Monday, October 31, 2005

Does "Enhanced cooperation" proposal foreshadows two-speed EU?


Enhanced cooperation is a method of EU governance created in the Treaty of Amsterdam and greatly enhanced in the Treaty of Nice. It provides for a subset of EU countries (set at a minimum of eight), with the approval of a qualified majority in the Council, to transfer control of some shared competency to the EU exclusively. This sounds rather complex, but it simply means that in an area where the EU and member states both have policy making power a group of member states can transfer their policy making power to the EU without forcing all member states to do so. This provision of the treaties has never been used. The Commission now has a proposal that would change that.

Tax policy harmonization has been a long-term goal of the EU, but member states lead by Britain have resisted. Currently, the setting of tax rates themselves is reserved exclusively to the member states. However, the setting of rules governing what can be taxed is a shared competency. The Commission wants to establish a common corporate tax base (the parts of businesses' profits that are taxed taking tax breaks and exemptions into account), but the move is being resisted, again lead by Britain, because of fears this will lead to interference in the corporate tax rate itself. However, the group of states against harmonizing the tax base is too small to block a proposal by the Commission to standardize the tax base in just 20 member states.

This success (or failure) of this proposal could be the most important indicator of the future direction of Europe. If member states sign off on this first step towards a "veritable speed" Europe, then it may signal greater cooperation. However, if the proposal is rejected, or even worse is accepted and then fails as a policy, Europe will find itself lacking a valuable tool for moving Europe forward again. This is all speculation on my part, and I am frequently proven completely off base, but this is a development to watch. At the very least, it means that a two-speed Europe may be the solution to the Constitution impasse.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

EU leaders avoid issues at summit


The EU is in crisis, as I discussed in an earlier post. Tony Blair, the British PM and the current president of the EU, is hosting an informal summit for EU leaders today. Unfortunately, Blair has "chickened out" and the most serious issues the EU is facing, the lack of a budget and the moribund Constitution are not on the agenda. Instead, European Union leaders will be discussing the "challenges of globalization." So dull is this topic, that the one-day meeting was cut down from two days of talks. This is a troubling development because it means that European leaders simply are not ready to discuss how to manage Europe's future. With December's summit less than two months away, I find it hard to imagine that they will be able to find sufficient common ground to resolve the budget crisis by then. And everyone seems willing to ignore the Constitution issue for the moment, much to their own peril I think. Hopefully, Blair will find some gravitas by then.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Commission holds of French coup on Doha Round


The Commission had a base hit last week, by beating back a French-led coup to reduce its mandate on international trade negotiations. France, upset over the Commission's agreement to slash the EU's agricultural subsidies and to open up access to EU food markets during the on-going Doha Round of WTO negotiations, wanted to force the Commission to consult with a new technical committee before making any moves at the trade talks. This is a positive sign that France's intransigence over the CAP might be losing its political efficacy at the European level. Unfortunately, it does not much in terms of forcing short-term CAP reform since Paris still seems capable of forming a coalition of countries with sufficient votes to block agreement in the Council. But given the likelihood that the Doha Round will not be concluded for several years, this may signal that time is no longer France's ally. Given enough time, the will to block CAP reform may have waned sufficiently that the CAP will reformed. The Commission's victory last week means that when the time does come for the Council to approve the final trade agreement CAP reform will be on the agenda.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Federalism Weakens Germany in Europe


Deutsche Welle has an interesting analysis of how German Federalism reduces German influence in the EU:

While Bavarian representation at the EU in Brussels is mockingly referred to as "Neuschwanstein Castle", the reality of the state's presence there is far less frivolous than the fairytale palace. German states are seeking their say in the Belgian capital, and are consequently running the risk of making the country's federalist constitution look as ridiculous as traditional Bavarian Lederhosen.

Germany, Austria and Belgium are the only three federations in Europe, and the complex decision-making structures of the former are weakening Berlin's weight in Europe.

Hans-Peter Schneider, Director of the Institute for Federal Studies says Germany harms itself. "Germany is often overruled because the government constantly has to confer with its individual states, which means it doesn't have the necessary flexibility for negotiations" he said. As a result, Germany often refrains from voting in Brussels, so often, in fact, that abstaining from a ballot is now simply referred to as the "German vote".


The analysis suggests that Germany could learn from Austria:

In order to harmonize the discord, Schneider says Germany should do as they do in Austria, where the federal states reach agreement on the topic up for vote ahead of a ballot in Brussels.


