|
 |
 |
 |
 | book | |
| projects | |
| country info | |
| who we are | |
| donation | |
| ||
|
||
|
|
home printable version tell a friend |
oneseat.eu
- Website of the initiative
Walking through the long corridors of the EU Parliament building in Brussels you notice them immediately: metal cases in front of every door. Some are filled with papers. Each month these cases make a journey to Strasbourg, because the plenary sessions do not take place in Brussels: Estimated costs for this uncomfortable arrangement are 200 Million Euros each year.
But there are more and more calls to change the situation. It started with a scandal. The EU Parliament pays 10.5 million Euros to the city of Strasbourg to pay the rent. This money is passed on to a real estate investment trust that had paid the costs for erecting the building. It is suspected that the French city kept 20% of the annual payment. Alee over Europe the issue of the two seats was suddenly in the media.
The European Parliament can not decide about the location of its seat: this is part of the European Treaties which can only be changed unanimously. The French government is blocking a change of the situation. Now MEP are calling the Europeans for support: They started a “European Citizens Initiative”. They refer explicitly to the Art. 47-4 of the rejected EU Constitution.
This proofs: The European Citizens must urgently get more influence on European affairs.
One of the initiators, Cecilia Malmström (Sweden) explained our website the background of the initiative.
Ronald Pabst
Links:
tagesschau.de German report about the current scandal
EUobserver Commissioner Wallstrom backs anti-Strasbourg seat campaign
Interview: Cecilia Malmström (Sweden)
1) The European governments and institutions created the problem of the two seats. Why do you not trust them to tackle the problem?
It is true that the European prime ministers have to agree unanimously to change the seat of the EP. But there is a window of opportunity now when the proposed constitution is in the freeezer and the pause for reflection declared. The Council and the commission has asked for the citizens to come up with ideas. The institutions are in urgent need of increasing their legitimacy and the seat issue is something that meny people are upset about. In the commissions website for"char about the future of Europé" the sear issue is one of the top five issues. On my website I have gathered 230 000 signatures in three weeks. They have to take this into consideration.
2) You refer explicitly to the European Citizens Initiative (ECI), which was part of the rejected EU-Constitution. Why do you think this will strengthen your call?
The commission has stated via Commisssioner Wallström, responsible for plan D, that it considers the citizens’ initiative as valid with or without the constitution. Mrs Wallström has also said that she waits for the first initiative to land on her table, so we are preparing to give her this. It is important to show that the seat issue is not about the peronal comfort of the Members of the European parliamnet, it is something that is causing damage to our credibility.
3) How do initiatives like "one seat" contribute to the development of a European public sphere?
We have to wait and see. At least I have received thousands of emails and being contacted by NGOs, journalists etc from all over Europe.
4) The French and Dutch citizens stopped the ratification process of the EU Constitution. Do you think an immediate introduction of the ECI would help to close the gap between Europe and its citizens?
Yes, this is one element in the long challenge that we have in order to regain the confidence of the citizens. But we need many different initiatives.
5) Direct democracy is much more than a simple initiative. The example of Austria shows clearly the limitations of this tool. Could you imagine that the Europeans themselves in a Pan-European referendum might decide about the question of
"one or two seats"?
Well, maybe the issue is not big enough for a referendum, I hope we can create a debate and show the great public interest but referendums should be used carefully.
