Tens of thousands of French rail workers supported by trade unionists from Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain descended on Paris on 7th February to protest against European Union directives demanding the “liberalisation” of rail networks across the bloc. They were saying No to privatisation and No to the death and mayhem witnessed on Britain’s rail network since the British Rail sell-off 10 years ago.
The significance of this international protest called by French rail unions is that it will be the first major protest directly against EU diktats. Previously, protests across the EU have only targeted national governments meekly implementing EU so-called “rail liberalisation packages” and attempting to turn the rail sector over to market forces.
There is a growing awareness that the architects of the disastrous EU rail privatisation model, which first saw the light of day in Britain, sit anonymously in offices in Brussels under the direction of the European Commission. For years, Europhile pundits have denied that the Tory privatisation of British Rail in 1996 was directly based on the notorious EU directive 91/440 published five years earlier. However, since then, an avalanche of directives and rail packages have poured out from the European Commission establishing a market in rail provision by splitting train operations from the ownership of infrastructure.
Yet, in a sign of increasing opposition, the commission’s rail liberalisation plans were derailed last month after the so-called “third EU rail liberalisation package” failed to get enough votes in the European Parliament. Over 200 MEPs failed to turn up to rubber-stamp the package, which would have enforced competition within and between national EU rail networks. As a result, proposals to “liberalise” domestic railways did not gain the required majority of 393 votes and will be put on ice indefinitely.
The EU parliamentary report on the third rail package authored by German MEP Georg Jarzembowski demanded “liberalisation” of rail passenger transport in the form of “open access” for international rail transport from 2010 and national rail passenger transport from 2017. Jarzembowski complained that MEPs from France and the Netherlands had not voted for the liberalisation deadline, although “the proposal was based on a compromise between the conservatives and the socialists.”
He ranted: “France and the Netherlands protect their state-owned operators and favour market shares over citizens’ interests.”
French and Dutch citizens also voted overwhelmingly in 2005 against the EU constitution, which Brussels is currently trying to resurrect, this time without referendums.
The third rail package was originally proposed by the commission in March 2004 and focused on international services and problems related to cross-border operation – so-called “interoperability.” These diktats extend to suburban and regional railways and, according to rail and public transport operators, could severely hinder the development of such domestic short-distance operations. A new study by the International Association for Public Transport (UITP) released last month revealed that nine times more passengers use commuter and regional rail services, for short journeys of around 15 miles on average, than international or long-distance trips.
UITP regional railway committee chairman Michel Quidort said that these “bureaucratic” rules could hinder the development of a transport sector crucial to helping European cities deal with congestion and pollution. RMT general secretary Bob Crow wrote to British MEPs urging them to reject the proposals for the further privatisation of rail passenger services.
“Rail workers and the travelling public have considerable experience of the devastating failures of rail privatisation and these proposals will make matters even worse in the UK,” he wrote. Crow pointed out that “open access” competition introduces fragmentation and the cherry-picking of lucrative intercity services by privateers, resulting in a loss of cross-subsidy for rural and urban domestic rail services.
Political pressure from the European Central Bank on member states to restrict public expenditure also hinders the development of decently funded public rail services.
“These proposals entrench the disastrous separation of rail infrastructure from train operations and perpetuate the system where private train operators will seek to maximise profits on the backs of direct public subsidy or the indirect subsidies that states provide for railway infrastructure,” said Crow. He also warned that “liberalisation” of rail passenger services would force smaller, poorer member states to sell off national assets to virtual monopolies based in larger states. “Before Brussels decides how member states should run their railways why not ask what rail workers and the travelling public think of these plans which only benefit corporate interests?” Crow said.
The Hungarian Railway Workers Union (VSZ) postponed a strike last Thursday aimed at forcing the government to halt the planned closure of hospitals for employees of Hungarian State Railways (MAV). Hungary’s 2006 budget deficit is expected to be around 10 per cent, which is the largest in the EU in percentage terms. The government wants to slash this to 3 per cent, the magic number for euro adoption, by 2009.
In Paris, rail workers united against “liberalisation” plans which seek to feed the voracious private-sector monopolies aiming to dominate the environmentally and economically strategic rail sector across the EU.
As deadly rail disasters like Hatfield and Potters Bar have demonstrated, privatisation not only costs the taxpayer an arm and a leg, it is downright dangerous.
The never-ending demands of greedy rail privateers for profits and corporate welfare largesse has created an unenviable reputation for cost-cutting on infrastructure investment and operational safety. Even former French railways SNCF president Louis Gallois has said that “the English experience is not a great reference,” but that has not yet put any brakes on the unelected commission’s privatisation express train.
That is why rail workers from across the continent are uniting today to say No to EU diktats and No to rail privatisation.
