Politics

The seat of the EP is not in Brussels, so what?

The recurring debate about the seat of the European Parliament made once again the headlines when MEPs voted to ask for the right to decide where they should meet and have their seat, favouring the idea of a single seat in particular in order to save money. Which are the arguments of the different parties? 

One consensus: Strasbourg is a European capital city. Nobody challenges this fact, even the most fervent supporters of a concentration of the EU institutions in Brussels. Strasbourg is a European capital city for different well-known reasons across Europe and the world: founding acts of Europe were adopted there, it is the seat of “parliamentary Europe” since 1949 (when the Council of Europe was created; it was later joined by the EP after the EEC Treaties were signed), historical legitimacy, symbol of reconciliation across the continent, etc.

So, Strasbourg is not only a European capital city because the Treaties stipulate it; it is fully legitimate and the Treaties only confirm this.

The differences. What are the arguments of those in favour of a concentration of the EU institutions in Brussels?

– The first argument is about the costs. Opponents to the Strasbourg seat claim that financially and environmentally, it is very expensive: it would cost between €160 and over €200 million a year and the carbon print would be around 20,000 tonnes CO2. But these numbers are based on incomplete estimates and extrapolations from 2002!

To clarify the truth, the European Association of Young Entrepreneurs (EAJE) has published a study in February 2012 (see report “Le siège dans tous ses Etats”) which shows, on the basis of official documents provided by the EP, that the annual cost of the Strasbourg seat is 4 times lower, at €51.5 million to be divided as follows: 18 million a year for the 12 sessions (1.5 million per session) and €33.5 million for the infrastructure.

So, the cost of parliamentary democracy in Strasbourg is equivalent to 0.1€/citizen/year.

The opponents of Strasbourg claim that the centralisation would enable to save money. They had to multiply the real costs by four in order to try to convince the people! This leaves us puzzled.

What would be the costs of a full transfer of the EP activities to Brussels (moving, investments, and transfers of families…)? What would be the permanent fix costs: as the EP owns its buildings in Strasbourg, would it stop to maintain them (€33.5 million in 2011)?

Finally, can we reduce the parliamentary activity to a simple budgetary item?

It is the same with the “environmental cost”: it is proven that the Strasbourg buildings are a model of ecological efficiency among all EU buildings: the carbon print is 4,200 tonnes CO2 a year, according to the “environmental declaration of the EP” published in May 2011, i.e. nearly 5 times less than the fanciful claims of the Brussels supporters. Why do they manipulate the figures if they think they have legitimate arguments?

– A second argument is the “troubles” caused by the trips to Strasbourg. But can European elects, which, by definition, represent all the European people and so, have to travel a lot across Europe, really invoke such an argument? It is, by the way, a common practice among MEPs to travel, not only between Brussels and Strasbourg, but also to several European capital cities and within their country of origin. So, if travelling to Strasbourg causes troubles, why do they voluntarily travel a lot in many European countries to hold meetings of their commissions or political groups?

It is the same for EU public servants – working for the EP, but also the Commission and the Council –, who have to travel a lot. Would we like to challenge the fact that many meetings (ministers, diplomats, experts) are held in the Member States, in particular during Council Presidencies, because it would cause “troubles” to the very same EU public servants?

– A third argument is the claimed inefficiency of the European Parliament. It would work better in Brussels than in Strasbourg. This is paradoxical, at a time when the EP never had so many powers and such an influence, never hesitating to modify Commission’s proposals and to confront with the Council and having increasingly a say on the European political agenda. All this happens with a seat in Strasbourg, far from the other capital, Brussels, perceived by the citizen as a “European bureaucratic bubble”. Furthermore, many actors underline the many problems in Brussels, such as insecurity or failures by the city, in contrast to Strasbourg.

This is why we return the argument and affirm that the Strasbourg seat has given the European Parliament the best conditions to exert its powers and its independence, contributing to its success.

However, we do not ignore the real difficulties raised by the MEPs and regularly addressed to Strasbourg, regarding the accessibility, the putting up and the material working conditions.  For economic reasons, these problems are particularly acute for the MEPs’ assistants – who are the most critical towards Strasbourg. This is why our report concludes on the necessity to improve the situation, presenting 22 recommendations that we forwarded to national and local officials. It is the duty of France and Strasbourg, in collaboration with the EP’s administration, to meet the expectations in order for this European capital city to be up to its legitimate ambitions.

In reaction to the anti-Strasbourg campaign, some call for a single seat in Strasbourg. It is not the position of the EAJE.

In the current situation, we favour, one the one hand, the respect of the current Treaty’s rules, which are the fruit of a fragile compromise adopted by the Member States unanimously, and on the other hand, the improvement of the Strasbourg seat’s environment. To ask to reopen negotiations of the Treaties on this issue, as some people wish it, would amount to asking the Member States to re-discuss the localisation of all EU institutions and this would be a long, costly and risky process which would create a lot of tensions among Member States.

What would be the “political cost” of such an operation? Would it meet the current citizens’ expectations? The EU, our governments and MEPs do not have more urgent things to discuss at the present?

All these arguments are detailed in the report “Le siège dans tous ses Etats”.

The European Association of Young Entrepreneurs (AEJE/EAJE)

http://www.jeunes-entrepreneurs.eu

Facebook: Rapport aeje / Asso Européenne des Jeunes Entrepreneurs

Twitter: @Rapport_AEJE / @AEJE_EU

Translation by Pierre-Antoine KLETHI

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The seat of the EP is not in Brussels, so what?

  1. Simple truth is the travelling circus between Brussels to Strasbourg is expensive and wastes truckloads of money, but the French just cannot let go, as they secretly dream of being the controlling power within the EU from Strasbourg. Its becoming an embarrassing issue that portrays the EU is a bad light to hard pressed EU tax payers?

  2. “the founding acts of Europe were adopted there”

    As far as I know, the EESC treaty was adopted in Paris, and the other two in Rome.

    But seriously, this blog post seems like a whole lot of hand waiving to obscure the fact that there is no benefit to putting the plenary of the Parliament several hours travel away from the EU centre of power. Brussels is where the Eurocrats are, it is where the lobbyists are, it is where the Council is (9 months out of the year, at least). If the Parliament is to be effective in influencing these bodies, it needs to be next door to them, in Brussels. Unlike the Council, it cannot afford to camp out in the middle of nowhere for a week every month.

    • Not all founding acts of Europe, of course. But, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1950 and, though it is not linked directly to the EU, it is a very important text in Europe.
      It is true that the formulation could be better, but the expression “founding acts of Europe” shall not refer only to the EESC and the EEC and Euratom Treaties.

      • The fact that the ECHR was adopted in Strasbourg might help to explain why the Court for Human Rights and the Council of Europe are there, but I fail to see what that has to do with the location of the seat of the European Parliament. The Council of Europe and the European Union are very distinct organisations, with very distinct membership and a very distinct “personality”. The EU is a busy affair with a thousand things going on every day, and almost all of those are going on in Brussels, hence the problem with the Parliament being in Strasbourg. (Key quote from my boss from when I did my stage in the (EU) Council: “The Parliament should be in Strasbourg all the time. That way they wouldn’t bother us as much.”)

        • I agree, once more, that the formulation was not the best chosen one. Maybe it is my translation that is not appropriate; I confess that when I saw the sentence in French, I also wondered about what acts where covered by the affirmation.
          However, there are other strong arguments in favour of Strasbourg that are presented in this article. Interestingly, one of the arguments is precisely the opposite of your boss’ point of view…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s