Brussels, 11/02/2011 (Agence Europe) - The argument for the need for the European Parliament to have a single headquarters for its meetings rather than two at the moment, Brussels and Strasbourg (or three if one includes the EP buildings in Luxembourg) was brought up again on Thursday 10 February when Edward McMillan-Scott (ALDE, UK) commented: “In today's climate, the economic and political cost of two seats can no longer be justified.... The two-seat arrangement is an anachronism.” In its post-2013 EU budget proposals, the ALDE Group calls for the European Parliament's work to be focused in a single location.
According to the results of a recent poll by Zurich University, McMillan-Scott is not alone in the battle to get the EP to have a single seat, in Brussels. Some 417 people were quizzed, 61 of them MEPs (8% of the total) and 88% of respondents recommended a change in the Lisbon Treaty to give MEPs the right to decide where the EP should be located. Some 91% of those polled said they would rather have the EP headquarters in Brussels. French and German nationals were the least enthusiastic about Brussels, but 72% and 87% of them respectively said they would rather the EP had a single HQ in Brussels. Of the MEPs polled, those recommending a move to Brussels were mainly from the ALDE Group (80%).
Edward McMillan-Scott said that shifting the European Parliament from Strasbourg to Brussels once a month, along with the caravan of files and staff, was incredibly stressful. The Zurich poll shows that 40% of the MEPs quizzed say that this monthly upping of sticks has a serious, deleterious, impact on their work and their lives.
Having a single EP headquarters would save €180 million a year (the cost of shifting MEPs, files and staff from Brussels to Strasbourg) and would save 19,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, according to a study prepared by former MEP Michiel Van Hulten entitled A Tale of Two Cities (echoing the title of Charles Dickens' book about the French Revolution).
The decision about where the European Parliament should meet is decided by the European Council. This is not the first time that Strasbourg has been challenged as the sole official EP headquarters according to the EU Treaties, but McMillan-Scott's initiative is being backed this time by the British government. In a press release, a spokesperson for the British government said that the government backed the request from the EP to have a single headquarters, in Brussels.
The president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, commented that he was aware of the complaints by many MEPs about having to travel from Strasbourg to Brussels, but said that the decision of where the EP seat should be located was a matter for the member states and any change would require changes to the Lisbon Treaty to which all the member states would have to agree.
An online petition, One seat campaign (http://www.oneseat.eu ), the focus of the anti-Strasbourg campaign, has already collected more than a million signatures, explained Alexander Alvaro (ALDE, Germany), who also wants the EP's seat to be permanently in Brussels.
France defends Strasbourg's European dimension. Bernard Valéro, a spokesperson for the French foreign and European minister, said on Friday 11 February that he had learnt with surprise about a recent move challenging the European Parliament's seat in Strasbourg, regretting the initiative despite its personal nature. He said the question of the headquarters is legally set out in the European Treaties, which are binding on member states and institutions alike. He said that the initiative did not commit the European Parliament itself in any way and certainly not the EP president, Jerzy Buzek, adding that the various workplaces for the European institutions and bodies reflected the diversity of the European Union and like many other countries, France takes this very seriously. He said the French government would continue to introduce tangible action to boost the European dimension of Strasbourg and make it easier for MEPs to work there, by rendering the city more accessible and more attractive. (L.C./transl.fl)