Ole
10 Oct 2001
Brother Peter,
(I’m curious, do you use some form of medbroder, broder or bror here, corresponding to the way we address Union brothers in American English?)
I had known the vote was coming – that was posted all over the place – but getting any information about it afterwards is a quite different story! I can well see why you have “no idea as to which issues they are referring,” first, because, after more than two and a half hours of trying, it is almost impossible to get any information at all on the matter, second, because the only thing I did manage to scrape up left me with more questions than answers.
Here’s all I could find:
Access to port services: unclear outcome following vote in committee
Although the Transport Committee this morning adopted the report by Georg JARZEMBOWSKI (EPP-ED, D) on a Council directive on market access to port services by 26 votes to 21 with 11 abstentions, it soon proved that the votes on the 276 amendments tabled had given rise to contradictory results. Following the vote many Members concluded that some of the decisions they had just taken were incompatible with each other. Mr. Jarzembowski will therefore now start talks with Parliament’s political groups in order to prepare a new and clearer text before the November plenary session in Strasbourg.
That was from Europarl’s press page: http://www.europarl.eu.int/press/index_en.htm
There was nothing on the EU’s web site’s own news page. There was nothing on the EU business site. That was surprising, they usually have something, however brief, on such things. I got no hits in queries on a over dozen news search engines I also blanked searching 40 or 50 european newspaper sites.
I am writing this on the 10th, about 9:30 pm, Pacific Coast time here, which means it is now 6:00 am on the 11th in western Europe, a whole day after the fact, and still no news articles – what gives?
Is it that the press people don’t consider this news, or are they maybe just waiting for Jarzembowski to prepare “a new and clearer text” before they write anything about this?
There is still some hope – they might have left out Sections 6. 5 and 11! Also, there is at least some time to play with. With contradicting votes on 276 amendments, we can probably anticipate a good deal of further debate before it passes in a plenary session.
The number of abstentions alone would seem to indicate that there are some EP folks who do possess a modicum of conscience, but seem to be among the testicularly impaired. Is there a chance of getting to any of them?
frats,
ole
Peter Shaw
11 Oct 2001
Hi Ole.
Swedish trade unionists traditionally use “kamrat” (comrade) rather than “broder” which would be the best form to use for brother.
Knowing that “comrade” has political associations often frowned upon in many basically social-democrat unions, we in the Dockworkers Union use “brother” for international correspondence just to be on the safe side! Otherwise we are usually pretty informal and nationally skip the titles and lead off with just the full name and title if it’s someone we don’t know and“Hej” if we do.
I’ve read a few rapports from the IDC’s observer at the Parliamentary Committee meeting and from the ESPO meeting today but am not much the wiser as to what was decided. Not surprising considering that apparently a lot of the deputies didn’t seem to know what they were voting for or against - it must have been a real f. . . -up! 11 abstentions seems a bit puzzling too - they must have been asleep or something which would’t surprise me.
It was a real shock for most of us and a great disappointment. One thing’s for sure though - plenty of dockers will be spoiling for a fight now and there’s almost certain to be a lot of unrest in the near future if we don’t get some changes in the now infamous articles 6. 5 and 11.
I’ll get back, hopefully soon, when I have some real news. In the meantime, I’d be very grateful for your assistance - you are obviously very good at research.
Fraternally.
Pete
Kees Marges (ITF)
12 Oct 2001
Yesterday (11 October) the EU Organisation Port Authorities, ESPO, organised a seminar on the Port Package. De Palacio (EU Commissioner), Durant (Belgian Chair of the Council of Transport Ministers), Jarzembowski, and many others were there. ESPO arranged for several panel ‘discussions’ and one of the panels had representatives of the port authorities, private terminal operators, shipowners and shippers. They did not invite (for the panel) representatives of workers.
I went to the seminar although I was supposed to attend a meeting of the International Safety Panel in Bremen. I thought Antwerp was more important. Just before the panal started I got a verbal invitation to make a short statement on behalf of ITF/ETF immediately following the introductions of the members of the panel. Representaives of some other organisations, like the pilots, also got this last minute invitation. Of course I complained (bilateral and from the speakers place) about this too obvious exclusion of workers and this kind ot attitude towards workers in EU ports.
As I only got a few minutes I concentraded my remarks on the consequences of the directive and the increased competition (sub- standard ports or ‘Ports-of-Convenience’) on safety in the ports. I urged the EU Parliament to reject the whole directive and the subsequent withdrawal of it by the Commission in order to get a fresh start and a proper consultation of the trade union movement.
Apart from the 26-22-11 vote result on the final text after amending, the exact votes on each of the amendments is not known yet. Selfhandling/cargo handling by seafarers seems to have been voted IN the final text. In his closing statement to the seminar the shadow rapporteur of the Transport Committee told us that even he still did not know what was voted in and what was voted out. He also expected that some contraditing amendments have been accepted, which showes the chaos coused by this really unacceptable proposal for a directive.
One may also say that 22 + 11 = 33 votes were NOT in favour of the amended proposal. Jarzembowski was among the 11, in order to keep a position for negotiations, as he suggested.
The result of the vote in the EP (November) is very unpredictable. From what I have heard is that (too many) delegates from South European Countries in the left wing parties finally voted in favour of the proposed directive, while the UK Conservatives did not chose. They will vote when the EP has to vote.
Finally at the very end of the seminar I asked the representative of Hutchison UK, (one of the most important and influencial private terminal operators in the UK and all over the world) for Hutchison’s opinion on the proposed EU Directive (because I already knew his answer). I made reference to the briefing paper of the UK Government to all UK MEP’s in which the UK government strongly opposed the proposed text of the Directive. He told the seminar that Hutchison too is very much against this proposal and that it needs dramatical changes. If those changes would not be introduced Hutchison would reconsider their planned investments of over US$500m in several UK ports. They even would suggest that the UK should be excluded from the working of the Directive. Hutchison is also share holder of ECT Rotterdam and in fact in the driving seat of that container terminal. As I knew this opinion and I also noted that until now Hutchison did not makde their opinion public I thought this would be a nice way to complete the seminar, which it obviously was. My information is that P&OPorts has the same opinion, but they too did not made it public yet.
