I think this debate demonstrates how the European Union is continuing to grow and change. The Parliament, in particular, is continuing to gain more power and a larger role within the EU. At the hearing, the consensus was that for there to be a change on whether the Parliament could decide where its "seat" is located, there would have to be a change in the Treaty. It will be interesting to see what comes about this push for amending the Treaty and the political/diplomatic implications of this between the European Parliament and the member states.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Single Seat Campaign
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go to a hearing on the Single Seat Campaign. This was an interesting experience because the hearing was addressing some issues that I have seen throughout some of the readings. The hearing was on the issue of the European Parliament's "seat." A majority of the Members of the European Parliament are arguing that they should be able to decide where their "seat" is. Under the current treaties, the European Parliament operates in three different locations: Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg. For now, the location of the Parliament "seat" is decided by the unanimity among member states. Most members argue that Brussels should be the location of the single "seat" and that the Parliament shouldn't have to go to Strasbourg. However, the historical and political importance of Strasbourg plays a major role in how this will be decided. Furthermore, it is being argued that France would never allow the European Parliament to leave Strasbourg.
I think this debate demonstrates how the European Union is continuing to grow and change. The Parliament, in particular, is continuing to gain more power and a larger role within the EU. At the hearing, the consensus was that for there to be a change on whether the Parliament could decide where its "seat" is located, there would have to be a change in the Treaty. It will be interesting to see what comes about this push for amending the Treaty and the political/diplomatic implications of this between the European Parliament and the member states.
I think this debate demonstrates how the European Union is continuing to grow and change. The Parliament, in particular, is continuing to gain more power and a larger role within the EU. At the hearing, the consensus was that for there to be a change on whether the Parliament could decide where its "seat" is located, there would have to be a change in the Treaty. It will be interesting to see what comes about this push for amending the Treaty and the political/diplomatic implications of this between the European Parliament and the member states.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting -- thanks for sharing, Emily! I'm curious as to what others think about this as far as the political implications for the Union are concerned. Should the Parliament simply meet in one seat? Why/why not? Is this idea even feasible?
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, the EP itself carried out an environmental impact study a few years back concerning the costs and impacts of holding meetings in Brussels and Strasbourg (which involves not just MEPs moving location, but files being boxed up and trucked, emissions from train/air travel, etc.) and found that there is a tremendous environmental impact of this current system of changing seats for the Parliament.
I hadn't thought of the environmental impact. But it seems absurd to me that they should continually and repeatedly have to pack up and move back and forth like this. It doesn't surprise me that many MEPs are calling for a change, the only interest the alternate location seems to serve here is France's, and although they have great sway as one of the original 6 countries of the EU (when this kind of move was no doubt easier) there are now 27 countries that have to pack up, and do all this just for France to have the benefit of a Parliament location. I think that Parliament should just meet in one, semi-neutral seat, Brussels (despite the rain :) ).
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think it is absurd as well and you've made the same arguments that many of the MEPs made. It will be interesting to see if they will be able to change this. At the moment it doesn't appear this idea is very feasible because of the politics involved.
DeleteSide note: I will be taking my first trip to parliament on Wednesday for work to take notes at a meeting on Social Policy and whether new financial service technologies are creating more financial inclusion or exclusion. More on Wednesday!
ReplyDeleteThanks Ryan! We're curious to hear how your trip to the EP went!
Delete