Thread by @jonworth

All this hold-the-European-Parliament-plenary-or-not due to #COVIDー19 stuff is rather ridiculous.

Here is a systematic way of how to look at it.

There are 3 options:
1️⃣ don't hold next week's EP plenary at all
2️⃣ hold the EP plenary in Brussels instead of Strasbourg (as Sassoli has now decided)
3️⃣ hold the EP plenary in Strasbourg

If you go for 1️⃣, you are then in a situation where you essentially close down the EP's work. If MEPs cannot attend a plenary, can they then be asked to travel to the EP for any other things (committees, group meetings etc.)? Probably not.

Corona might get so serious that the EP's work gets shut down completely, eventually, but as far as I am aware we are not at that stage yet.

So if the EP still has to work, and work means a plenary, where should you do it?

The case for 2️⃣ Brussels is that the total number of people that have to travel for the plenary is sharply reduced - all the MEPs of course have to, but all the staff live in Brussels anyway. Plus the EP building in BXL has some anti Corona procedures in place.

A further case - as made by @xyzmichael - is that *were* there to be an outbreak and people were to be quarantined for a fortnight, better that in their own homes in Brussels than in hotels in Strasbourg.

The case for 3️⃣ is essentially a legal and political one. There are local elections 15 March in Strasbourg, which might be reason for French MEPs particular annoyance. And there is the treaty commitment to hold 12 plenary sessions a year in Strasbourg.

There are some Corona cases in both France and Belgium, but there seems - based on the public statistics - that neither place is more affected than the other currently.

So I essentially conclude: cancelling the plenary 1️⃣ is a step too far at the moment. Option 2️⃣ doing it in Brussels is a pragmatic compromise, and especially makes sense for staff (it makes little difference to MEPs). Defending option 3️⃣ is essentially political.

/ends