Makes sense to me.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Austria's anti-Turk parties court turkish voters in Vienna


I'm totally stuck on Austria's anti-Turkish views this week. I've been saying for a while that the anti-turkish sentiment is an interaction of the lack of economic ties with Turkey and xenophobia. Adding to the evidence is the fact that in Vienna, where most of Austria's 200,000 Turks live, all but the most rabid anti-Turkish party, the Freedom Party, is courting Turkish voters:

Most of Austria's major political parties don't want Turkey in the European Union. But it's election time in Vienna, and suddenly those same parties are courting the local Turkish vote.

So how do you meld the conflicting interests of appealing to the mainstream Turkophobe Austrian electorate while catering to the large minority of voters of Turkish origin whose ballot will make a difference Sunday when the capital goes to the polls in municipal elections?

"It's tough occasionally," conceded Nurten Yilmaz, an Austrian of Turkish origins, as she took a break from handing out red balloons and folders urging voters %u2014 Turkish and others %u2014 to vote for her Social Democratic Party.

Only one of the five parties running for City Hall %u2014 the xenophobic Freedom Party %u2014 is not fielding a Turkish candidate. Instead it is appealing to the rabidly anti-Turkish fringe vote with posters declaring, "Liberated Women instead of the Mandatory Headscarf," and "German instead of "Don't Understand.'"

But with most of Austria's 200,000-strong Turkish community living in Vienna, a city of about 1.5 million people, the other parties cannot ignore their vote.

Many Turks here are skeptical of their sudden popularity %u2014 and with reason.

"I've been here for 20 years but I'm still not fully accepted," said Vienna Turk Mehmet Akar in strongly accented German as he stopped at Yilmaz's stand in Vienna's 16th District, where kebab joints rub shoulders with stores offering more traditional Austrian goods.


Politics ultimately is always about getting votes, and in Vienna, that means courting the Turks.

UK to seize abandoned homes


Before Margaret Thatcher became PM of Britain in 1979, very few people owned their own homes in the UK. Most rented their homes from the local council. Thatcher launched a war on local government and greatly reduced their power, in part, by offering people the right to purchase their homes. Now there is a new plan to restore some housing to council control that offers a wonderful solution to abandoned homes. Under new rules issued today, Councils could seize empty homes and lease them:

Houses left empty by owners for more than a year could be seized and leased by local authorities under new plans.

Empty dwelling management orders would allow councils to seize, renovate and lease a property for up to seven years, before returning it to its owner.

The plans are expected to become law in April next year.

It emerged last week that almost 700,000 homes are empty in England, of which 280,000 have been deserted for more than 12 months.

The government hopes to fill 25,000 empty homes by 2010.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Blair's right to use force challenged


In the wake of the Vietnam war, the US Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to curb the power of presidents to declare war.  Today, a member of the British Parliament, Clare Short, attempted to push through a British version due to her discontent over British involvement in the Iraq War:
But Clare Short's efforts were thwarted following a lengthy debate in
the House of Commons. Her private bill failed after too few lawmakers
voted for it to pass to the next stage and it ran out of parliamentary
time.

Short challenged the government's power to authorize military action
without the approval of Parliament and insisted lawmakers must be given
the right of veto.
"The accountability of the executive to Parliament is a very important
democratic principle which should surely be extended to the making of
war," said Short, who resigned from her post as international
development secretary following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Under her proposal, the executive would have to show both chambers of
Parliament the case and legal justification for war and receive their
backing before committing British troops. A prime minister would still
be allowed to take urgent action without approval, but would be forced
to withdraw troops if Parliament later rejected the move.
Oddly enough, the bill would be have altered Britian's unwritten constitution because the right to declare war is considered a Royal Perogative that is now exercised for the soverign by the prime minister.  The debate highlights the unusual nature of the British constitutional order and begs the question of whether the use of force by a government should be constrained by more than just norms.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Followup: Austria's position on accession talks not surprising


Yesterday, I noted that Austria's resistance to Turkish membership in the EU was a combination of xenophobia and economics.  Today, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel provided some more evidence of this interaction by saying in an interview that Austria will seal off its labour market for Turkish citizens:
"We will very certainly not be able, or willing, to open the Austrian labour market for - in theory - millions of Turkish workers", he told German newspaper Die Welt.

