By Brian Johnson - 30th October 2008
I do not wish to go over all the well-rehearsed arguments surrounding cost, pollution and wasted time yet again, but would merely like to appeal once more on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of the EU’s citizens for a solution to be found to this
MEP Glenis Willmott on ending the parliament's monthly trek to Strasbourg
MEPs campaigning against the European parliament’s twin-seat arrangement are facing “unjust treatment” from the assembly’s bosses, according to British MEP Glenis Willmott.
Writing in the latest issue of the Parliament Magazine, Willmott accuses parliament’s authorities of undermining MEPs’ efforts to promote a debate on the controversial monthly jaunt to Strasbourg.
Willmot writes that she has been “dismayed by what not only appears to be the unjust treatment of those of us campaigning for a one-seat solution, but also a lack of respect for those one and a quarter million EU citizens who have so far signed the petition at www.oneseat.eu for parliament to have a single seat in Brussels”.
“So far,” she adds, “Requests for a serious debate on this issue in plenary have been ignored and the recently launched written declaration 75 on holding all parliament plenary sessions in Brussels has faced seemingly discriminatory measures against its promotion to MEPs.”
Parliament’s bosses have already come under fire for allegedly undermining MEPs’ right to lobby to end the Strasbourg arrangement.
German ALDE deputy Alexander Alvaro has written to parliament’s president, Hans-Gert Pöttering, demanding an explanation on why a poster, aimed at promoting a written declaration on the issues, was removed by the assembly’s security guards, shortly after it was erected outside the parliament’s main debating chamber in Brussels.
“[Last month], a poster promoting the written declaration was removed by parliament’s authorities under the pretence that MEPs ‘should avoid activities on parliament’s premises which might be regarded as controversial’,” Willmott says. “I find this wholly ridiculous. Most dictionaries define controversial as ‘causing disagreement or discussion’.
“Should a modern parliament such as ours really be seeking to restrict disagreement or discussion? Yet unless I have grossly misunderstood the situation surrounding the removal of the poster, that is precisely what has happened.
She says the only other reason given for the poster’s removal was its size, which made it difficult for visitors to move around the building. But, she argues, one week later the area was taken up by a much larger exhibition on China.
“The difference in size between the one seat poster and the exhibition on China is akin to that of a rowing boat and the Titanic,” she says.
“I do not wish to go over all the well-rehearsed arguments surrounding cost, pollution and wasted time yet again, but would merely like to appeal once more on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of the EU’s citizens for a solution to be found to this ludicrous and embarrassing state of affairs.”
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.