Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The €300m House Move
Options
-
26-06-2011 2:57pm#1Interesting article in the Guardian on The European Council's planned new HQ in Brussels.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/david-cameron-brochure-eu-bulding?utm_source=twitterfeed
And an image of the planned building that has been called the European Urn.
The story is interesting for two reasons: (1) the bill and (2) the political reaction to it.David Cameron seized on an opportunity to voice "immense frustration" at the lavish spending of the Brussels elite after being handed a glossy brochure promoting the European council's soon to be finished €300m (£270m) headquarters.
The brochure was distributed to EU leaders as they sat down to dinner at a Brussels summit on Thursday evening, with Europe facing one of the gravest crises in memory amid predictions of the breakdown of Greece and the potential death of the euro single currency.
The most obvious reason is the bill.
Firstly, why is a €300m building needed by the EU council? What is the cost, in political or financial terms, of doing business in a more modest, 140,000 m.sq. (35 acres) Justus Lipsius Building which currently exists for the council? That building was itself a major architectural undertaking whose preparation took five years, and which has thus far only lasted for 15 years. Does the European council plan on moving somewhere else in another 15 years?
The second issue on the bill is that even if this were going to make life more comfortable for European council meetings, does the EU leadership have any idea of the optics surrounding such a project? At a time when major austerity is being enforced all across Europe - quite rightly - do they have any understanding of how tasteless a scheme like this actually appears to taxpayers?
Apart from the bill, the second reason why this is interesting is due to the official British reaction.
David Cameron might well have been outraged in his own way, I'm sure, but I am curious as to why he leaked these pictures to the British media through Downing Street? I think it reflects a growing scepticism of the European Union, not just in Britain, but across Europe, which governments armed with the scissors of austerity may be finding an attractive and a simple way of scapegoating, and to which which the EU would do well to respond.
With projects like this, it becomes very easy for PMs like Cameron to paint the EU as the bad guy who is very loose with taxpayers' money.
In establishing projects such as this one, and defending it in a time of austerity, the European Union leadership does itself no favours at all. It is providing national governments with a gun and sticking a target to its own forehead.
So any thoughts or opinions? Are the EU council worth it? And how do you think projects like this affect popular sentiment towards the European Union?Tagged:0
Comments
-
As a Europhile, these kinds of iniatives make me want to pull my hair out. I would like a Federal Europe but when I see vanity projects like this I'm not so sure. The EU seems to specialise in regulating what doesn't need to be regulated and by paying farmers what they don't deserve to earn. We need to get right back to the drawing board and start from scratch.0
-
I'm curious why Cameron waited until the construction was nearing completion - it started in 2005, unless I'm mistaken - to complain about this. Also, unless I'm mistaken once more, the building is being renovated by the Belgian government and they will sell it to the Council for €1 once it's complete.So any thoughts or opinions?
So it really seems to be an opportunity for euroskeptic political grandstanding by Cameron. Colour me shocked.0 -
You are mistaken.oscarBravo wrote: »unless I'm mistaken once more, the building is being renovated by the Belgian government and they will sell it to the Council for €1 once it's complete..
The pre-existing site and pre-existing building are handed over to the European Union, as is the tradition, for a symbolic cost - the Belgians are not themselves taking on the cost of establishing the new building, which is the cost to which I am referring.
I should add that, quite apart from that, the implication that "it's alright, somebody else is going to pay/ we will not be net losers" is quite curious in itself. It seems to sum up so much of Ireland's attitude towards European integration instead of actually looking at this from a European perspective.0 -
You're absolutely right, we should go back in time to 2005 and stop this madness.0
-
oscarBravo wrote: »You're absolutely right, we should go back in time to 2005 and stop this madness.
Worse than that, the signoff was even earlier:In December 2001 the European Council decided that its meetings would now take place in Brussels. This decision and the enlargement of the European Union and the subsequent institutional developments, called for an adaptation of the property portfolio of the European Council and the Council.
In June 2002, the Belgian government proposed that part of the RÉSIDENCE PALACE complex, adjacent to the Council building, be attached to the European Council following its restoration.
