I think it is a tactical mistake by advocates of anything vaguely along the lines of the current Bolkestein-proposal to try to create a link between this debate and EU enlargement. If properly done, the service sector should be invigorated in an even manner across the whole EU, rather than just by exploiting some temporary wealth differentials between East and West. Yet every time somebody mentions that mysterious Lithuanian company venturing to the UK or France, advocates of the directive will get the infamous “social-dumping”-soup poured over their heads.

I admit that I haven’t been following the debate all that closely, but my impression is that the “social dumping” bogeyman is raised by the directive’s opponents, not by its supporters.

My point is that if we were ever serious about enlargement or the single market, the services directive is an inevitable consequence. What gets me annoyed is that so much of the opposition appears to be based in xenophobia and protectionism.

I believe you’re right that the opponents started this game, but for example commission president Barroso mentioned in his defence of the directive last week that he would protect the new member states from forces wanting to preserve the old order. Barroso then got a phone call from Jacques Chirac in reply..

I think Georg has a point there. Calculations in the Netherlands, for instance, show that the Services Directive would actually *create* jobs there, instead of threatening them. This is probably true for other EU-15 countries as well.

Another thing that disturbs me about the debate is that I hardly see any media refute the unions’ claim that the Directive allows companies to work under the conditions of the countries where social protection is lowest: If you take article 24 of the proposal, it says that for workers posted in another Member State the employment and working conditions of that Member State apply, in accordance with a Directive that has been in place since 1997.

Brussels Gonzo, eh?

I’ll take it as a compliment!

Frankly, I’m not surprised that the debate has sunken to this level of stupidity, given how the SGP has failed to keep national deficits under the agreed percentage ceiling. The debates that flourished under France and then Germany breaking the pact were enough to make any causal reader of newspapers cringe.

On France Inter, an interview with Laurent Fabius, 24 Mar… sets out the arguments on the French left for a ’no’ (to the constitution).
…

The new countries from Eastern Europe are said to be not like Spain and Portugal: they seek a niche (créneau) exactly through their lack of social protection. According to Bernard Guetta’s earlier commentary, they are seen as strengthening the camp of Great Britain, the ’liberal’ and atlanticist camp. (Spain’s position could of course be seen as temporary: would it have been accorded the honour of inclusion in the inner core if Aznar or the PP were still in power?)
…
http://davidp1.blogspot.com/2005/03/leurope-social.html

While the PP, and Aznar even more, aligned mostly with the UK-US “liberal”, their internal policies where rather unliberal, if not typical of crony capitalism. And their hold on Spanish society was not as strong as they thought, which was illustrated by they eviction from power one year ago. Spanish society is nearer to France’s than to Italy’s.

DSW