Could Strasbourg battle pit country against country?

The long-running battle between the European Parliament and France over where the institution's permanent seat should be located has reached boiling point in recent months, following the parliament's vote in March to combine two of its mandated Strasbourg sessions into one. The fight has now been taken to the European Court of Justice, and following a call from Dutch parliamentarians today, the war could for the first time pit member state against member state.

The official headquarters of the European Parliament, as mandated by the EU treaties, is Strasbourg, France. The EU treaties require the parliament to meet there twelve times a year. But for well over a decade the working offices of the parliament have been in Brussels, where the other EU institutions are based (they surreptitiously built a giant parliament building there by telling France it was going to be a "conference center"). So once a month the entire European Parliament is made to make a five hour trek from Brussels to Strasbourg to hold three-day sessions. It would be like the US Congress uprooting itself once a month to hold sessions in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The majority of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) hate the monthly "traveling circus". A 2007 survey by Liberal MEP Alexander Nuno Alvaro showed that 89% of MEPs want to end the Strasbourg sessions. MEPs have tried to force the issue several times, but changing the treaties to end the Strasbourg requirement would need the unanimous approval of all member states – and France has always promised to veto such a move. They are insistent that one of the EU capitals should remain in France – even if no actual work is done there and it is merely a place where things already agreed are rubber-stamped.

'One down, eleven to go' in Strasbourg battle

Travel-weary members of the European Parliament issued an aggressive challenge to France today, voting to skirt the requirement that they meet in Strasbourg twelve times a year by combining two of the 'Strasbourg sessions' into one. It remains to be seen whether member states, who are the only ones who can decide where the institutions meet, are going to challenge this.

Every month the entire European Parliament is made to trek from Brussels to Strasbourg, France - which lies on the German-French border not far from Switzerland. This is because the original European Treaties designated Strasbourg as the headquarters of the parliament. Over time, the real work of the parliament has moved to Brussels in order to be closer to the other two EU institutions as well as lobbyists and NGOs. But the founding treaties still require the parliament to meet in Strasbourg twelve times a year, and all binding votes must take place there. The majority of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) hate the monthly "traveling circus" which requires them to go to Strasbourg for five days every month. A 2007 survey by Liberal MEP Alexander Nuno Alvaro showed that 89% of MEPs want to end the Strasbourg sessions.

But MEPs don't have a say in where they meet. Changing the Strasbourg requirement in the treaties would need the unanimous support of all member states, and France has always refused to support moving the parliament permanently to Brussels. In 1999 France built a massive new building for the parliament in Strasbourg, despite objections from MEPs who said they didn't want it. Now France points to the expense of the building to justify maintaining the Strasbourg seat.

EU bans cheaper auto insurance rates for women

Female drivers in the EU will likely see their insurance premiums rise significantly next year following today's European Court of Justice ruling that charging lower rates for women than for men constitutes illegal gender discrimination. At the same time, men are about to see their insurance premiums drop.

Insurance companies across Europe as well as in North America generally charge women much less for auto insurance than their male counterparts. Statistics show they are less risky drivers and are therefore less likely to get into an accident. The difference in pricing is particularly large for people under the age of 30, where women typically pay half of what men pay.

Previously such a distinction in pricing was allowed through an exemption for insurers from having to follow national discrimination laws. But a Belgian consumer group challenged the exemption, saying that assuming men are dangerous drivers simply based on their gender constitutes unlawful discrimination. The court agreed, and insurers in the EU will have to end their systems of separate rates by December 2012.

Dutch get green light to ban foreigners from coffee shops

The Netherlands has long been known, particularly by many Americans, as a drug tourism destination. For years, the Dutch have complained that while they support the decision to end the prohibition on marijuana use, the fact that other countries don’t have the same policy means the country has become a magnet for wacked-out partiers and troublemakers.

One Dutch town decided it had had enough, and it banned foreigners from its ‘coffee shops’, the name for establishments that sell marijuana. That town is Maastricht, which says it is particularly vulnerable to drug-tourism because of its geography in the thin Dutch tail at the Southeast of the country. Sandwiched between Belgium and Germany, Maastricht, much like its border neighbor Breda, has gained a reputation as the place where Belgians, French and Germans go to buy weed. So Maastricht banned its coffee shops from selling to foreigners, and when a coffee shop was shut down for selling marijuana to two non-Dutch EU citizens, that coffee shop sued.

Right from when they established the law, Maastricht must have known they would have a legal fight on their hands. Banning EU citizens from other countries from consuming a product which Dutch citizens can consume is a blatant violation of EU free movement law, which stipulates that EU citizens must be given equal treatment to native citizens in any EU country. This right is perhaps the cornerstone of the European Union.

Is Berlusconi stepping into an EU trap?

Fascinating post today in the FT’s Brussels Blog about the likely re-ascendance of Silvio Berlusconi to power in Italy. Needless to say Brussels is not enthused about the prospect, which looks likely to happen in an April election after the collapse of Romano Prodi’s government. Not only is Berlusconi a rightist leader with an aggressive streak and hostility toward the rest of Europe, but also his European Union presidency (which rotates to a new country every six months under the current system) in July to December of 2003 was a fiasco.

However the FT points out that there are some in Brussels that may be looking forward to Silvio retaking the reigns because it would finally give them the impetus to launch a challenge to Berlusconi’s media empire.

Berlusconi owns Mediaset, by far the biggest commercial TV broadcaster in Italy which also owns the biggest national advertiser, the biggest publisher and much more. Effectively he’s able to control all the media in the country, which is how he was able to stay in power for so long in a country which normally can’t keep a stable government going longer than a year or two.