4 ms·
The actual waste here is that while the European Parliament normally meets in Brussels, it is still bound by a 1992 decision to have a monthly session in Strasb
by rbehrends 4y ago
The actual waste here is that while the European Parliament normally meets in Brussels, it is still bound by a 1992 decision to have a monthly session in Strasbourg [1]. This creates a huge and unnecessary overhead (shuttling 705 MEPs back and forth, maintaining separate offices in Strasbourg and other unnecessary duplication of efforts), of which this additional flight is just a small part. This could be fixed by deciding that the European Parliament meets in Brussels year-round.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_of_the_European_Parliament_in_Strasbourg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_of_the_European_Parliamen...
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoOr just keep adding more capitals into the rotation, until the overhead of any capital is negligible. I'm actually rather happy to have a moving capital / parliament seat. Would probably do with the fancy buildings and architecture, though.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> keep adding more capitals into the rotation, until the overhead of any capital is negligible In what world is maintaining multiple headquarters cheaper than one?
- hammock 4y agoThe more capitals you have, the less you need to proportionately increase your budget to add another one.
- jules-jules 4y agoThis guy bureaucrats.
- dmurray 4y agoThey do that for the European Council, but it's probably not feasible to do so for all seven EU "houses of Parliament".
- Proven 4y ago
- GekkePrutser 4y agoThe French will never agree to that, sadly. It's a prestige thing for them