Strasbourg here I come!
These plenaries in Strasbourg are a drag. Don't get me wrong; I love Strasbourg and I love the European Parliament, but I just think it is a waste to travel down here once a month for our plenary meetings.
Which self-respecting parliament packs its bags and moves over 400 kilometres to make its decisions? It's a bit like Westminster moving to Newcastle 12 times a year. Strasbourg does not even have a good football team...
Driving from Brussels to Strasbourg takes 5 hours. Here together with my Finnish colleague Piia-Noora Kauppi.
The Brussels-Strasbourg-Brussels rally is inefficient and costly. Inefficient, because it takes a long time to get here - the connections are lousy. Expensive, because moving 4,000 people (MEPs, assistants, civil servants, journalists, lobbyists, etc.) costs some 250 million euros per annum.
I wish we could find a solution to the problem soon, perhaps by the 2014 elections. Why not move the Committee of Regions and the Economic and Social Committee over here? Or how about the European Institute for Technology? Our offices would be great for students - sofa beds, showers and all.
Inner court of the Parliament building in Strasbourg.
I guess its best to stop daydreaming and get back to business. The good thing about Strasbourg is that we cram a lot of work into a relatively short week. We get here after lunch time on Monday and usually leave after the votes on Thursday. In between we go non-stop from morning to night.
This week is packed with interesting stuff. Tonight we debated the distribution of seats in the European Parliament, i.e. how many seats should each member state have. In the 2009 elections we will have a total of 750 seats. The maximum (96) will go to Germany and the minimum (6) to Malta. The rest of us will be in between. The UK will probably have 72 seats and Finland 13.
Blogging for The Economist is exciting...really.
Tomorrow we will vote on how to improve the internal market, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, people and money. On Wednesday we will ask the member states and the Commission to review the rather stringent rules on liquids that passengers can take on board planes.
On Thursday we will decide on how to improve consumer laws in Europe. These are just a few examples of decisions that we will take this week.
Only a handfull of people realize that the European Parliament is a legislative powerhouse. Over fifty percent of all laws that pass Westminster are linked in one way or another to the European Parliament. I hope that this week's blog will give a glimpse to the work that 785 MEPs from 27 different European countries do.
Talking to French MEP Alain Lamassoure before the Constitutional Committee.
11 kommenttia
Thanks Christian - you can find the blog in here:
France, like England are great countries with very nice people.
allthought they do have some politician power in global politic, they certainly are no longer superpowers, so I hope europians could get some relief for wallets by shutting down excemple this Strasbourg.
Hi!
Why not move the parliament permanently to Strasbourg? I find no reason that all the institutions should be in the same city, and relocating the parliament once a month is downright stupid.
It could be a good thing for local infrastructure that not all the institutions are collected in the same city.
Echoing Mr. Janatuinen's comments; why does everyone automatically assume that the 'one seat' is to be located in Brussels. Is it because virtually all interest groups, the Commission and other instititutions, whose functions are interconnected to EP, would consequently need to divide their staff between the two cities? Or is the EP nervous about loosing it's growing political and legislative relevance, if its business is to be moved all the way to Strasbourg?
Dear Alex,
Congratulations on a fine beginning of your english blog. I'm sorry to diverge a bit from the main topic of the blog, the Brussels-Strasbourg rally, but my question has to do with the new "constitutional/amending/lets-get-the-institutions-right (or whatever its called)" - treaty: todays Helsingin Sanomat had an interesting article about some English views on this new treaty. According to the article there has been talk of a referendum, and to be honest if that is the case, I doubt the even the positivists among us would bet on a favourable result. My point really is this (and here we get to your blog): do you think the anti-European sentiment in the UK is due to poor marketing? If so, do you have any suggestions for improvement? Furthermore, if the new treaty will fall, whats next? Thanks for the great work, and best of luck for the rest of the week,
kind regards
Paavo Kotiaho
The reason for this commute traffic between Brussels and Strasbourg is inevitably historical and thus, in order to have the great historic values remembered and member state political and economical balance intact, you need to keep on traveling.
But really, why not move some of the Parliaments’ bodies over to Brussels – in the name of ecology and minimized traffic pollution. Efficincy in work does not count, as it looks. If a big part of the welfare of the border town lies in the fact that the Parliament travels there once a month to consume services of the local hotels, restaurants, shops and gyms, it is understandable that the situation is hard to change.
As not too involved with the EU politics or practices, I wonder if the agendas and decisions made in Strasbourg differ in some specific area of those in Brussels. Or is the reason for traveling just a need to have some kind of pre-defined balance between the different cities?
Nice skirt, Alex!
Your work seems very interesting! Too busy for me... What´s really the sense in the Brussels - Strasbourg rally? It´s great you critisize it!
In my opinion, at least to some extent, the French vanity is, through the French insistence to maintain Strasbourg as a second seat of the EU Parliament, shadowing the role of the EU as a leading power in the fight against climate change. It is by no means an acceptable example, with reference to the necessary changes in our lives due to the fight against climate change, that Alex and his colleagues and staff members are obliged to pollute the European climate by travelling to and from Strasbourg in order to fulfil their obligations as members of the EU Parliament. Hence, this is a moral dilemma, too.
Furthermore, the unnecessary travelling between Brussels and Strasbourg is a security risk, let it be modest but still existent and with no benefits.
250 million euros is a sum that could be used for example to subsidize Afghan farmers thereby reducing the opium production in a more human and permanet way than done today by burning the fields time after time.
Alex, while you're discussing the ways and means to improve the internal market, is there any common understanding concerning foreigners (meaning people and companies from other EU States) as owners of farms? Thus, are there still legislative hindrances existing regarding the above mentioned situation in the national laws?
The European Parliament could show good example in a fight against climate change and stop absurd Brussels-Strasbourg-Brussels rally . It's groundless speak about global warming in the Parliament and same time move 4 000 people and papers between two city month after month and year after year. It's just waste of time, money, nerves and nature.
Its great to see an MEP blogging for the Economist on the European Parliament, which unfortunately doesn't always represent the Parliament in the most flattering of lights.
On the subject of what do with the building. I like the idea of the building being used for the EIT or perhaps even an undergrad school. After all we have the College of Europe and the European University Institute, but as far as I am aware no European undergrad university, and Strasbourg is a great student town with as you point out some ready made student accommodation.
However, one feels that French ego will not be satisfied by such a move. I'd suggest therefore that the European Council meets there twice a year instead. I know this goes against recent moves, but if the Heads of Government love the town so much they should make the journey there more often. Petite France would also make for lovely family photos...and Strasbourg's bus stops could continue to claim that it is the capital of Europe.
Alex,
You are finally back in the real business now. Great to hear about the legislation work more in detail, you know. The local papers here in Finland have their own views on the new legislation to be introduced gradually also here lateer on. However I am very curious to know and more deeply understand the logics behind the decisions you take down in Strassbourg: First the differencies between the various countries, then the Finnish line up and finally your personal view and vote.
Have a good and productive session in Strassbourg.
Best regards
Christian
Ps. Where do I find your bloggs in the Economist ?