More efficient law-making in social policy: identification of areas for an enhanced move to qualified majority voting

CEEP is highly skeptical about the opportunity to use, in the present political context, the passerelle clause of the Lisbonne treaty in the social sphere. CEEP is an organisation which, together with its employers and trade-union counterparts, contributed to the very definition and constitution of Europe’s social dimension and its legislative and non-legislative tools, through constant negotiations, debates and…

ECSA, the recognized EU sectoral social partner, representing employers of the maritime transport sector strongly opposes the European Commission’s proposal to introduce more qualified majority voting in social policy.

The Confederation of Danish Employers (DA) as other BusinessEuropes members support very strongly what is set out in the position paper of BusinessEurope. In particular that in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties the areas under unanimity and areas excluded from EU legislation was introduced in order not to upset the important balance within each Member State in certain key national areas like social security and…

As the recognized EU sectoral social partner, representing employers of the chemical, pharmaceutical, rubber and plastics industries, the European Chemical Employers Group (ECEG) has produced its own view on the President Juncker’s 2018 letter of intent on making use of the so-called passerelle clauses in certain areas of social policy, shifting decision making from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) or…

Summary: The ETUC has not taken a specific position on (the use of) ‘Passerelle’ clauses. However, it did express itself at several occasions both in general (e.g. in relation to subsequent Treaty revisions) and/or in specific issue-related resolutions on the need to have more efficient decision-making procedures (including voting requirements) in and for the EU.

The Confederation of Finnish Industries strongly opposes the European Commission’s proposal to introduce more qualified majority voting (QMV) in the area of social policy. The members of the Finnish business community are vocal supporters of the European project.

The Confederation of Portuguese Business (CIP) fully disagrees with the initiative presented by the European Commission. In CIP perspective: 1. The arguments that the Commission puts forward to support its initiative are questionable. On one hand, the Commission misinterprets the concerns of the EU citizens referred on the 2018 Spring Eurobarometer.

The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise strongly opposes the European Commission’s proposal to introduce more qualified majority voting in the area of social policy. • The Commission wrongly asserts that this is a response to citizens’ expectations, and not identified problems, while that which has been expressed are their concerns.

ENSIE, European Network of Social Integration Enterprises, which brings together national and regional networks and federations of social enterprises which employ disadvantaged people, thanks the Commission for the need for ‘feedback’, while the practice of unanimity stresses the sovereignty of a Member State, however, this practice hinders effective and, above all, rapid decisions on European policies.

Filed in French · English published by the European Commission

Social Platform is the largest network of European rights- and value-based civil society organisations working in the social sector. Our 48 member organisations represent more than 2,800 national organisations, associations and other voluntary groups at local, regional and national level in every EU member state - covering a large spectrum of the EU social civil society sector.

The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) declared at Gothenburg Summit the 17th November 2017 that collective bargaining is at the heart of the Swedish labour market. We have a high level of organization for trade unions and employers’ associations.

The division of competences between the EU and the Member States regarding social policy is adequate at the moment and more qualified majority voting should not be introduced. The current areas for unanimity voting are sufficient and justified. The social systems in each Member State have structures and principles of their own.

Regarding the exceptional importance of European social policy, ABV is particularly concerned about an appropriate design of decision making processes at EU level in this area. As the umbrella organisation of the German pension schemes for liberal professions we strongly point out that it is of fundamental importance that the core competence of the Member States in the field of social security is preserved and will…

The EU should give direction to social policy not by taking away responsibilities from Member States but by supporting and complementing Member States to act in the field of social policy. The Treaty clearly defines which areas of social policy fall under qualified majority voting and which areas fall under unamity (core pillars of national socio-economic systems; they are related to how Member States define the…

Caritas Europa, a network of 49 member organisations in 46 countries across the European continent, working with people of all faiths to end poverty and to promote the dignity of all people. is in favour of moving to qualified majority voting in the Council, where the possibility is foreseen in article 153 TFEU, and therefore welcomes the initiative of the Commission.

The Swedish Construction Federation strongly opposes the European Commission’s proposal to introduce more qualified majority voting in social policy. The already limited areas of unanimity voting in the social policy area are fully justified as covering core elements of responsibility for national governments and social partners, and should remain so.

BusinessEurope strongly opposes the European Commission’s proposal to introduce more qualified majority voting in social policy. The Commission wrongly asserts in its roadmap that this initiative is a response to citizens’ expectations, whereas opening a debate on this issue could undermine trust in the European Commission and its actions, as well as be counterproductive.

Moving from a special legislative (e.g. consultation) procedure to the ordinary legislative (i.e. co-decision) procedure means that the European Parliament finally becomes a real co-legislator on an equally powerful footing with the Member States in the Council, instead of being just consulted.