View from Strasbourg, March 2010
View from Strasbourg, March 2010
Returning to Strasbourg for a sitting made me reflect about how the European Union started, and where we are now. A young Dutch Liberal initiated a debate regarding the Strasbourg seat, arguing that it was time to do away with the current arrangement and to conduct business full time from Brussels. I thought that I would share with you the main points of discussion.
The Parliament was originally based in Alsace and grew from the old European Coal and Steel Community and its “Common Assembly” was located in Strasbourg, an arrangement designed to prevent further Franco-German conflict. However, these reasons are no longer relevant in modern day Europe and Strasbourg. It has become an expensive anachronism, costing tax payers hundreds of millions of pounds each year for MEP and staff travel, as well as the exorbitant cost of maintaining the buildings; the roof caved in last summer, and was found to contain large amounts of asbestos.
Conservative MEPs are constantly campaigning to retreat. There are two types of opponents to change – those who wish to see the current situation continue, and those who agree that one seat would be more efficient, but want that seat to be in Strasbourg. The latter can be quickly discounted; Strasbourg lacks the required facilities to host the Parliament full-time, whereas Brussels already has everything needed, including a voting chamber. So what then of the case for maintaining the status quo?
One argument proposed by opponents is that the abolition of one seat will lead to increased centralisation, and that a concentration power would be more likely to result in abuse of powers. This is nonsense as we have already seen a whole litany of abuses with the current system in place. The executive of the Union, the European Commission, is based solely in Brussels. Most associated business is based in Brussels, and the headquarters of the European Council is in Brussels. By abolishing the Strasbourg session, MEPs would merely be moving a process, namely that of voting, which would in no way have any impact on the workings of the Union. Besides, is not the EU already by its very nature a massive centralisation of national powers anyway?
Strasbourg also lacks many of the transport links needed and it is not easily accessible. Members from Eastern Europe are frequently forced to taxi from German airports, again at great expense to the taxpayer. Furthermore, the Strasbourg buildings sit empty for most of the year, a monument to EU waste and excessive bureaucracy. And what of all the greenhouse gases needlessly emitted by all the transport of all the papers and people from Brussels to Strasbourg? If the European Parliament is serious about climate change, it should start by putting its own house in order!
It might seem like a no-brainer to most, but it is a simple matter of common sense. Unfortunately, the political reality is rather different. The French are very protectionist and are unwilling to give up their parliament, and why would they? After all, the rest of Europe picks up the tab while France gains a valuable source of income from the influx of MEPs and staff. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of the MEPs who support the Strasbourg seat are French! The Parliament is the goose that lays the golden egg. I am confident that most of the people who live in the member states of the union want to see an end to this circus, and such a move would do much to promote transparency and democracy, as well as cutting millions of pounds from taxpayers’ bills.
Elsewhere, I signed a European Parliament resolution regarding the ongoing negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This will criminalise the possession and use of copyright materials by unlicensed owners, and is aimed at stopping the illegal downloads, of films, songs, games and software.
As ECR coordinator for International Trade and Vice-Chairman of the International Trade Committee I have been following this issue very closely. The negotiations have been strongly criticised by many stakeholders who regard the ACTA deal as an attempt to restrict civil liberties and infringe privacy rights. The resolution is aimed at allaying those fears, and I believe this regulation is long overdue.