Built between 1922 and 1927 based on plans by Swiss architect Michel Polak, the RÉSIDENCE PALACE offered housing and high quality services. The buildings were converted to accommodate administrative services and underwent numerous modifications including, in particular, the creation of an international press centre.
The most beautiful parts of the whole Art Deco estate are listed buildings.
The European Council agreed to the Belgian Government's proposal at its meeting on 25 and 26 March 2004.
The new meeting venue of the European Council forms a coherent area with the Council buildings "Justus Lipsius" at the corner of the Schuman roundabout and "LEX", located in Rue de la Loi.
A European architecture and project competition was held 4 August 2004 and in January 2005, 25 project teams were selected. The second stage of the competition took place between June and September 2005 among the six finalists
The team of architects and engineers Philippe SAMYN & PARTNERS agent and lead and design partner, STUDIO VALLE PROGETTAZIONI, architects and BURO HAPPOLD engineers, was awarded the contract on 2 September 2005.
The project comprises three conference halls with interpretation booths, five other meeting rooms, offices for the president of the European Council the Council presidencies, delegations and the press, as well as refreshments areas. The architectural and engineering design of the European Council building conforms to stringent environmental requirements. Solar panels for electricity production cover the roofs. A collection of restored wood‑frame windows sourced from all over Europe provide acoustic insulation against traffic noise and first‑class thermal insulation.
On 25 and 26 March 2004 the European Council in particular urged the Council to respect the agreed framework for the project. In fact, the cost of the building remains below the ceiling of EUR 240 million, as valued in January 2004 and approved in November 2005.
The inauguration of the new building of the European Council is expected to take place during the year 2014.
Should be completed next year, apparently. Timing is lousy, but was set years ago and they can hardly hide the thing. Still very silly grandstanding by Cameron, though.
To put the cost in context - Sean Dunne paid €200m for the Jury's site.
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Signed off in 2001? That means that the nearby Justus Lipsius building, which took just over five years to go to completion and was a major architectural undertaking in itself (see previous dimensions) functioned for just six years before being sidelined for a new project. I fail to see that as much of a defence.
Furthermore, the competitions for the construction work were not completed until late in 2005, so I presume there was no major construction work carried out until 2006 at least.
Of course, all construction projects ought to be eligible for revision as the financial situation commands. It was not unusual for many a pre-agreed private mortgage holder, pre-boom, to draw down a lot less of his agreed debt in the aftermath of the property collapse.
Indeed, many of our own major infrastructure projects were revised - either the Dart interconnecter or the Metro North Project will face the chop, despite both having been pre-agreed - because that is the pragmatic response to a financial crisis.
So given that the bulk (or all) of the construction work has only taken place since 2006, I fail to see how the cost of this project could actually have risen to the extent that it did from previous estimates. Why was some un-necessary spending not chopped off? Did it really have to be this elaborate? And more interestingly, in my view - does the EU Council not have any idea of political tact?
That is why I brought up the second point - it is incredibly easy for unpopular governments wielding scissors to point to projects like the EUROPA complex, whose construction has mainly taken place during a financial melt-down, to set the EU up as a scapegoat for financial irresponsibility. This is the sort of thing a Government has to think about, and if the EU leadership really see themselves as a government - and I hope they do - then they need to start acting like a serious government, with a serious electorate who expects them to be pragmatic in their spending habits.0 -
Signed off in 2001? That means that the nearby Justus Lipsius building, which took just over five years to go to completion and was a major architectural undertaking in itself (see previous dimensions) functioned for just six years before being sidelined for a new project. I fail to see that as much of a defence.
The Justus Lipsius building houses the Council of the European Union - aka the Council of Ministers - not the European Council (aka European Summit).Furthermore, the competitions for the construction work were not completed until late in 2005, so I presume there was no major construction work carried out until 2006 at least.
Of course, all construction projects ought to be eligible for revision as the financial situation commands. It was not unusual for many a pre-agreed private mortgage holder, pre-boom, to draw down a lot less of his agreed debt in the aftermath of the property collapse.