Tens of thousands of French rail workers supported by trade unionists from Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain descended on Paris on 7th February to protest against European Union directives demanding the “liberalisation” of rail networks across the bloc. They were saying No to privatisation and No to the death and mayhem witnessed on Britain’s rail network since the British Rail sell-off 10 years ago.
The significance of this international protest called by French rail unions is that it will be the first major protest directly against EU diktats. Previously, protests across the EU have only targeted national governments meekly implementing EU so-called “rail liberalisation packages” and attempting to turn the rail sector over to market forces.
There is a growing awareness that the architects of the disastrous EU rail privatisation model, which first saw the light of day in Britain, sit anonymously in offices in Brussels under the direction of the European Commission. For years, Europhile pundits have denied that the Tory privatisation of British Rail in 1996 was directly based on the notorious EU directive 91/440 published five years earlier. However, since then, an avalanche of directives and rail packages have poured out from the European Commission establishing a market in rail provision by splitting train operations from the ownership of infrastructure.
Yet, in a sign of increasing opposition, the commission’s rail liberalisation plans were derailed last month after the so-called “third EU rail liberalisation package” failed to get enough votes in the European Parliament. Over 200 MEPs failed to turn up to rubber-stamp the package, which would have enforced competition within and between national EU rail networks. As a result, proposals to “liberalise” domestic railways did not gain the required majority of 393 votes and will be put on ice indefinitely.
The EU parliamentary report on the third rail package authored by German MEP Georg Jarzembowski demanded “liberalisation” of rail passenger transport in the form of “open access” for international rail transport from 2010 and national rail passenger transport from 2017. Jarzembowski complained that MEPs from France and the Netherlands had not voted for the liberalisation deadline, although “the proposal was based on a compromise between the conservatives and the socialists.”
He ranted: “France and the Netherlands protect their state-owned operators and favour market shares over citizens’ interests.”
French and Dutch citizens also voted overwhelmingly in 2005 against the EU constitution, which Brussels is currently trying to resurrect, this time without referendums.
The third rail package was originally proposed by the commission in March 2004 and focused on international services and problems related to cross-border operation – so-called “interoperability.” These diktats extend to suburban and regional railways and, according to rail and public transport operators, could severely hinder the development of such domestic short-distance operations. A new study by the International Association for Public Transport (UITP) released last month revealed that nine times more passengers use commuter and regional rail services, for short journeys of around 15 miles on average, than international or long-distance trips.
UITP regional railway committee chairman Michel Quidort said that these “bureaucratic” rules could hinder the development of a transport sector crucial to helping European cities deal with congestion and pollution. RMT general secretary Bob Crow wrote to British MEPs urging them to reject the proposals for the further privatisation of rail passenger services.
“Rail workers and the travelling public have considerable experience of the devastating failures of rail privatisation and these proposals will make matters even worse in the UK,” he wrote. Crow pointed out that “open access” competition introduces fragmentation and the cherry-picking of lucrative intercity services by privateers, resulting in a loss of cross-subsidy for rural and urban domestic rail services.
Political pressure from the European Central Bank on member states to restrict public expenditure also hinders the development of decently funded public rail services.
“These proposals entrench the disastrous separation of rail infrastructure from train operations and perpetuate the system where private train operators will seek to maximise profits on the backs of direct public subsidy or the indirect subsidies that states provide for railway infrastructure,” said Crow. He also warned that “liberalisation” of rail passenger services would force smaller, poorer member states to sell off national assets to virtual monopolies based in larger states. “Before Brussels decides how member states should run their railways why not ask what rail workers and the travelling public think of these plans which only benefit corporate interests?” Crow said.
The Hungarian Railway Workers Union (VSZ) postponed a strike last Thursday aimed at forcing the government to halt the planned closure of hospitals for employees of Hungarian State Railways (MAV). Hungary’s 2006 budget deficit is expected to be around 10 per cent, which is the largest in the EU in percentage terms. The government wants to slash this to 3 per cent, the magic number for euro adoption, by 2009.
In Paris, rail workers united against “liberalisation” plans which seek to feed the voracious private-sector monopolies aiming to dominate the environmentally and economically strategic rail sector across the EU.
As deadly rail disasters like Hatfield and Potters Bar have demonstrated, privatisation not only costs the taxpayer an arm and a leg, it is downright dangerous.
The never-ending demands of greedy rail privateers for profits and corporate welfare largesse has created an unenviable reputation for cost-cutting on infrastructure investment and operational safety. Even former French railways SNCF president Louis Gallois has said that “the English experience is not a great reference,” but that has not yet put any brakes on the unelected commission’s privatisation express train.
That is why rail workers from across the continent are uniting today to say No to EU diktats and No to rail privatisation.
Brian Denny is a spokesman for the Campaign Against Euro-Federalism An earlier version of this article first appeared in the Morning Star.