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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.