Indeed, many of our own major infrastructure projects were revised - either the Dart interconnecter or the Metro North Project will face the chop, despite both having been pre-agreed - because that is the pragmatic response to a financial crisis.
So given that the bulk (or all) of the construction work has only taken place since 2006, I fail to see how the cost of this project could actually have risen to the extent that it did from previous estimates. Why was some un-necessary spending not chopped off? Did it really have to be this elaborate? And more interestingly, in my view - does the EU Council not have any idea of political tact?
I'd say that handing a brochure round to the people who will be using the building - David Cameron amongst them - constitutes a pretty low-key option. One cannot guarantee, of course, that someone will not launch themselves out of the meeting in question waving the brochure and their righteous indignation, as Cameron has done.That is why I brought up the second point - it is incredibly easy for unpopular governments wielding scissors to point to projects like the EUROPA complex, whose construction has mainly taken place during a financial melt-down, to set the EU up as a scapegoat for financial irresponsibility. This is the sort of thing a Government has to think about, and if the EU leadership really see themselves as a government - and I hope they do - then they need to start acting like a serious government, with a serious electorate who expects them to be pragmatic in their spending habits.
That's an interesting point, and something I was thinking about recently after reading a variety of articles on the problems of the euro and the EU. The articles, often very critical of the EU, treated the EU as effectively the European government. Indeed, much of their criticism of the EU stemmed from the perception of the EU as a government, and the criticism was very similar to that levelled at national governments when they are felt to be falling short.
The EU, I think I can safely say, very much doesn't think of itself as a government. They think of themselves, instead, as a civil service - a very small and elite civil service, true, but something that exists to transmit the policies determined by the Councils, and Europeanised by the Commission and Parliament. The European Council, which is in effect the "board of governors" of the EU, doesn't think of itself as a government either - instead, they think of the EU much as the EU thinks of itself, as the servant of national governments.
They therefore fight for their budget like any other civil service, rather than trying to set an example of austerity as they might if they saw themselves as politicians.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Surely one could look at it another way - a preemptive bail-out for the Belgian economy - not that any policy maker should refer to it as such in the current climate.0
-
The President of the European Council and the civil service attached to the council are all housed in the Justus Lipsius Building, and (excepting during the changeover period post Nice) their meetings have typically been held there ever since 2002.The Justus Lipsius building houses the Council of the European Union - aka the Council of Ministers - not the European Council (aka European Summit).
I, for my part, was also wrong to suggest that the council gave it five years in the Justus Lipsius. It seems as soon as they settled on staying in Brussels, they immediately felt that they needed and deserved their own building.
For their summits, I might add, which barring any extraordinary events, comes to maybe 8 days out of 365.
Does anybody know what the value of moving building is - in political or financial terms - to the European Council? Is it 300 million euro? And does it not strike anyone as bizarre that the bulk of the construction of this new building has been carried out, and is being carried out, since the financial crisis?
Low key? Two newspapers claimed the brochure itself cost €100,000. And it is pretty hard to defend almost ⅓ of €1 billions-worth construction work on that huge (eco friendly) glass urn as low key.I'd say that handing a brochure round to the people who will be using the building - David Cameron amongst them - constitutes a pretty low-key option.
Ok, this is getting into the feelings territory so I think we should stop that train there. I do not know what the EU thinks of itself, personally.The EU, I think I can safely say, very much doesn't think of itself as a government. They think of themselves, instead, as a civil service
I would hope that an entity with a parliament, a council of ministers, a policy council and a civil service which altogether can enact legislation binding member states, and which is presiding over a single economic market would think of itself as being a governing entity, but I appreciate that not everybody shares that view.0 -
I also just want to correct myself on the suggestion that work probably started on the building in 2006.
In fact, construction work got underway in August 2009.0 -
Advertisement
-
The President of the European Council and the civil service attached to the council are all housed in the Justus Lipsius Building, and (excepting during the changeover period post Nice) their meetings have typically been held there ever since 2002.
