One topic regularly raised at the European Parliament is the institution’s official headquarters. This is likely to remain the case in the new assembly, which should provide its own share of ‘anti-Strasbourg’ supporters. But the European Council remains the only body authorised to decide – unanimously – on the matter.

This is not a new issue. MEPs have been calling for the establishment of a single headquarters since the first European elections, in 1979, but it was not until 13 years later that member states managed to agree on the issue. The Parliament itself had to decide initially where to meet and how to organise its work, alternating between Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg (where the General Secretariat was already based). It was only at the Edinburgh European Council, in December 1992, that EU leaders reached a settlement. They decided that the European Parliament’s official home would be in Strasbourg, where the 12 monthly plenary sessions would be held, while additional plenaries and parliamentary committee meetings would be held in Brussels. The General Secretariat and its departments would remain in Luxembourg. The decision was validated by the EU Court of Justice before being inserted into the Amsterdam Treaty as an annexed protocol.

PRESSURE FROM GREENS AND LIBERALS

Since then, the major monthly migration process has been formalised, and the packing and unpacking of cases and ‘metal trunks’ has become customary. But criticism from some MEPs over the waste of time, money and energy has continued to grow in recent years. While the argument of the cost to European taxpayers initially prevailed – a figure of €200 million per year has been mentioned – the question of the environmental impact has now gained the upper hand. The Greens-EFA group published, in May 2007 a study showing that the monthly commute between Brussels and the Alsatian capital generated “emissions of CO ₂, the main greenhouse gas, equivalent to 13,000 return trips from London to New York”. With travel – by plane, train and car – of 785 (at the time) MEPs, 2,000 civil servants, 1,500 assistants, as well as journalists, lobbyists and diplomats, emissions would increase to 20,000 tonnes of CO ₂ per year.

The Greens were not the only ones to take a public stance. Earlier, in May 2006, Swedish Liberal MEP Cecilia Malmström launched an online petition for a single seat for the European Parliament ( www.oneseat.eu). It gathered over one million signatures, including those of MEPs across party lines, but also – it must be admitted – dubious characters, such as ‘Mickey Mouse’. Now a minister for European affairs, she has softened her tone. But her Liberal MEP colleagues, led by Alexander Alvaro (Germany), have taken over.

They attempted to launch a new petition, in September 2008, taking advantage of the Parliament’s poor image following the collapse of the false ceiling in the Strasbourg debating chamber in August. They went even further and proposed, as compensation to the city of Strasbourg, the creation of an “elite European university,” which would make Strasbourg “the place of knowledge of European society”.

FRENCH VETO

Other attempts to place the issue of the institution’s headquarters on the agenda of the European Council or the Parliament’s plenary sessions have failed. The decision is laid down in the EU’s treaties and, in order to amend it, these would have to be amended. This would require a unanimous vote by all 27 EU member states, including France, and Paris has no intention of relinquishing the only EU institution on its territory, which brings prestige and economic benefits. Calling Strasbourg into question would also open up a Pandora’s box containing all other EU institutions or agencies based throughout Europe, such as the European Central Bank in Frankfurt.

MEPs have been calling for the establishment of a single headquarters since the first European elections in 1979