If saving £200 million a year is not good enough reason to stop the ridiculous 
European Parliament’s travelling circus sitting in Strasbourg to simply appease the French, then how about on grounds of saving carbon emissions.
A green study of the European Parliament’s two-seat operation, including environmental costs, transport and energy’, has shown this wasteful journey produces an extra 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.
Green MEPs have grabbed this moment to urge the EU to “show environmental leadership” and “close the Strasbourg building immediately in order to put its own house in order'”.
Conservatives have a strong voice on this too, with Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Conservative Leader in the European Parliament, saying:
“Having a second Parliamentary seat effectively means pouring millions of pounds paid by British taxpayers down the plughole and such nonsense destroys voters’ trust in the EU. To be voting on environmental issues when we continue to have to uproot every month with thousands of extra road, rail and plane journeys is nothing short of ridiculous.”
If the EU is as committed as it claims to tackling climate change, then how can it ignore this study? It is the equivalent of our MPs and their staff packing their bags and travelling from Westminster to say Edinburgh once a month in order to vote on parliamentary issues, something that is inconceivable.
*I am going to hear climate change denier Nigel Calder speak in Cambridge tomorrow at the city’s annual literary event, Wordfest. I’m interested to see what kind of support he gets.
Update: 3 May, Robert Sturdy‘s letter in The Independent on this subject.
The French won’t accept it so it’s not worth raising as an issue.
I can think of many reasons why voters distrust the EU, however, the money wasted here is pocket money compared to the billions poured down the CAP plughole.
I agree, Ellee. We could do with halving the amount of MPs here too.
Today Andrew Alexander challenged David Cameron’s view that people needed to take more responsibility by pointing out that most of our ills have been caused by interfering politicians.
That I can’t challenge the yobs terrorising my coastal town for fear of being arrested is not my fault. It would be indecent for me to show the depth of my contempt for our major parties and the EU on a blog as nice as this.
The term climate change denier is somewhat defamatory, Ellee, it suggests he is in denial rather than disagreeing. Such are the words of the Green Movement in the attempt to shut down debate by suggesting the subject is closed and anyone who disagrees is some kind of Psychiatric case. (He may well be barking, I’ve no idea. I do notice at work though that many people are starting to treat green issues with the same contempt as ‘elf & safety ones, i.e. regarded as knee jerk, overprotective and constrictive bandwagons.)
I agree the word denier is a strange one, I picked it up because that is how the mainstream media describe Nigel Calder. I heard the Met Office on the radio today saying that this year is going to be the hottest year ever, that the cause for this is manmade, and this is what Calder disagrees with. It is worrying though that the more you talk about it,the more it can turn some people off, it makes them apathetic, as you have described. I’m sure there always will be sceptics.
Kevin, Please don’t feel you have to be restrained on my account – this is not meant to be a “nice” site – it’s meant to be a base where you can reflect your true feelings.