Everybody loves a circus...

Next week marks the tearful farewell to the European Parliament, as my second internship draws to a close. From Socialists in Strasbourg to Greens in Brussels, the experience has been entirely enriching, if not entirely consistent. (NB. in case anyone feels as if they've missed something, a blog entry giving my reasons for my treachery is currently in the works, as I try to think of enough reasons to justify myself).

Given that I'm now no longer dependant upon the Parliament's presence in Strasbourg for a job, I'm at last free of any vested interets and able to take a more impartial, or critical, view on the matter. But I can only imagine the fallout following Sarkozy shooting down the by now rather formidable attempts to reform the double-seat structure of the EP and the monthly trek backwards & forwards it entails (the "travelling circus" as its been endearingly dubbed). The One Seat campaign, has gathered an impressive million+ signatures, MEPs themselves are generally rather influential people but this something that they just can't seem to budge. And as we know, Sarkozy is not one for beating around the bush, he doesn't say ask me later, he just says No. Never. Not now, not in a million years. cf. Turkish accession, for exemple. So much for the bold reformer, but he certainly has a knack for bold outright rejection. No no no. Veto veto veto.

And yet, there had been high hopes, hopeful whispers that Sarkozy, for all his sins, was a progressive-thinker, a moderniser, in favour of moving forward. In favour, even, of efficiency, time-saving, and good old-fashioned common sense. But of course it wasn't long before those aspirations bit the dust, and Sarkozy went as far as reaffirming the symbolic status of Strasbourg - of franco-german reconciliation, of European unity. I didn't write down the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of: discussing Strasbourg would amount to discussing the very basis of Europe - the precarious equilibria on which it is founded. "L'Europe - ca ne se discute pas." We won't mention of course, the arrogance and inaccuracy of talking about "Europe" as a whole, as opposed to the EU.

I find it difficult to grasp what exactly he's refering to, what this immobile, unchanging, eternal foundation consists of, in his eyes. If he is refering to the nature of the founding agreement, the ideas on which Political Europe was built in its very early stages, what are we basing ourselves on, exactly? A strictly economic mutually beneficial agreement between 6 small nations on matters relating solely to coal and steel production? Oh the unbridled idealism!

Or perhaps he's referring to more recent history, which if anything shows just how malleable & transient the EU structures are, if you take a look at all the changes, structural reforms, upheaval, enlargement, twists & turns over the past 10 to 20 years.


This all would seem to suggest that the foundations, like the borders, are entirely up the discussion, in fact, what is the EU if not one long discussion, negotiation, compromise, to claim it as static at the base is as nonsensical as suggesting the political consensus in general is. When has anything political ever be set in stone, least of all something in constant evolution, progressing by trial & error, like the european project.

Sarkozy can call the shots on his own turf, and we've already seen he isn't shy about doing so. But the EU forum necessitates a little more "give" even among the big players. Now that my internship contract has been safely brought to term, I'm quite happy to deplore the Strasbourg Circus like the rest of them. The arguments generally fall into 3 main categories:

1. The cost issue - tax payers money argument costing them 200million euro a year alledgedly
   
2. The environmental and carbon footprint issue
   
3. The plain hassle & bother issue

I suspect the majority of the dissenting voices are spurred on in their crusade by the sheer inconvenience inccured, while the Greens highlight the carbon footprint aspect. It distresses them a lot, firstly because of the C02 munching involved, but also because of the hypocrisy - the EU presents itself as a leader in envrionmental policy but fails to lead by example.

And it's not all a lot of hot air, either. Numerous reports have been published stating exact facts and figures about energy consumption, of which this one by the Greens-EFA group appears to be the most concise, compact and comprehensive

For me the issue is less than clear-cut. Yes the waste of energy is a scandal, but it's a scandal that's been going on for a while now, so a lot of people have gotten used to it. Also, having just finished my erasmus year in Strasbourg, I have to say the town does now occupy a special place in my heart, which prevents me from dismissing the whole idea as entirely stupid. And God knows what we'd do with that awful building... european college, museum, science park, circus anyone?