Flawed arguments about Strasbourg

"We reserve us all possibilities given by the treaty, also the option to go to the Court of Justice of the European Union." - Laurent Wauquiez, French minister for European affairs

When Michiel van Hulten reported in February that MEPs are fed up with the traveling circus between Brussels and Strasbourg, the political establishment reacted to it like a horse reacts to a fly. "I urge you not to engage in polemics that will damage Europe’s standing. That would only play into the hands of the Euro-sceptics", said France's ambassador to the EU. Joseph Daul and Martin Schulz, respectively leaders of the EPP and the S&D group, dismissed the report as “a waste of time”, adding "that this was not an issue MEPs should deal with".

The European Parliament in Strasbourg
by night, CC BY-NC-SA, by m4tik

Now that MEPs voted to scrap a trip to Strasbourg per year, the French government and other stakeholders are howling with rage. French members of the EPP group "denounce the attacks on Strasbourg" and ask the French government to take the case to the ECJ; Wauquiez is seriously considering to follow suit (possibly in vain).

You hear that there is a lot of emotion and not so much rational thinking behind these arguments. Bernd Posselt, German member of the EPP, has even compiled a list of "preconceptions" that the pro-Brussels camp is supposed to have, and he completely boycotts the Brussels seat.


But many of the pro-Strasbourg arguments are flawed. I went through some of Posselt's arguments to start with.



Posselt: The "democratic deficit of Europe will get worse if Europe becomes more centralized", as centralization would "go against the general movement of history" and "concentrations of powers increase the risk of abuse of powers".

==> Many observers say that the Parliament needs to be close to the institutions it controls, and that it could not fulfill its function if it were to work from the distance. Besides, when it was decided in the 1950s where to base the EEC, Robert Schuman supported decentralization of European institutions and "was joined in his ideas by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, small countries that were afraid that their cities could not integrate a large number of foreigners." There was never a political motivation for the decentralization of the institutions. Instead, "the ministers were unable to decide on a site, choosing three provisional capitals and therewith bringing about de facto decentralization."


Posselt: "In Brussels the Parliament is more in the category of “and others” after NATO, the Council and the European Commission, while in Strasbourg, it is the center of attention."

==> Quite the contrary, the existence of "Brussels" and of face-to-face relations led to a European public sphere that allows for the shaping of opinion through discussions between different stakeholders (albeit in a bubble). Opinions could not be negotiated as well if they had to travel back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg.
In addition, the disappearance of the European Parliament from Strasbourg would for the first time give adequate visibility to the Council of Europe and the European Court on Human Rights.


Posselt: "To abandon Strasbourg would be a shock to the European identity which was much defined after the war by the contested border region of Alsace."

==> Plain wrong. The identity in Alsace after WWII, partly German and partly French, was bounced around between Alsatian affection for France and the repulsion that France showed for Alsace. "The Alsatian became the “lowest creature in France that one [could] mock . . . without facing a consequence". Had Alsatians "been proud of their 'double culture' before the war, now there was a 'desire to forget the language and the culture, to undergo assimilation and to be like the other French in order to not longer have anything in common with the German enemy.'"


In conclusion, many arguments in favor of a Parliament in Strasbourg are based on historical or ideological reasons. And many of them are flawed. The Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights would deserve more limelight than they have, while the Parliament should check decision-makers in Brussels as it is supposed to do. Instead, as several commentators suggest, new European institutions could fill the vacant space in the Strasbourg buildings.


Update (17/04/2011): A new paper published by 90 MEPs suggests a similar direction as I have taken here. It wants to make Strasbourg the European City of Justice by moving the ECJ over there. 

MountEUlympus back in action

I've come home from China and will start blogging again. It's pretty exciting to come back just now, with the EU busy about the Hungarian Media Law, the Hungarian presidency, democracy in Italy and saving the Euro. Taken as a whole, 2010 has certainly been one of the EU's most challenging years since 1957.

The new year is always the time for new plans and new beginnings, so I will try to do some new things as well. First of all I'm honored to join the bloggingportal.eu editors. Hope that I can do some good things as an editor. To that effect, you can also add me on Twitter now. Secondly, I will give a new focus to my blogging. Sure, I'm still writing about institutional affairs and current EU events. But I want to pursue a few topical issues as well.

The most important one is China. We don't know anything about this new world power. And the way it is, we are headed into a clash of cultures between "the West" and China. In my blogging, I will take up issues that China talks about and take up EU-China questions, trying to avoid the conventional bias of our media. The question is, how can "the West" and China be reconciled? How can the faultlines be mended? Where does assimilation take place, in China or in "the West"? Obviously, talking about "the West" will not be limited to the EU but essentially incorporate the US as well...

The second aspect is the global economy. This will be a learning-by-doing experience, as my knowledge about international trade flow and finance only stems from a bachelor's degree. Together with the global economy, I also want to explore questions of sustainable development in the world.

The final aspect is event journalism. I will move into the Brussels bubble in a bit and try to cover some European Councils, press conferences and what else seems of interest to me and to you. Depending on the opportunities I get, I'm also going to play with my video camera and try to interview some of the people that keep the wheels spinning in Brussels.

At any rate, this is an exciting time to recommence blogging. After the #EUCO tweet wall event, I expect that we'll have to negotiate how blogging and bloggers can be incorporated into EU policy-shaping in the future.

Glad to start this new year together with you. I'm looking forward to a lot of fruitful interaction and debates.


P.S. if you're too busy to check this website for updates, how about copying its RSS feed into your feed reader?

Joining the Ministry of Magic

Last week Harry Potter had an interview with the Ministry of Magic to become a junior assistant in the Department of Muggle Relations. Defeating Voldemort may have benefitted the wizarding world; it certainly did not secure Harry's future. So the young wizard left the walls of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in Bruges and took the Hogwarts Express to Brussels.

After a stopover in Brussels Central and a metro ride to Schuman, Harry stood outside the impressive four-winged building of the Ministry of Magic. He was well-prepared for the interview; not only had he taken extensive courses in European Muggle Administration, but also passed the wizarding concours that made him a part of the secretive wizarding community in the center of Europe. Harry had moreover subscribed to the Economist Group's Daily Prophet throughout his time of education in Bruges. This had greatly helped him forge a wizard identity.

Harry was excited. Being raised by Muggles, it had taken him a long time to integrate the wizarding world, and he was prepared to use his competencies to bring the wizarding world and the Muggles closer together. However, he was one of very few who had these ideals. Most of the Muggles did not know anything about the wizarding world, or considered it distant and dangerous. Likewise, those who had walked the path of wizard education were content with the position they had reached and did not put too much emphasis on integrating the Muggles any further.

Harry knew that it would not be easy to achieve his goal. The wizarding world was small, disliked changes and would not forgive mistakes easily. Antagonizing Slytherins during his time in Hogwarts could induce them to take revenge when they had obtained a high position in the Department for the Harmonization of the Blood Status. Changes would have to come slowly and carefully.

Nonetheless, Harry knew that his only way to bringing Wizards and Muggles together was by changing the culture of communication between both groups and he was certainly prepared to work hard towards this goal. Harry entered the Halls of the Ministry and was greeted by Arthur Weasley from Luxembourg who took him into his office for the job interview.

We don't know if Harry passed his job interview or not. But I hope he did, and that he will bring Muggles and Wizards closer together.


This post is inspired by a lecture given this week at Maastricht University about the secretive "Brussels bubble" and by Julien Frisch's posts about the same topic (here and here)
I would never go so far as to criticize the entire state system