Juncker's Wallonia bypass could save Brexit

Next week the Commission is expected to outline a plan in which governments will no longer have veto power over most EU trade deals. It could be a game-changer for the Brexit negotiations.

One year ago, as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepared to board a plane tp Brussels to sign a landmark free trade deal with the European Union, he had a bone to pick with some fellow Francophones 4km to the south of the EU capital.

The deal was done and all 28 EU national governments had agreed to it. But the tiny region of Wallonia, the French-speaking, politically far-left Southern part of Belgium, was threatening to wield a veto. A region of 3.5 million people was about to unilaterally kill the trade deal agreed by the other 509 million. 

The premier of Wallonia asked Trudeau to cancel the visit, saying it would be a "provocation" to do so while Wallonia had not yet given its assent. The Canadian PM cancelled his flight, but he was not pleased. "If, in a week or two, we see that Europe is unable to sign a progressive trade agreement with a country like Canada, well then with whom will Europe do business in the years to come?" he asked.

A week of border concerns

I'm on a train to Strasbourg for this week's plenary session of the European Parliament, for what promises to be a week largely focused on borders and travel. The fact that my train via Luxembourg has been plagued with delays seems appropriate given the travel/border legislation which is coming up this week.

On Wednesday MEPs will vote on two legislative packages seeking to change the EU rules on asylum seekers and Schengen area of passport-free travel. Both of these pieces of legislation were put forward in the early days of the Arab Spring, when a sudden influx of refugees from North Africa cast doubt on the EU's existing rules.

Border states like Italy, Greece and Malta said the existing rules, in which member states can return asylum-seekers to the EU country they first entered, complained that the existing system was unfair. 

Among other things, the new rules will put in place a monitoring system for any sudden influx of migrants and allow a suspension of the rules.

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.

Obama's Europe Verdict

Barack Obama is back home after his busy week abroad, and the time for reflection on what his trip to Europe says about his presidency is well underway. In London, Strasbourg, Prague and Istanbul Obama wowed the crowds and charmed the leaders, but what do his words say about how the relationship between Europe and the US is going to be defined during his presidency?

There's no doubt that a dramatic change in US foreign policy was officially unveiled during this trip. On the most symbolic level, the change in tone was striking. Obama seemed to be concentrating on putting distance between his policies and those of his predecessor. He admitted the mistakes America has made, while at the same time arguing that America is still the greatest hope for the world.

His speech in Prague, at the EU-US summit, was the main vehicle to deliver this message. "We must be honest with ourselves," he told the crowd. "In recent years, we've allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy. But we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America's showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."

"On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise; they do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated."



It is precisely because Obama remains so popular in Europe that he was able to deliver the critical second part of this message. Just imagine George W. Bush in Prague lecturing Europeans on their anti-Americanism. But Obama also warned Europe not to think it can sit back and relax now that Obama has been elected, expecting him to solve all their problems. "America is changing," he said, "but it cannot be America alone that changes."

This later expression of consternation was perhaps essential, as throughout all of these summits European leaders seemed to melt like jelly in Obama's presence, and there is a real risk that Europeans will think that Obama's election means that everything can return to the way it was before. As much as Obama insisted that he respects Europe as an equal partner and he will listen to it, the personal dynamic between the leaders seemed to suggest a very different sort of relationship. It was almost embarrassing to watch Gordon Brown smiling ear to ear during his press conference with Obama in London ahead of the G20, as he basked in the byproduct of the US president's celebrity. And Berlusconi was so overcome with Obamania during the group photo with the queen that he couldn't stop himself from screaming out the US president's name, which earned him a royal rebuke from her majesty.

But after all of Obama's talk about respect for the EU as an equal partner, his speech in Turkey seemed to undermine that. He affirmed the United State's continued support for Turkey's membership in the EU, a very controversial issue within the union. For many this statement not only betrayed a bit of American arrogance in meddling in the internal affairs of the EU, but also seemed to place Obama firmly in the 'EU as a merely a free trade zone' camp. Many have argued, most notably Nicolas Sarkozy, that the issue of Turkey joining the union is really fundamentally about what type of EU Europe wants. They argue that a strong, federal EU could never work after taking on Turkey as a member, and that the Anglo-Saxon desire to see Turkey as a member is reflective of the British/American desire to see the EU be only a free trade zone. Whether or not one agrees with this analysis, it was perhaps unwise of Obama to wade into the thorny issue immediately after affirming is respect and admiration for the EU. Sarkozy has been willing to look the other way in response to the comments, but privately he must be pretty displeased.

All in all it was an impressive visit, plagued by some hypocrisy and inconsistencies of message but as a whole wildly successful in the main thing it set out to accomplish: unveiling a new US foreign policy that will be a dramatic departure from the previous eight years.

A Week in the Life of an MEP

The BBC has an interesting feature this week in which one of their Westminster-based reporters is going to spend a week as a UK Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Considering that the vast majority of people in the UK are unable to name their own MEP (if they know what an MEP is at all), it's an interesting project. Elections for the European Parliament are coming up in June, and British citizens will shortly be asked to chose a representative from a list of people they've probably never heard of for a job they probably don't understand.

The reporter, Brian Wheeler, is going to be blogging throughout the week, and this morning he hopped on the Eurostar over to Strasbourg to attend one of the monthly assemblies of the Parliament in that city. So for those of you wondering what an MEP actually does (and you have cause to be confused, it's hardly clear), this feature can shed some light on that topic. I know I'll be reading it with interest. This could be even better than the BBC Shipping Box!