Strasbourg doesn’t get it: this isn’t personal

I’ve just returned from three days in Strasbourg, where MEPs voted by a surprisingly large majority to further reduce the European Parliament’s presence in the Alsatian capital.

To general astonishment and almost universal delight, 357 MEPs – a majority of 104 – backed an amendment by British Conservative MEP Ashley Fox to reduce from 12 to 11 the number of weeks MEPs will spend in Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013.

It has been tried before. In 1997 MEPs voted to reduce from 12 to 11 the number of plenary sessions. That decision was overturned by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which pointed out that according to the EU Treaty, 12 monthly plenary sessions must be held in Strasbourg every year.

In 2003 Parliament also voted to reduce the number of plenary sessions, but that was a cock-up, the result of the Parliament’s largest group, the EPP, instructing its members to back the wrong amendment. The Conference of (political group) Presidents, the powerful body that in effect runs the Parliament, told Members in no uncertain terms to think (and vote) again, to avoid another brush with the Luxembourg Court. The decision was duly reversed.

This week’s vote was different. Just as in 2001, when Friday meetings in Strasbourg were abolished, MEPs did not tinker with the number of plenary sessions. There will be 12 in both 2012 and 2013. Instead, they decided to combine the two sessions scheduled for October and hold them during a single week. The first on Monday and Tuesday, the second on Thursday and Friday. As a result, MEPs will have to travel to Strasbourg only 11 times instead of 12, saving an estimated 8 million euros as well as 2.000 tonnes of CO2.

The French government has already said it is prepared to challenge the Parliament’s decision before the ECJ. It will argue that Parliament acted illegally by reducing to 11 the number of weeks it meets in Strasbourg.

But a French victory is by no means guaranteed, for two reasons. First, although the Treaty stipulates that the Parliament must hold 12 monthly plenary sessions in Strasbourg, it doesn’t say how long those sessions should last. That’s probably why Paris never went to court over the abolition of Friday meetings. The Parliament (which as an Institution is bound by this week’s vote and must defend it in court) has now decided to hold two two-day plenary sessions. Nothing in the Treaty says that’s not allowed.

Second, the Parliament has already been allowed to deviate from the Treaty by not holding a session during the August holiday. The 12th session now takes place in September or October – meaning the Parliament meets twice during those months. All the EP has now done is to decide to hold two sessions during one week, instead of during one month.

Critics of the Strasbourg plenary sessions also point out that the Parliament currently holds regular committee meetings in Strasbourg, which strictly speaking is illegal. The Treaty stipulates committee meetings must be held in Brussels. Some MEPs have already said that if France takes Parliament to court over this week’s decision on plenary sessions, they in turn may mount a legal challenge to the holding of committee meetings in Strasbourg.

The point of this week’s vote, of course, was not the exact number of days and weeks MEPs meet in Strasbourg every year. MEPs realise they cannot abandon Strasbourg altogether without a change in the Treaty. But that is exactly what a large majority of MEPs would now like to see happen. As the Alsatian leader of the EPP group, Joseph Daul, said in a reaction to this week’s vote: “The pro-Strasbourg camp is now in a minority”.

This realisation probably explains why Daul’s group didn’t even get to debate the issue on the eve of the vote, and why procedural tricks were deployed – unsuccessfully – to wrong-foot the pro-Brussels lobby. Martin Schulz, the S&D (Socialist) group leader who hopes to become the Parliament’s next President, reportedly came down hard on the lone voice in his group (Dutch Socialist Thijs Berman) who dared disagree with him. No wonder MEPs opted for a secret ballot this week. With the leaders of two largest political groups strongly in favour of Strasbourg and contemptful of internal dissent, speaking out for Brussels can seriously damage your political health.

What many don’t realise is that MEPs aren’t just fed up with the inflated hotel prices, the lack of rooms and the poor transport links, although they clearly are (I spent this week in a hotel in Lingolsheim, an hour by public transport from the Parliament). Above all they resent the fact that they have to leave Brussels once a month when most of their activities take place in the Belgian capital. The body they are Treaty-bound to control, the Commission, is based there, as is the other branch of the legislative authority, the Council. The Parliament is less effective politically as a result of its monthly trek between Brussels and Strasbourg. MEPs overwhelmingly believe, as the report I recently produced for the Brussels-Strasbourg Seat Study group chaired by EP Vice-President McMillan-Scott showed, that the European Parliament itself, not member states, should be able to decide where it meets.

The Strasbourg city authorities responded to this week’s vote by announcing yet more inquiries into, and improvements of, the local infrastructure. But that completely misses the point. Yes, there are improvements that can and should be made. But what Strasbourg doesn’t get, is that the European Parliament is no longer the small, part-time consultative assembly it once was. It is a huge international Institution, with hundreds of members and thousands of staff, and many thousands more who actively follow its activities. It is as strong a political force today as the Council of Ministers. It is a full-time Parliament with real powers and real responsibilities. It wants to exercise them in the most efficient and most effective way possible, in the city where the decisions on Europe’s future are conceived and taken, Brussels. That doesn’t mean MEPs don’t like or love Strasbourg. They do. Their opposition to Strasbourg isn’t personal. It just doesn’t make sense to base today’s modern Parliament there. It would be like asking the French Assemblee Nationale to hold one week of meetings in Avignon every month – and getting half of Paris to decamp with them.

Hopefully someone in Strasbourg will realise this and will start thinking about how the city can work with MEPs and member states to persuade other, smaller but equally prestigious Institutions to replace the Parliament, ensuring a full-time presence of several thousand EU officials rather than the four-day hurricane that now passes through every month. That would bolster the local economy by giving hotels, restaurants and taxis a permanent customer base they can cope with. And Strasbourg would finally end up playing host to guests who can fully appreciate the city’s hospitality. Indications are that there may already be some movement. A recent survey by local Strasbourg newspaper DNA showed that only 56% of Strasbourg residents now believe the city should fight for the Parliament to stay. Perhaps it is time Strasbourg’s politicians took a cue from their voters and started a debate on who should replace the Parliament in Strasbourg.