Inclusion in the agenda for the July plenary session of the European Parliament of a debate on the seat of the said institution provoked the ire, on Thursday 29 June, of the French delegation of the EPP Group, which is utterly opposed to any question marks being put over the European Parliament sitting Strasbourg.
The debate will take place in the afternoon of Wednesday 5 July. It was called for by Peter Liese (EPP, Germany) at the meeting of the presidents and vice-presidents of the EPP Group on Tuesday evening. Even though the point was not on the agenda of the meeting, Liese presented a study in which he proposes to replace the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg with the London-based European Medicines Agency (EMA) relocation of which after Brexit is under discussion among the 27 member states (see EUROPE 11811).
Liese’s discussion document, which has been seen by EUROPE, notes that the largest nationality group within the Agency is French. He states that the EMA has a permanent staff of 900, whereas the Strasbourg seat of the Parliament employs very few people. He adds that almost 36,000 experts visit the EMA every year, which would offset the loss for the economy of Alsace – hotels and taxis, principally – of the removal of the Strasbourg seat of Parliament. He points out, lastly, that the cost of the “transhumance” of the European Parliament is €114 million annually.
The proposal caused an outcry in the French delegation. On Wednesday morning, the French MEPs met ahead of the group meeting to present a united front against the proposal. Unfortunately, the meeting is believed to have seen a strong attack on the Strasbourg seat, launched by a member of the Czech delegation, with an animated debate ensuing.
French MEP Jérôme Lavrilleux is reported to have said that the French delegation would go as far as to quit the group if the EPP were to take a stance against the Strasbourg seat. However, the possibility of the EPP Group’s issuing a voting instruction seemed a remote one for French MEP Anne Sander, whom EUROPE contacted. Her view was that there would be a free vote, as has always been the case when this matter has come up.
For Sander, the question of a single seat should not even be discussed as the Strasbourg seat is guaranteed by the European treaties. The matter is one that can only be decided by the heads of state and/or government within the European Council. “And if this issue has to be looked at, then it will have to be looked at all for the institutions and not just the Parliament”, she stated.
She pointed out, too, that France had already put forward Lille, not Strasbourg, as a possible host city for the EMA. Parliament, she said, cannot interfere in national matters and amend the decision of the French government.
Several sources have said that, during the exchanges within the group, a number of MEPs, including some from Germany, proposed that the European Parliament should sit permanently in Strasbourg to put an end to the monthly move. Sander says that this proposal is a valid one, particularly as doubt hangs over the future of the Parliament building in Brussels following a number of technical incidents and security-related issues.
In 2015, the Conference of the Presidents of the political groups in the European Parliament rejected the drafting of an independent report calling for a change in the European treaties to allow MEPs to decide on where Parliament should sit (see EUROPE 11252). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)