High price for circus act

Date: 02/10/1997

CRITICS of the European Union make much of the fact that it is ordinary taxpayers who have to foot the hefty bill for keeping its 'travelling circus' on the road.

They have been handed fresh ammunition by this week's ruling from the European Court of Justice upholding French claims that MEPs breached EU law when they decided to hold just 11 plenary sessions in Strasbourg in 1996, instead of 12.

The Court's ruling has dismayed many MEPs who believe that they should have the right to organise their own business and decide where and when to meet, and has dealt a serious blow to the campaign which has long been waged by some of their number to move the Parliament from Strasbourg to Brussels lock, stock and barrel.

Whether the Court's interpretation of Union law was right or wrong is a matter for lawyers. But whether EU leaders were right to agree at their 1992 Edinburgh summit to make Strasbourg the permanent seat of the Parliament, and to confirm that decision in the new Treaty of Amsterdam, is clearly an issue for politicians.

In an era of belt-tightening as governments prepare for the launch of the single currency, how can member states justify spending millions of ecu a year on transporting MEPs and their assistants - and the mountains of paperwork they need to do their job - from Brussels to Strasbourg every month for the Parliament's plenary session? Is French insistence on keeping its share of the rich rewards to be gained from playing host to a major Union institution a valid reason for maintaining the status quo?

The cost of keeping the travelling circus on the road is not, however, the only reason why politicians should have risked incurring French wrath by forcing a fresh look at the issue in their negotiations on the new EU treaty at the Amsterdam summit in June.

While the Parliament continues to hold its most important meetings in Strasbourg, far away from the headquarters of the Union's other two main institutions - the European Commission and the Council of Ministers - its activities will never attract the attention that its supporters would wish for. That is why those member states reluctant to boost the Parliament's powers were only too happy to go along with French demands for a treaty protocol confirming Strasbourg's role, and why those who championed the Parliament's cause should have resisted the move.