The proposals to streamline the provision of services have become a bogeyman for the Government amid the arguments about migrant workers and job security, writes Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent
Besides preventing brutal wars on the continent of Europe, the European Union's main goal since its foundation has been to ensure the free movement of capital, people, goods and services.
Every step along the way towards the achievement of these goals has been hard-won and now, nearly 50 years on, not all of them have been attained.
In 1979, the European Court of Justice ruled in the famous Cassis de Dijon case that any product made legally in one member-state could be sold in another, i.e. if it was good for a French citizen, it could not harm a German.
Back then, the ruling provoked alarm, raising fears that the local manufacturer would be swamped by low-cost, better-quality competition from abroad. Some manufacturers were destroyed, others adapted and new ones were created. However, trade continued to grow.
Today, the EU services directive proposes to do the same thing throughout the 25-strong union in relation to the supply of services, which now account for 70 per cent of the wealth and jobs generated in the EU.
Currently, EU companies face a mountain of legal and bureaucratic obstacles if they try to do business outside their home states. Often the hurdles are in place for good reason. But in some instances they are nothing other than a hindrance to trade.
The services directive covers all commercial services, except financial, electronic communications and most transport services. Public services are also excluded.
However, its opponents argue that it will lead to a "race to the bottom" in which low-paid workers from eastern Europe will replace higher-earning staff in the richer states: the "Polish plumber" argument writ large.
Despite some concerns within his own party, Labour leader Pat Rabbitte has tapped into public reservations about immigration by attacking the directive and its intentions.
Even before the European Parliament begins its debate on the issue, the European Commission - still smarting from the rejection of the European Constitution by France and the Netherlands - acknowledges that significant changes will have to be made.
From the beginning, the Government has been positive about the directive, conscious that, as an exporting country, Ireland has more to gain than to lose from the changes.
The Labour Party and the trade unions argue, however, that the services directive would mean that low-paid immigrants would inevitably price Irish workers out of the market.
This is simply not the case.
Even under the directive as it currently stands, such competition could not occur as a result of it, since any workers posted abroad for more than eight days from their home state are covered - and will remain covered - by a 1996 EU directive. Under the Posting of Workers Directive, temporarily-assigned workers are entitled to the minimum terms and conditions available in a host country, or in a particular trade or profession in the host country.
Furthermore, the 1996 directive extends protections covering maximum work periods and minimum rest periods; minimum paid annual holidays; minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates; conditions on hiring out workers, in particular the supply of workers by temporary employment undertakings; health, safety and hygiene at work; protective measures in the terms and conditions of employment of pregnant women or those who have recently given birth and of children and young people; and equal treatment between men and women as well as other provisions on non-discrimination to all workers, including foreign nationals.
Although it was stung by the Irish Ferries dispute and the protest marches in support of the workers there, the Government seemingly believed that the issue of migrant labour had fallen down the political agenda again. At least until this week's opinion poll in The Irish Times.
Politically, the Government faces a difficult task, since Micheál Martin and other Cabinet Ministers accept that the introduction of the services directive would bring some much-needed competition into the delivery of many professional services in the State, such as law, architecture and the like, even if they equally acknowledge that the text, as written, does not have a prayer of getting past MEPs and EU ministers.
Speaking to The Irish Times last week, Mr Martin called for an informed and balanced debate, saying: "There is a danger in recent commentary that it [ the directive] becomes the great scapegoat for everything."
While the directive would not be acceptable to a majority of EU states, including Ireland, in its current form, he said that the State would benefit from greater liberalisation of services.
"There are many concerns with it. There are many issues to be thrashed out. Ireland has many issues with it. The draft document will not be the finished document, put it that way. That's a certainty," he insisted.
Trade liberalisation had created real jobs in the Irish economy, the Minister continued, adding: "It has been our long-standing view, even in the context of world trade talks, that a liberalisation of services enhances the opportunity for Irish companies to expand overseas, to sell their goods and services across the globe. There is a lot to be gained from a liberalisation of the services sector within the EU."