Continental Parliament Needs Capital City

12.00.00am BST (GMT +0100) Fri 16th Jun 2000

Andrew Duff Liberal Democrat Euro-MP for Eastern England argues that the shuttling to Strasbourg marginalises the European Parliament politically, is costly and counter-productive.

Mr Duff says:

"It is wrong to confine a continental Parliament to a provincial city".

Attached is a letter from Mr Duff, who is the Constitutional Affairs Spokesman of the European Liberal Democrats, and a leading campaigner for a stronger European Parliament, to Mme Nicole Fontaine, President of the Parliament, objecting to her press statement on the seat of the institutions of 14 June.

Mr Duff, who respects the Franco-German reconciliation symbolised by Strasbourg, suggests that the Louise Weiss building would make a perfect home for the first truly European University.

END/

Mme Nicole Fontaine MEP

President of the European Parliament

Rue Wiertz B-0147 Bruxelles

16 June 2000

Dear Madame President,

I read with interest your press statement of 14 June criticising the Parliament's decision not to meet in Strasbourg on Fridays.

While I accept that there are certainly many practical reasons why Members do not like coming to Strasbourg, you diminish those of us who are campaigning for a single seat, in Brussels, by misrepresenting our argument.

Permit me to set out clearly why we want to end the Strasbourg shuttle.

First and foremost, a federal parliament needs to site itself at the centre of political power. Brussels is de facto the capital city of the European Union. It is where the Commission and Council have their headquarters. It is where the media and NGOs are based. By moving away from Brussels, the Parliament is marginalising itself politically.

Second, the shuttling is costly, adding unnecessary expense to the public purse and exposing the Parliament to public ridicule.

Third, the shuttling is time-consuming and exhausting, serving only to reduce the productivity of Members and their staff.

It may be possible to improve the working conditions in Strasbourg, especially by greatly increasing the number of flights. But small improvements will never overcome the essential predicament we face, which is that it is wrong to confine a continental parliament in a provincial city.

Strasbourg is a beautiful city, and has many virtues, not least the Louise Weiss Building. It seems a pity to leave such a building empty and unused for 40 weeks of the year. It would make a splendid university campus. Why not establish the first truly European University there?

I appreciate that Strasbourg has a symbolic value, especially for the French and Germans. And all European have both a duty and a reason to be grateful to and to continue to reflect upon the efforts made by the founding fathers of post-war European unity, many of which took place in Strasbourg.

But Europe has moved on, and the Parliament should too.

I fully understand why many French Members feel the campaign against Strasbourg is an affront to national pride. But I know that your European convictions would not allow you to share that negative sentiment, and that your first mission is to work to develop our parliamentary democracy in the common interest of all Europe.

Indeed, because I think it is so important to establish the case against Strasbourg on rational rather than emotive grounds, I am releasing this letter to the press.

Please accept my compliments.

Yours sincerely,

ANDREW DUFF M.E.P.