Some MEPs have chosen to adopt an amendment on the European Parliamentary calendar for 2012 and 2013. This means reducing the number of sessions of the Parliament in Strasbourg.
This vote is deeply regrettable, unfounded and ill-timed; it goes against what citizens and MEPs themselves expect from the construction of Europe.
It is unfortunate, for it is a decision that is symbolically inappropriate.
Europe must not be built in a single city, crammed into a handful of buildings. This would reinforce the technocratic image that has already done it so much harm.
For that reason, the European Parliament is not the only institution located outside Brussels. The Council of Ministers holds its meetings in Luxembourg in April, June and October. Some European Commission departments are located in Luxembourg, the European Central Bank (ECB) has its headquarters in Frankfurt, and Europol is located in The Hague. The EU's 27 agencies are based across the Union's member states.
Strasbourg also serves as the seat of the European Court of Human Rights and of the European Ombudsman. It is a city deeply associated with European values. Strasbourg embodies a Europe that is close to its citizens, a Europe that is proud of its symbols. It also represents Franco-German reconciliation, the first building block in Europe's construction.
This vote is unfounded and is based on arguments that are specious. The costs associated with MEPs' travel are not directly related to the location of the Parliament in Strasbourg. They are, first and foremost, intrinsic to the mandate of MEPs, which also obliges them to travel regularly to and from their constituencies. The city also offers all the material and political conditions for the European Parliament to operate perfectly satisfactorily.
This vote is ill-timed, because, at a time when the powers of the European Parliament have just been strengthened considerably by the Treaty of Lisbon, to reduce the number of sessions would be to impair the functioning of the Parliament. Do MEPs truly think that their legitimacy will continue to grow while their working hours shrink? I am very sympathetic to a European Parliament that plays to the full its role within the institutions of Europe. As direct representatives of European citizens, MEPs view it as their prerogative to increase their powers. To hold two plenary sessions in |the very same week would be a particularly negative signal to send to European institutions and to the citizens of Europe.
There can be no ambiguity about this: Strasbourg is the seat of the European Parliament. This is a position based on the political arguments I have outlined and, legally, on treaties that affirm and guarantee that Strasbourg is the seat of Parliament. France will therefore ask the European Court of Justice to rule on the legality of this decision, a decision that disregards Protocol 6 of the EU treaty and, thereby, questions where the Parliament is seated.
My commitment on this issue is total, as I have made clear from my very first trip to Strasbourg, just days after I took up office. This is not a matter of defending a French vision; what is at stake here is the Europe that we wish to build. For the Europe that I wish to defend is diverse and democratic – and, for these reasons, its place is in Strasbourg.
Laurent Wauquiez is France's minister for European affairs.
