Other ideas
#TheFutureIsYours Transversal and cross-cutting issues
20.000 tones of CO2, 110 million euros that could be invested climate friendly and we don't get it. Just enjoy the awesome building in Brussels. Your time is worth so much more.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Please log in
You can access with an external account
10 comments
Je ne suis pas d'accord sur le fait de tout centraliser à Bruxelles. Certes, deux parlements, c'est trop mais pourquoi ne pas respecter les traités et mettre tout le travail des parlementaires à Strasbourg. Point positif le bâtiment à Strasbourg est bien mieux isolé et réduirait les coûts de chauffage. De plus, le débat entre Strasbourg et Bruxelles est plus important que simplement le lieu de travail des députés. Bruxelles symbolise la bureaucratie, il en faut mais il doit y avoir autre chose avec. Si Strasbourg a été choisi pour mettre une telle institution avec des élus parlant 24 langues et provenant de 27 pays différents, c'est pour le symbole. Strasbourg et sa région ont été auparavant au centre de la confrontation militaire en Europe. Montrer au monde entier et aux prochaines générations qu'il est possible de réconcilier des peuples jadis ennemis est le sens de la construction européenne. Il serait dommage d'oublier que le projet européen est un projet de paix.
Ich bin dafür. Ich finde es auch sinnvoll, dass sowohl Kommission als auch Parlament in Brüssel sind und nicht getrennt, da beide Organe zusammenarbeiten (sollten). Falls das Parlament in den nächsten Jahren und Jahrzehnten mehr Macht bekommt, was ich hoffe, würde sich das Regierungszentrum der EU ansonsten immer weiter nach Straßburg verlagern.
This would be a awful idea. This "awesome building in Brussels" is so well done that it needs to be completely rebuild, at a cost of 500 M euros, even though it is only 30 years old! This is not very eco-friendly either... On the other hand, Strasbourg has a perfectly operational headquarters, and this since the beginning.
Brussels is the bureaucracy in a state capital. It is the symbol of an EU that privileges the interests of its member states rather than those of its citizens. Strasbourg is the cultural capital of the EU, a regional capital, which favors the EU of the regions, and it is the symbol of peace in Europe.
The centralism of the EU is an important reason of the rampant euroscepticism, and putting the European Parliament only in Brussels will only reinforce it. It would be much more logical to do the opposite, and put the European Parliament only in Strasbourg.
I understand that moving everything to Strasbourg is an old compromise to make France feel important many decades ago, but this has to stop. It is hugely damaging to EU's image in some member countries, France is already one of the most important EU members and doesn't need this anymore, and frankly any talk about a greener Europe while still pointlessly going back and forth between Bxl and Strasbourg sounds hollow and hypocritical.
Nope. I want Strasbourg to be my Parliament. Of course it costs money. That's not an argument.
Instead close Parliament in Brussels.
Or make time periods between shifts longer. Like 6 months or so.
As a French person, I hate this obsession that many from my country have with having that one seat of the institutions in their country. It should not matter what country the institutions are seated it, their mission is always to serve the whole Union. And the general consensus among MEPs seems to be that it would be more practical for the Parliament to be permanently seated in Brussels. But there also seems to be arguments in favor of it being permanently in Strasbourg. Wherever it is, the point remains the same: it should be in one place only. Moving all the time is utterly pointless.
Change Strasbourg for Lille: a single seat for the Parliament that stays in France, and with easy commuting from Brussels. That can satisfy France and save greenhouse gases and money.
Niemand geht nach Straßburg. Straßburg ist nämlich der Sitz des Europäischen Parlamentes. Abzustellen wäre also die Reise in den Zweitsitz in Brüssel.
Die beste Lösung aus meiner Sicht wäre ein 2-Kammern Parlament.
Remove the Parliament altogether in Brussels AND Strasbourg. Problem solved.
It is ridiculous that we are moving a whole parliament 12 times per year. For organizational reasons geographic proximity to other institutions is key. 103 Mio. Euros could be saved by a permanent parliament in Brussels. But apart from economical reasons: In a time of crucial climate tipping points, we can't credibly promote renunciation and innovation and on the other hand stick to two parliament seats. Be that for traditional or symbolic reasons. Treaties can be changed and as much as these points are valid, in a discussion points have to be offset against each other, and there I see a much stronger case for Brussels that moving there permanently is inevitable.
Loading comments ...