. In the UK, we have one of the largest gaps and a situation where 1% of the population own 23% of the wealth. To close the gap requires an effective social security system, which sees social security as a productive factor and which ensures that women are not left in poverty by the state. It probably requires a minimum wage: in the UK we are currently campaigning for a living wage, which is not the same thing. However, there is no doubt that the minimum wage in the UK has made a significant difference to many people’s lives.

Human dignity also applies to the work place and requires decent health and safety practices and a work-life balance. The UK Government – a labour government – wishes to keep the British opt-out from the average 48 and has been campaigning hard on its supposed virtues. The UK and Ireland work the longest hours in the EU. In 2002, 56% of men and 20% of women worked more than 40 hours a week. The figures for Denmark were 29 and 10% respectively (Sweden was even lower at 14 and 06%). Long hours reduce the chance of social inclusion.

Solidarity is seen as another value and has implications for the involvement of the social partners (or the two sides of industry as the UK calls them). There is no doubt that the Nordic model far outstrips the UK in this field. Your level of social agreements covering about 80% of your workforce leaves UK trade unionists gasping in admiration.

Gender equality is also important in terms of an inclusive and socially just society. We need to make equal pay a reality (we still have an 18% difference between men and women in terms of full-time work in the UK. The figures are even more depressing for part-time work) and ensure better promotion prospects - remove the glass ceilings and sticky floors! Work-life balance must become a reality for men as well as for women. there is a lot the Nordic model can teach us in terms of better leave arrangements for parents: we need to extend that to others with caring responsibilities. We also have to increase the role of women in decision-making. We have seen improvements in some countries, such as Sweden and Wales, in the numbers of women elected to Parliament (the Assembly, in the case of Wales), but we still see more male ministers, senior civil servants, captains of industry and trade union leaders etc...

In order to underpin the goal of inclusion and dignity, we rely heavily on universal public services. It is public services which are crucial to women (who are more likely to be poor in so many countries); who support the lives of children, people with disabilities, the elderly and other groups at risk of exclusion. Universal education provides the opportunity for social mobility. Our health and education services, public transport and police services provide the social "glue" that binds us as societies. That is why the Services Directive is proving so controversial at the moment: many of us want to ensure that it does not become a way of dismantling public services by the back door. We have made considerable progress in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee - we now just need to persuade the majority in the Internal market Committee and the Parliament to follow our lead! Your assistance will be important in this.

But for me, a social Europe is not just about the way we treat our own citizens but is also about our international obligations - the effect our policies have on people elsewhere in the world.

This why fair trade, rather than simply free trade, is so important. We should not undermine local economies in poor countries through our agricultural subsidies or fishing agreements. We should be promoting ILO standards, rather than assuming that we must always cut labour costs to compete. The Employment Commissioner acknowledged the importance of ILO standards in the latest Social Agenda proposals. We need to develop the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in the international context and I know that Denmark has done important wok in this field. We need to continue pushing to change the priorities of the Breton Woods Institutions such as the IMF and World Bank so that they recognise the importance of the state investing in social infrastructure in the struggle against poverty.

And, of course, we must also work to make the Kyoto Protocol and its future development truly effective. If the planet cannot support us, we can have the most excellent social structures and policies and they will come to nothing if we shrink our agricultural land, cannot drink the water or rely on our harvests. Environmental justice has to be our goal.

There are many challenges facing us. How we can develop flexibility in our working lives which will be supported by an equal flexibility in our social security systems. There are many who view labour flexibility as a threat to a social Europe and it can be if it is only on the employers terms. We need to find an answer where the state provides a guarantee rather than privatising risk and expecting the individual to provide for their own support: this does not work for the poor and makes others afraid of change. I believe that the Nordic countries can provide a lead which is urgently needed before we find too many countries succumbing to "targeted" benefits, which may be fine in a vibrant economy (although I have my doubts) but are inadequate in times of difficulty.

We also need to develop systems which can cope with "foreigners", whether third-country nationals of from other EU countries. People move for a variety of reasons - because they want to or because they feel they have to. The EU has free movement as a core promise, but our Member States are increasingly creating barriers, demanding that people show a commitment to integration. Your own country has introduced regulations concerning a need to demonstrate "closeness" to Denmark as a condition of citizenship: how will this work for the children of Danes working for the EU Commission in Brussels for years? How will it work for that growing group of "Europeans" who choose to work abroad, who live the idea of labour mobility which our governments claim to support and promote within the Lisbon agenda? Why do governments have no difficulty with the movement of goods, services and capital, yet find it so difficult to cope with human beings who move? We can find answers.

There are other issues such as subsidiarity, the role of regulation versus social agreements or voluntary practice but I shan't go in to them now, you will be pleased to hear. But I do want to spend just a minute or two looking at how we can work together in the immediate future to defend a social Europe and prepare a response to Tony Blair's informal summit.

In hard, legislative policy, the future of the Services Directive will be crucial. Parliament is due to vote in the October plenary so alert your unions, local government, social organisations etc to put the pressure on and support the progressive changes the Green/EFA Group is pursuing.

The Working Time Directive is also important. For the UK Government this is "totemic". There is a real need to make the case for a limited working week. Please use your experience and your contacts to do this - not least with anyone you know in Poland. Europe should not and cannot compete on labour standards: China will win. We have to do things differently.

In terms of "soft" policy, use the opportunities you have to feed in to the National Action Plans (NAPS) on Employment, Social Inclusion etc. These are meant to involve the social partners and grass roots organisations. It can be a very useful way to integrate the local and European level and influence policy.

In terms of response on the Social Model, we have the Group meeting in Copenhagen in September as a useful discussion point, where we can share experience and move forward.

I believe we need to drive up standards and provide a counter model to the US. It can be done and the people of Europe are waiting to hear it.