In the recent European elections Labour MEPs lost nearly a third of their 29 seats and voters everywhere punished their respective governments for perceived shortcomings. This was clearly the case for the Labour party and for its sister parties elsewhere in Europe, for better or for worse. Take France, where the socialists gained massively and then Germany, who lost them, in more or less equal measure.
In the new European parliament 2004, the Socialist group has 199 members, which represents 27 percent of the total number of seats in the Parliament. Before these elections, we had 37 percent of the total number of seats. A more striking fact for Labour MEPs in the Socialist group in particular, is the fact that we now have only seven more MEPs than the UK Independence party. On a brighter note, however, we are still part of the second largest political group and anyway, the conservative group (the European People’s party) lost nearly ten percent of its seats too. A loss of ten percent here or there may not at first appear particularly earth shattering and anyway, if all politics is local, Europe’s voters won’t lose any sleep over these losses anyway.
The trouble is, in a parliament where consensus politics is the name of the game, where there is no formal government and opposition as we know it, ten percent actually matters a great deal. Put another way, in the new configuration of political groups in the European parliament, a relatively smaller Socialist group will have to sweat more blood and tears and form coalitions of the willing to pass legislation.
Passing progressive legislation in the previous parliament was no easy task. The PES group had to seek like-minded allies in other political groups to make headway, and nowhere more so than in the field of employment and social affairs. Take, for example, a recent report by the Employment and Social Affairs committee on the revision of the working time directive. The directive has been around for over ten years. PES members of the Employment and Social Affairs committee came to the conclusion that it was high time to put an end, albeit gradually, to the opt-out from the 48-hour working week negotiated by the Tories. An in-depth and respected report by the University of Cambridge also came to the same conclusion. However, to get the report voted through, we still had to pull out all the stops. By closing ranks, we used the political weight in the PES group and also negotiated hard to get colleagues with a social conscience from other political groups on board. Luckily, that time we were successful.
However, in the new and relatively smaller parliamentary group of the PES, we will have to work a lot harder to achieve the same outcome and outstanding employment and social affairs proposals could remain on the table as a result. Why? Because to pass legislation under the co-decision procedure – where the parliament has real power and an equal say with the member states in the Council of Ministers – the parliament needs an absolute majority of it 376 members. In reality, even with the support of allies in the Green, Liberal and United Left groups we still won’t make this majority. Hard times could be ahead for employment and social legislation.
The European commission proposal for a directive on the working conditions of temporary agency workers is a case in point. The directive aims to provide better social protection for temporary workers, which is a right already enjoyed by part-timers and workers on fixed-term contracts, thanks to European legislation. For the PES group, a directive on temporary agency workers represents a win-win situation: agency working would become more attractive to a wider group of workers and provide employers with high quality, more choice and greater flexibility. The European parliament has been a valuable ally and steadfast supporter in the struggle to achieve safeguards for temporary agency workers. A smaller Socialist group, with fewer Labour MEPs in the fold, may jeopardise progress on the directive.
Of the many protest votes against governments across the EU, no doubt a fair few came from thousands of (largely UK-based) agency workers that increasingly make up Europe’s labour market. Voters of course have every right to use these elections to make a protest about issues such as asylum and immigration. And Iraq mobilised British voters much more than any other issue in these elections.
But something is not quite right here. If the old adage is true that ‘all politics is local’, you have to ask yourself what is more local than the employment rights that we enjoy thanks to the European parliament: rights to equal pay, to equal treatment in employment, to consultation over collective dismissals, to European works councils, and to working time restrictions. A TUC report What has the European parliament done for workers issued (ironically) the day after the June election result, makes this point adeptly: ‘While UK employment rights can be reversed by any government, European employment rights are much harder to take away, as their repeal requires the consent of other EU member states.’
The point here is that the European parliament and European politics are local and this is yet to be fully understood by the European electorate. When you consider, however, the determination with which the UK tabloid press peddles daily euro myths, it is not surprising. Hopefully these elections will not herald the death of socially progressive EU legislation and the Socialist group can continue where it left off: fighting the corner for a Europe where social and economic legislation go hand in hand. It must persuade Europe’s electorate that Europe is political, it is local and it affects their lives profoundly.