::The Cosmocrat::

A curious item in the EUObserver today, quoting the compromise which I mentioned yesterday, that of returning to a system in which the large countries have two commissioners. According to the article, Council legal services are redrafting elements of the Constitution in line with the proposed compromises. Oddly though, it seems as if only Le Figaro is reporting this item, so it is hard to say what truth or significance it might have. Of course, Council legal services are at the services of the Presidency, so it may well be that this redraft (if confirmed) is occurring at the request of the Italians, who might be sensing the forms of a compromise and want to act on it. Italy, as is well known, wants to finish negotiations in time for the end of its Presidency, so as to brand the Constitution a new Treaty of Rome.

Several countries now have been coming out with slight alterations to their negotiating positions, which may be paving the way towards an eventual compromise at the Intergovernmental Conference over the EU Constitution this autumn.
Two important hints from Britain, first, which may indicate a softening up on two of the traditional 'red-line' issues for the UK. Jack Straw signaled a possible acceptance of majority voting on certain tax issues, such as combating tax fraud and evasion, a welcome (and quite reasonable) concession. The second, probably more interesting indication, in today's FT, of a British turnaround on the famous 'Thatcher rebate', which ever since 1984 has guaranteed that Britain pays less into UK coffers than it should according to its economic weight. The idea would be to offer a standard rebate to other countries which strain under the size of their transfers to Brussels, which would probably mean that Britain would have to pay more.
Germany's foreign minister might have outlined an option for a deal on the tricky votes-Commissioners squabble; to remind readers, I refer to Spain and Poland's continued vocal claims for a maintenance of the vote distribution status quo in the Council of Ministers, as agreed at Nice in 2000, despite the wonky and unrepresentative situation which that creates. On the other hand, a large number of the small and medium sized countries would not like to see their rights to a European Commissioner scrapped. Fischer seems to propose that if each country retains a Commissioner, then larger countries such as Italy and Poland should go back to having two.
Though it is an elegant solution, I doubt whether the Commission or some of the more reform-minded countries would be willing to consider such a huge Commission (under current membership this might give rise to a 30-member commission!!) unless the President of the Commission is given significant powers of internal organization with perhaps some sort of Ministers-Secretaries of State set-up, with voting powers in full meetings of the College of Commissioners?

Le Monde features an article on a French proposal to create a European Corps of Gendarmes, these being a sort of peculiar paramilitary police which many European countries, (but not Britain) have. The initial rationale for this idea would be to use the corps (only about 1000 men) in peacekeeping situations which call for a heavy armed police force rather than troops. Nevertheless, eurosceptics would surely seize on it as being the first step towards an effective European police force.

Dutch Europe Minister sets out his stall ahead of IGC

Interesting article, with some rather witty references to the hack's favourite TV series, 'Yes Minister'... nothing new on the Dutch/small country/Benelux position though. Essentially still supportive but unenthusiastic of the new Constitution. The fact that he compares the putative European Council President to a potential 'Sun King' is a somewhat transparent swipe at French illusions about the post. I heard France's Ambassador to the US back in April, describe the post as ''a real European President", a phrase no doubt inspiring for Eurofederalists et al, but on closer inspection a bit of an overstatement.
The Anglo-French-Spanish ideas for a European Council president were always a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the innovation in the creation of such a post is visible, and potentially transformatory. On the other hand, though, there was never any indication that the proponents were willing or even able to refine and define the idea of the European Council President into something which would give it more sense within traditional debates about institutional design in the Union. Until the last, questions of election, functions, powers, legitimacy were left open, creating ever greater suspicion that it was either an unworkable idea, or an attempt to create a permanent counter-integrationist counterweight against the European Commission, or even both.

Whatever the intentions, it is probably reasonable to say that the project (vague as it was) has been diluted even further; the original Aznar-Blair-Chirac team on this has been fissured, and they are probably rather apathetic about the idea nowadays.

And yes, this means my blog is back online. Hooray!!

Hello loyal readers - all three of you... I shall not be blogging too much for the next week or so, not until the broadband connection is up and running in my new abode. Watch this spot.

As I set up my new home in Edinburgh. Meanwhile, for all my American friends for whom the stakes of the EU still seem boring or unintelligible, read William Pfaff's excellent little , giving a brief but good summary of what this is all about.

The ever-interesting EUobserver opened with an interesting story which if confirmed, might be an interesting development in Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

The soon-to-be proposal, according to the website, would be to extend EU representation at the UN so that on certain matters there would be a single EU representative or a greater co-ordinating and leading role for the EU representative at UN meeting.

It is certainly in line proposals made in the past for extending CFSP -through issue-area integration, leaving touchy and 'high politics' issues for the future.
The Commission knows it cannot credibly advocate any radical foreign policy integration in the near future, perhaps even ever. Nevertheless, there is much more integration that could be done without getting even close to controversial red lines of national sovereignty, and defensible purely on grounds of efficiency. For instance, do all EU member states need embassies in certain third-rank powers? Or do all 15 need to have a position at the UN on discussions of the situation in Burma or the Solomon Islands? Issues of consular representation have already been tackled, such that as EU citizens we have the right to request diplomatic protection at any EU member state embassy abroad. Why not go further and integrate all consular functions, which exist mostly for bureaucratic reasons anyway?