European Parliament Votes to Choose Single Meeting Site
|
Version 0 of 1. BRUSSELS — The European Parliament voted on Wednesday to choose a single meeting place, showing its frustration with monthly commutes between Brussels and Strasbourg, France, that are seen by many lawmakers and citizens as a colossal waste of money and an embarrassment at a time of painful austerity across the European Union. The vote was advisory only, so there will be no immediate move to scrap a system that is responsible for maintaining two vast modern buildings with duplicate offices, meeting rooms and debating chambers in Strasbourg and Brussels, where many lawmakers spend a majority of their time. France indicated Wednesday that it would staunchly defend the seat in Strasbourg under the current European Union treaties. Any change would require member states to vote unanimously in favor. Proponents of creating a single location still hailed the resolution — which commits the Parliament to using powers it gained four years ago to suggest amendments to the European Union’s treaties — as the most determined attempt to date to scrap a system that requires 766 lawmakers and legions of staff members, as well as lobbyists and politicians, to shuttle 430 kilometers, or 270 miles, between the two cities on a monthly basis for much of the year. “Today’s vote is not the end of the traveling circus, but it may be the beginning of the end,” Ashley Fox, a British member and a co-author of the resolution, said in a statement after the vote. Lawmakers meeting in Strasbourg voted 483 to 141 in favor, with 34 abstentions. Mr. Fox said at a news conference later on Wednesday that the Parliament would clarify a demand for a single location during a process to update the union’s treaties to streamline management of the European economy, which he expected during the next five years. “I think euro zone states are going to want treaty changes to manage their own economic governance, and the French government will be one of those states that wants those changes,” Mr. Fox said. “They will find the European Parliament a willing partner but with some demands of its own.” Mr. Fox conceded that any change would ultimately rely on some kind of agreement with the French. He suggested a possible deal in which some of the savings realized by ending the Strasbourg sessions could be used to endow a new French university in the city. “We clearly need to offer the French something, but that really is for the future,” he said. The pushback by Paris was immediate and categorical. “Our position remains the same: that we are attached to the E.U. seat in Strasbourg,” Romain Nadal, the spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in France, said by telephone. “It is a matter involving not only France but all Europeans. Strasbourg is a symbolic city, one of Europe’s capitals.” The resolution does not specifically ask for the single seat to be in Brussels, leaving room for the French to still make a convincing case for Strasbourg. It would be “more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place,” the resolution states. Even so, Gerald Häfner, a German member and the co-author of the resolution with Mr. Fox, suggested during the news conference that Strasbourg would preserve its status even if it lost the Parliament. Strasbourg “already has a very prominent role as the city of justice, not just European justice, but international justice,” Mr. Häfner said, referring to the presence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe. The resolution noted that the additional annual costs resulting from having staff and buildings in three locations, including Luxembourg, where there are translators and administrators, was 156 million to 204 million euros, or about $209 million to $274 million. It said the emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, associated with transfers among the three spots was between 11,000 and 19,000 tons annually. The resolution also called on the so-called Bureau, a body made of senior members of the Parliament who decide administrative and organizational matters, to commission a professional polling service to carry out a survey of citizens’ views on maintaining the current setup. The Parliament, which is the only directly elected part of the apparatus that runs the European Union, has long fought marginalization and irrelevance. Voter turnout to choose members — elected every five years in ballots held across the member states — has declined from more than 60 percent of eligible voters to just over 40 percent. The Parliament was engulfed in scandal in 2011 when three members were caught on camera apparently preparing to propose amendments in return for cash in a sting operation conducted by The Sunday Times of London. The fight over Strasbourg itself represents something of a lobbying battle between the French authorities and Edward McMillan-Scott, a member of Parliament from Britain, who has helped lead a campaign for a “Single Seat” that is separate from the resolution agreed on Wednesday. The Parliament accumulated important powers under the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, including the right to veto international treaties and take a more prominent role in appointing people to top jobs in the European Union. It also gained the right to suggest amendments to the treaties to governments in the bloc. Yet there are now acute concerns that rising populism and discontent with how the union’s leaders have managed the economic crisis could lead to an influx of lawmakers from the far right and far left in elections next spring. That could make it even more likely that the next parliament will be eager to wield its new powers to confront institutions in the bloc over its direction — including removing wasteful expenditures. <NYT_AUTHOR_ID> <p>Maïa de la Baume contributed reporting from Paris. |