The combination of a newly elected French President and Parliament - with no new Presidential or Parliamentary elections due for another five years - and an Intergovernmental Conference to quickly adopt a set of amendments to the current treaties, could be an opportunity to solve the problem of the European Parliament's sessions in Strasbourg. At the very least, it is worth a try.
France must be convinced that it is in its interests to relinquish the 12 parliamentary sessions that take place in Strasbourg. For this, it will be necessary both to compensate Strasbourg and to show that maintaining the obligation to hold sessions in Strasbourg is becoming untenable to the extent that it damages France 's reputation.
On the former, Strasbourg could be offered the right to host meetings of the European Council. This would bring significant prestige to Strasbourg. It is also quite logical in institutional terms - the Parliament, Commission and the ordinary Council of Ministers interact daily and should be in same town. The European Council is supposed to be a strategic body, not involved in the day-to-day give and take of the institutions. It is logical that it should have a certain distance from them, and this would not detract from their functioning.
Maintaining the 12 sessions in Strasbourg is becoming increasingly untenable. It was a major factor in public opinion in the Netherlands when it rejected the Constitutional Treaty. It constantly spawns press coverage related to the extra cost (estimated at around €200 million per year) of shifting back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg and it undermines the working capacity of the European Parliament. Members from the new member states and many of the old member states face horrendous travel schedules to get to Strasbourg and it also disrupts the Commission and the Council. France 's insistence in maintaining the Strasbourg sessions is increasingly criticised.
It also causes unnecessary embarrassment to the Parliament which has pledged to take the lead in tackling the effects of climate change, but yet find itself saddled with a massive carbon footprint and the suggestion that it has a "do as I say, not as I do" mindset even though the arrangements were imposed on Parliament by the member state governments. The bottom line is that as long as the Parliament uses the Strasbourg building for fewer than 50 days a year, the EU will continue to stand accused of being inefficient and having a wasteful attitude towards the public purse.
A poll conducted in the European Parliament by the Campaign for Parliamentary reform produced findings that 81% of MEPs want the Parliament to have a single permanent seat in Brussels. And it is not just MEPs who want the issue to be resolved. In the House of Commons, an Early Day Motion (the UK Parliament's version of a written declaration), calling for the end of the Strasbourg sessions, has already received enthusiastic support from MPs representing each of the three main parties.
Mr Sarkozy presents himself as a bold reformer and has been given a strong mandate by the French people in the recent elections. What better opportunity to solve a problem that will otherwise continue to fester for many years?
This article was first published in European Voice, on 05/07/07