Seat For Two
In a statement, yesterday, Martin Schulz said: “I think we need one single seat. It is not efficient always to travel between two places”. It looked like very good news for single seat fans, but then Schulz added: “I am in favour of Strasbourg because I think the seat of the European Parliament is Strasbourg”.
These words have cooled down enthusiasm and have fostered a sense of discomfort in the single seat field, which had recently found unexpected support. Last weekend, an article on The Economist strongly backed the “single seat” (in Brussels) battle and seemed to have brought new hopes that the issue could have been solved once and forever.
The Economist article insisted that the main problem was - is - the lack of sovereignty of the EP, insofar as this flaw does not allow the assembly to choose its own seat: consequently, an irrevocable opposition by France to the simplest of Treaty amendments have made it impossible to make this rationale choice.
The choice of Strasbourg as the Parliament’s only seat would be dreadful. Indeed, such move would create a disruption in the communication routine between the Parliament itself and the other European Institutions. It would force Commission officials and Council staff to travel to Strasbourg to perform negotiations on legislation (or MEPs to travel to Brussels) and would force lobbyists and NGOs to have extra offices in Alsace - or to cut on their outreach to the EP.
In other words, it would do Strasbourg a favour - bringing more money in town - but it would certainly be a poisonous move for everyone else. Real estate in the capital of Alsace would skyrocket and hotel prices would stay outrageously high for the whole year.
As The Economist brilliantly said, the Parliament is not sovereign and the imposition of Strasbourg as its only seat would be - is - a standing evidence of its lack of power. If the Parliament can’t even decide where to meet, one could start questioning its real influence in legislation negotiation.
Being a great political animal as he is, Mr Schulz certainly has not pronounced these words by chance and their real political meaning remains undisclosed.
Schulz’s move to promote Strasbourg as a possible single seat could be also seen as an effort to sustain the French socialists in the Presidential campaign - François Hollande desperately needs backing from Europe, as Nicolas Sarkozy has already obtained the famous and controversial “placet” from Angela Merkel. It is possible that the defense of Strasbourg is a way to reassure the French electors on the persisting French influence on the European Institutions.
But let’s imagine for a second that he really meant what he said.
“Strasbourg is the Parliament seat”. Is there any logical explanation for this statement? Was he meaning that the Parliament seat should always and forever stay in Strasbourg?
“France is the second bigger Member State and has only one Institution, the European Parliament”: so what? Italy is the third and has none. Germany has the ECB - but that was the result of more recent political negotiations and it could change in the far future. Also, Frankfurt is the the financial centre of continental Europe and the economic capital of its richest Member State.
The reality is - and surely Mr Schulz knows this very well - that Strasbourg’s significance as the sign of appeacement between France and Germany is obsolete. In 2012, it just does not make sense anymore. No doubt the President of the Parliament has said it in good faith and with personal conviction, but Europe has changed since the 1970’s.
A quick eye on the needs of a modern Union quickly dismisses the idea that the Parliament can sit far away from the other governing Institutions.
It is no time for “symbolic meanings” anymore: it is time to make sure that logical decisions are being taken and that the European Parliament, the Union’s only democratically elected body, chooses the place where it sits.
(Each article reflects the personal views of the author)
Comments (3)