Calls grow for European Parliament to stop Strasbourg march amid energy crisis – POLITICO
Press play to listen to this article
Calls are growing among members of the European Parliament to halt regular trips between the chamber’s two seats in Brussels and Strasbourg to conserve resources amid fears of a severe energy crisis this winter.
As the final plenary session of Parliament in Strasbourg ends on Thursday, a contingent of lawmakers from different parties argue they should not return to the eastern French city. German conservative Peter Liese of the European People’s Party – Parliament’s largest group – wrote a letter to Parliament Speaker Roberta Metsola this week urging her to suspend the ride until April as the war in Russia in Ukraine is squeezing the continent’s energy supply and driving up bills.
“If we ask everyone to save energy, it’s not responsible for heating two buildings and making unnecessary trips”, Liese said. “During the Corona pandemic, we only met in Brussels for a very long time for a good reason. For many people, the energy crisis is worse. That is why we must also react now.
Deputy Speaker of Parliament Katarina Barley of the Socialists and Democrats echoed the remarks.
“We should check whether it is possible to close the Parliament buildings in Strasbourg and how much energy this would actually save,” Barley said. “We are in a similar emergency situation to the time of COVID, when the EP in Strasbourg also remained closed.”
But the French are strongly opposed to stopping travel to Strasbourg: Multiple Voices have already taken place with the aim of changing the configuration, which is enshrined in the EU Treaties. French officials, including President Emmanuel Macron, as well as local Strasbourg businesses, stress Strasbourg’s importance to the European parliamentary process.
In March 2020, during the COVID pandemic, the late former Speaker of Parliament, David Sassoli, canceled parliamentary sessions in Strasbourg after French authorities designated the region as a coronavirus red zone. French officials repeatedly expressed frustration with the decision and MPs eventually resumed their sessions in Strasbourg in December 2020.
A spokeswoman for Metsola confirmed having received the letter from Liese as well as a total of five energy saving messages. She plans to respond, the spokesperson noted, although the response for Liese seems ready to be “no” for now.
Parliament’s press services separately said the top priority was “for the EU to remain united” while tackling energy prices and inflation at the same time. This will be the “main focus” of Metsola’s talks at the informal meeting of EU leaders this week in Prague, where energy policies will be the main focus, the spokesman added.
The spokesperson also highlighted Parliament’s other measures to reduce consumption, such as lowering the temperature inside buildings during winter. Parliament has also cut millions of euros from renovations to its facilities, including plans for new carpeting and a bar.
Again, as temperatures continue to drop and public pressure on politicians increases, the prospect of moving between two poorly heated buildings in need of renovation some 400 kilometers apart may spark new complaints from MPs.
Liese’s argument, for example, has garnered support from groups across the political spectrum, such as Martin Schirdewan, co-chairman of The Left Group, who argued that the two seats were problematic even before the energy crisis.
“The traveling circus has always been un-ecological, wasted tax money and cost valuable working time,” Schirdewan said, adding that “it’s finally time to end it once and for all.”
The Greens’ Daniel Freund has been a strong advocate for stopping the hike, also sending a letter to Metsola two months ago urging her on the matter. Freund told POLITICO that heating and lighting ‘two huge office complexes’ while millions of Europeans worry about their upcoming gas bills ‘is not acceptable’, saying the monthly trip to Strasbourg should be stop “until the end of the energy crisis”.
Freund’s group leader, Ska Keller, said there must be “more measures … taken to further reduce any unnecessary energy consumption”, adding that “it is important to consider all possibilities to reduce further any unnecessary energy consumption”. But Keller stopped before he backed up Freud’s proposal.
Geert Bourgeois of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group called back and forth a “classic example of duplication and ineffective governance”, adding that “these temporary relocations are very expensive” and fly in “total contradiction to the tact of sustainability “. stirring that the EP always raises. Bourgeois estimated that these trips represent around 20,000 tons of CO2 emissions on an annual basis.
There is a divide on the subject within the Renew Europe group, which is closely linked to Macron.
German MEP Moritz Körner complained that “heating and lighting two blocks of buildings simultaneously in Brussels and Strasbourg is a travesty of taxpayers”, and he added that the COVID arrangements proved that Parliament could function without the trip to Strasbourg.
But a spokesman for Renew Europe group leader Stéphane Sejourné of France complained that the Greens and others are taking a “maximalist approach to teleworking and remote voting”, saying that “a democracy dynamic continent of 27 Member States requires mobility and physical meetings”.
“Questioning the seat of Strasbourg is a false good idea” Sejourné’s spokesperson said carbon emissions and electricity consumption would not be reduced but rather relocated elsewhere. In addition, the spokesperson said, the building in Strasbourg is “more energy efficient than those in Brussels”.
Barbara Moens contributed reporting.