"I say this in advance, there will be a derogation on our side, a permanent protection clause for our labour market", Mr Schussel added.
As long as Austria can couch its xenophobia in economic terms, Austria's government can simply fan the underlying xenophobia of Austrians without any political penalties (domestic or international).  France and Germany, whose populations are nearly as hostile to Turkish membership as Austria's, cannot make credible economic arguments because of their greater financial ties to Turkey.  It behooves the EU to promote greater economic ties between Austria and Turkey to either force Austria's xenophobia into plain sight or drive a stake into its heart once and for all.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Austria's position on accession talks not surprising


Why did Austria demand accession talks begin with Croatia while simultaneoulsy being the lone hold out in efforts to  begin accession talks with Turkey?  The answer is a little more complex than simply xenophobia or economics.  In fact, it is an interaction of both.

If you take a look at this chart of general support for Turkish membership in the EU, you will notice that while Austria is at the bottom (just 10% of Austrians are in favor of Turkish membership) it is not alone.  Only 21% of French and German respondents were in favor.  Overall, only 35% of all EU citizens support Turkish membership.  It is therefore hard to justify Austria's behavior as simply xenophobia since many other countries with nearly the same low levels of support for Turkey were agreed to press ahead.  So why was Austria so vocal about its opposition while its larger neighbors were not?
Austria has no significnat investment in Turkey, nor is there a large Turkish population.  France has the former, while Germany has both.  This is compelling evidence that economic concerns trump domestic unease about the Turks in these two countries.  It also gives a reason for Austria's push for Croatian membership, since Austria is the largest foreign invester in their Baltic neighbor.  For Austria, Croatian membership makes economic sense, while Turkish membership promises domestic turmoil without any economic benefit.  France and Germany, while also likely to face strong internal dissent over support for Turkish membership, can at least point to the economic benefits in an attempt to appease the public.

Followup: Austria's university admission policies ruled illegal


A few months ago I commented on an ECJ ruling that Austria's university admission policies violated the treaties.  Austria has traditionally allowed Austrian students unrestricted access to higher education, but was not applying the same standard of admissions to foreign students.  The court ruled that all students, regardless of which member state they were from, must be held to the same admissions standard.  I thought now might be a good time to revisit the issue and see what impact it has had on Austria's universities.  One commentator suggests that there is a state of emergency in Austrian universities, in particular suggesting the fears of low-achieving students from Germany overwhelming Austrian schools have proven well-founded and that the government is struggling to handle the crisis:
The situation is particularly dramatic in the medical faculties: in Vienna 1,500 Austrians compete with as many German applicants for only 1,560 places; in Innsbruck 447 Austrians come up against 2,147 Germans for only 500 places; and in Graz there are only 300 places for 917 Austrian and 1,964 Germans.
The Austrian government has answered the stampede at the Universities with a short-term emergency law which states that the autonomous Universities have a free hand with the rules of entry limits in eight subjects: Human Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine, Psychology, Biology, Pharmacy, Business Studies and Journalism. Education Minister Elisabeth Gehrer explains that “a country of 8 million inhabitants cannot provide student places for a country of 80 million people”. They are trying, with the use of defensive tactics and time-tested tricks, to make sure that the native students get priority over foreign students.
While Austria's comittment to providing their citizens with a quality education is commendable, this depiction of what is happening in Austria's schools is not all that gloomy.  The ECJ ruling has produced competition in higher education in Austria as I predicted.  Austria can continue to drag their feet, but in reality, eventually they will have to allow for competitive admissions in all their university programs.  While it may be that Germans applying for university programs in Austria are underacheivers, some may simply want to attend University outside of Germany or want to study in a particular program available in Austria.  By forcing competition, it rewards those who are truly qualified whether Austrian or not.  That will increase the quality of education for everyone while only punishing underacheiving Austrians.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Has the Green dream wilted?


Today, the BBC ponders the question of the future of Green politics in Europe. Over the last decade, the Greens have been members of governments in five European countries. However, with the formation of a new CDU-SPD government in Germany, the Greens are once again only a party of opposition in Western Europe. Does this mean that Green politics is dying? Hardly.

It is understandable that some would be pessimistic about the Greens fall out of government, but the German Greens only lost a half a percentage of support from the last German election in 2002. They continue to play a significant role in Länder politics and the grassroots that have always played a special role in Green politics. In fact, in most countries support for the Greens has remained constant with their fall out of power a result of the publics turn away from their larger social democratic coalition partners. Further, the Green issues are entrenched into the daily discourse of European politics.

There is another dimension to this issue that the article misses though. Although the Greens no longer have a role in Council of Ministers or the European Commission, they remain an important part of the European Parliament. While small in size, their credibility as a defender of the very policy competences in which the Parliament has the most power make them a significant player in EU politics. Their influence should not be overstated, but if the Greens biggest strength is its ability to put environmental and social justice issues on the agenda, then the Green dream is anything but withered.