The European Union - The Political Geography of Inequality - page 82

Commission tried to expand its sphere of influence during the negotiations of
the Single European Act (1987). Jacques Delors, believing that any attempt to
give new depth to the Common market without introducing a social dimension
would be doomed to failure, became a strong advocate of a social dimension
to the Union. In general, the Commission pursued the expansion of its powers
by seeking a reduction in the number of issues to be decided by unanimity at
the Council. 11 Accordingly, the Commission argued, decisions should be more
flexible in those areas of social affairs of particular importance for market inte-
gration and performance. In this environment, the Single European Act yielded
two initiatives: the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of
Workers (not binding), introducing a certain degree of equalization of workers'
rights to prevent social dumping, and an Action Programme, where the Com-
mission considered specific measures to achieve such equalization. In a typical
example of the sort of dynamics associated with a divergent geography of labor
markets, the UK considered the latter initiative an unacceptable intervention
on market mechanisms and blocked it (Rhodes 1997 ; Room 1991 ; Springer
1992 ). The Maastricht Treaty marks the next step in the attempt to approach,
however remotely, a European social policy. Again, it did so by introducing
specific changes to expand the number of social policy issues to be decided
by qualified majority. In addition, the Treaty incorporated an Agreement on
Social Policy and the provision of Protocol 14 (Social Protocol) towards its
implementation. In light of previous historical experience, these provisions
bounded all members except the UK. In terms of actual policy content, these
measures opened the door to increasing the role of social partners (unions and
employers' associations) in the negotiation, agreement, and implementation of
EU social policies. As such, they constituted a mild attempt to throw the seeds
of a European corporatist system.
Subsequent efforts to incorporate the UK into the Social Protocol, and the
Social Protocol into the Amsterdam Treaty, brought out again the constraints
that geography of risk and inequality imposed upon attempts to develop a com-
mon labor market framework, however loosely (Cram 1997 ; Rhodes 1997 ).
Ultimately, the UK, who had opted out in Maastricht, only accepted the full
incorporation of the Social Protocol into the Amsterdam Treaty after Blair's
government secured the unanimity requirement for issues about “protection of
workers in the event of termination of their employment contract and represen-
tation and collective defense of workers' and employers' interests, where many
other delegations would have preferred a qualified majority decision making
procedure” (Petite 1998 : 15). In other words, the UK signed the Amsterdam
Treaty only after sheltering politically its model of decentralized collective bar-
gaining and unemployment protection (Soskice 1990 : 36-61), thus limiting the
feasibility of a common social policy agenda.

11

For instance, amendments to articles 118aand118b of the founding treaties (1957)wereintro-
duced so that health and safety of worker matters were to be decided by qualified majority. In
addition, articles 100a (regulations on the rights and interests of people) and 130a (strengthen-
ing economic and social cohesion) were also changed to introduce qualified majority voting.