PES Manifesto

1. Is there anyway to support the one sit campaign? by montymonty7 on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 15:45

I do agree with you...going from Brussels to Strasbourg,and vice versa, make all MEPs, assistants, documents, etc moving is just a waste of money and time.

Is there anyway to support the one sit campaign? Any e-petition we can sign or discussion group we can take part into?

Thanks

2. Chose the right target by pattheact on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 12:00

I guess that approaching the "problem" as you do here, one can only agree with your statement. On the other hand I must say that I am not entirely agreeing to what you say. it is true that the costs related to the monthly travelling to Strasbourg could be lowered, but I also think that by keeping this system we promote EU mobility and show that the centres for decision-making are not linked to one only country or town.

What is in my sense much more scandalous is the very untransparent way all MEPs are using their travel budgets when travelling to Strasbourg. This system should be changed and I am sure that a lot of money would be saved and normal EU citizens would have a better opinion of the whole story. If one knows that many MEPs make money with their travel budgets because they use very cheap flights or train tickets whereas they get  a higher budget for it...I would prefer that all MEPs handed in invoices for their travelling and other secretarial costs and be reimbursed on their real expenses. No one should tell me that a MEP with the wages they earn cannot advance the money for their trips to Strasbourg, that would be a joke of badest tatse.

Furthermore I do not think that the EU budget would make a lot of savings with this travel story. there are other far more scandalous expenses of the Parliament that we should highlight here if we would really like to have a positive impact on the budget and the image of the EU institutions.

3. The common sense is the reliability by Ezmanovich on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 17:11

I do not agree with you in this: "but I also think that by keeping this system we promote EU mobility and show that the centres for decision-making are not linked to one only country or town."

It is not mobility, it is rather wasting our money. If you are really talking about mobility, you have to move the parliament and the offices to each country in the EU. This is not possible, and we have to center the parliament in one city, one country - not in two - if we have it a permanent place we will not have "the moving problems". Two parliaments in two countries is not promoting mobility, it is rather giving advantages to both France and Belgium. It is riddiculus to have two parliaments in one European Union. 

I agree with you that we see some problems about the way the MEPs are using their budgets as members of the parliament. Of course we have to give them fair budgets and we have to make sure that the member countries' money and the citizens' money are being used in a correct way. But it is another discussion. But I cannot see how it is an argument of keeping the TWO parliamental buildings.

It costs European taxpayers approximately 200 million euros each year to move the parliament. Perhaps it is not a very big amount, but stopping the travel will save these money and it will give a better reliability to the EU generally and the work in the parliament if we are not wasting the money in this insane way of travelling between Brussels and Strasbourg.

4. Common sense and other realities by pattheact on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:17

I would tend to agree with some of your arguments, but if you consider also the fact that during the absence in Brussels, some other committees are using the Parliament hemicycle whilst the MEP's siege in Strasbourg you also need to take into account that we probably would have to invest in some other buildings in Brussels which would again cost a lot of money. Without even mentionning the lack of space for any further expansion the institutions are already facing in Brussels...

Anyway, I still think that this issue even if it has to be looked after and discussed is quite unimportant with regard to  other issues our institutions are facing.

5. Investments and gathering by Ezmanovich on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 16:11

Of course you have got a point that the EU has to buy new buildings to the others meetings. But my principle is that one parliamental building should be enough. I mean that if the EU had build the Brussels parliament building too small - of course it is a problem and it is not very smart. Then we have to change it, if you ask me. It is expensive - but I rather see is as an investment of the EU - and not a crazy expense.

The EU contents a lot of institutions and committees and it requires a lot of space - we just have to accept and realise that. It is most practical to have the democratic process of the EU gathered at one place.