It came as little surprise that the debate late on Wednesday 5 July on the single European Parliament seat should give rise to much vigorous verbal jousting, systematically opposing the French delegations of the EPP and the S&D, arguing that the Strasbourg seat should be kept, and the other MEPs.
Uproar was expected. From the outset, the European Commission, through Karmenu Vella, and the Council of the EU, through Estonian minister Matti Maasikas, washed their hands of it all: it was outside their areas of responsibility, they argued. This position was immediately taken on by French MEP Anne Sander (EPP), the first to speak: for legal reasons, it was, she said, “absurd” to debate this issue. “According to the treaties, it’s neither the Commission, nor the Council, nor the European Parliament that decide where the institutions sit. It’s the states”, she pointed out.
Singing from the same hymn sheet was Christine Revault d'Allonnes-Bonnefoy (S&D, France), who felt that the discussion was hardly worthwhile, arguing that it has been parliamentary practices that have centralised matters on Brussels and not the treaties. Both of these speakers highlighted the symbolism of Strasbourg in the European project – that of peace between peoples – and were not reticent about making reference to major European figures recently deceased, Helmut Kohl, to whom homage was paid in Strasbourg, and Simone Veil, who opened the first session of an elected European Parliament in Strasbourg.
On the economics of the issue, those who want Strasbourg to remain a Parliament seat, emphasised the cost of renovation of the Brussels building, which “could fall apart” and suggest that Strasbourg become the sole seat. In an exchange with journalists ahead of the debate, Édouard Martin (S&D) suggested cutting or, at the least, monitoring the daily allowances paid to MEPs, a measure that would save €40 million per year, according to a Parliamentary source.
Opponents of Strasbourg were, generally, irritated by these arguments. Ashley Fox (ECR, UK) said it was unfortunate that the EPP and the S&D had both put up (French) speakers who do not represent the political position of their respective groups. He was upbraided by Jérôme Lavrilleux (EPP, France) who pointed out to him the paradox of British MEPs, who continue to take part in European politics when they are about to leave the EU. In summary, those who want Brussels to be the permanent seat argue that the treaties have to be modernised, making the point that the “transhumance” between Brussels and Strasbourg is viewed by European citizens as a piece of nonsense and encourages Euroscepticism.
Debate on possible resolution to come. No resolution was adopted, as the basis for the extraordinary debate was Article 153 of the European Parliament rules of procedure, which allows only for a debate with no resolution. Nevertheless, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (EPP, Sweden) said in a press conference devoted to the “Single Seat” initiative – a cross-party movement for a single seat – before the debate that a resolution could be put to the vote in September. This eventuality was immediately ruled out by Anne Sander when contacted by EUROPE, stating that it was too late for this to happen. According to a Parliamentary source, however, there is no reason whatsoever why a resolution cannot be added to the next agenda if there is a majority for it in the Conference of the Presidents and in Parliament in accordance with Article 149 of the rules of procedure.
France wants Strasbourg seat to be kept. French European Affairs Minister Nathalie Loiseau, speaking on Wednesday 5 July to a small group of journalists, including EUROPE, poured cold water on the hopes of those calling for Brussels to be the sole seat. “It’s often easier to be imaginative in words than in reality”, she said, adding: “We are in the realm of reality which is that Parliament sits in Strasbourg because of the treaties and for real reasons”. In her view, it is a matter of regret that MEPs are spending time on this kind of debate which does not correspond to the expectations of European citizens. Lastly, she opined that it is “paradoxical” to criticise “Eurocentrism” and, at the same time, call for s single seat in Brussels. For the headquarters of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Lille, not Strasbourg, was France’s candidate, the minister pointed out.
Initiative by Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups. The initiative for the debate came from the Greens/EFA and the GUE/NGL groups, according to a number of sources and, in the Conference of the Presidents of Thursday 29 June, the proposal was supported, including by the EPP, despite serious internal tension with the French delegation.
The hand of Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium) may be seen in all that is taking place. In a note, jointly drafted by Dennis de Jong (GUE/NGL, Netherlands), to MEPs at the start of the week, a copy of which has been obtained by EUROPE, Staes argues that the debate over relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority (EBA) offers a real opportunity to revisit the issue of a single seat for Parliament. In this, the note echoes the study presented internally by the EPP last week (see EUROPE 11820).
The goal of the initiative is clear, the two MEPs say: to persuade the French authorities to designate Strasbourg, before the end of July 2017, as one of the cities for the relocation of the agencies. To this end, Staes has sent a letter, seen by EUROPE, to President Emmanuel Macron in which he makes the case for a single seat. He has also written to the mayor of Strasbourg, Roland Ries, highlighting the economic benefits for the city of hosting the EMA. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens and Camille-Cerise Gessant)