I, for my part, was also wrong to suggest that the council gave it five years in the Justus Lipsius. It seems as soon as they settled on staying in Brussels, they immediately felt that they needed and deserved their own building.
For their summits, I might add, which barring any extraordinary events, comes to maybe 8 days out of 365.
Does anybody know what the value of moving building is - in political or financial terms - to the European Council? Is it 300 million euro?
How much do summits cost?And does it not strike anyone as bizarre that the bulk of the construction of this new building has been carried out, and is being carried out, since the financial crisis?
Given the timeframe of large construction projects, no, not really.Low key? Two newspapers claimed the brochure itself cost €100,000. And it is pretty hard to defend almost ⅓ of €1 billions-worth construction work on that huge (eco friendly) glass urn as low key.
Compared to how the building would probably be dedicated/announced if we were still in a boom, I'd call it low key. I didn't say it was money well spent.Ok, this is getting into the feelings territory so I think we should stop that train there. I do not know what the EU thinks of itself, personally.
I would hope that an entity with a parliament, a council of ministers, a policy council and a civil service which altogether can enact legislation binding member states, and which is presiding over a single economic market would think of itself as being a governing entity, but I appreciate that not everybody shares that view.
I think that any regular observer of the EU's activities would come to the same conclusion, and it's a good deal more than a 'feeling'. Legally, the EU is the servant of the Member State governments (as per the German Constitutional Court decision that the Member States were "masters of the treaties" and thus masters of the EU), functionally they operate on that basis, and the only time they override the Member States is in the legal implications of the Treaties written and agreed by the Member States. There are structures of governance in the EU, but they are applicable only within the relatively tight limits circumscribed by the Treaties, and therefore do not form a government of Europe, while undoubtedly being part of the governance of Europe.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
How is it relevant? Will summits be any cheaper in the new European Council building than they were in Justus Lipsius?How much do summits cost?
I am not talking about the fact that it took so long to get from planning to the construction phase. I am talking about the fact that this construction work started in August 2009, when the financial and fiscal situation across the Unions was far worse than it is now.Given the timeframe of large construction projects, no, not really.
First of all, this has nothing to do with the thread, and although I am not keen on humouring it it has to be said that a Government can be both undemocrattic and at times subservient to another power (the member states) and indeed, at times have its legislation bind those states, and still be a Government. Local government in Ireland is a subordinate government in somw ways, which in the past has been fairly accused of being undemocratic, and whose decisions can also be relatively far reaching. It is still a form of Government. If you do choose not to view the EU governance as a government, thats your choice. I would disagree, but if you must bring this into it, can you explain why?I think that any regular observer of the EU's activities would come to the same conclusion, and it's a good deal more than a 'feeling'. Legally, the EU is the servant of the Member State governments (as per the German Constitutional Court decision that the Member States were "masters of the treaties" and thus masters of the EU), functionally they operate on that basis, and the only time they override the Member States is in the legal implications of the Treaties written and agreed by the Member States. There are structures of governance in the EU, but they are applicable only within the relatively tight limits circumscribed by the Treaties, and therefore do not form a government of Europe, while undoubtedly being part of the governance of Europe.0 -
How is it relevant? Will summits be any cheaper in the new European Council building than they were in Justus Lipsius?
No, but cheaper than moving around - and when the decision to stop moving around was taken, the Council started on planning a permanent building. The Justus Lipsius building wasn't ever that permanent building, as you can see from the timeline for this one.I am not talking about the fact that it took so long to get from planning to the construction phase. I am talking about the fact that this construction work started in August 2009, when the financial and fiscal situation across the Unions was far worse than it is now.
Had they abandoned the project, with any moneys already committed - and for a large project, quite a lot is spent before the foundations are laid, never mind any breach of contract issues - simply wasted, Cameron would really have had something to complain about.First of all, this has nothing to do with the thread, and although I am not keen on humouring it it has to be said that a Government can be both undemocrattic and at times subservient to another power (the member states) and indeed, at times have its legislation bind those states, and still be a Government. Local government in Ireland is a subordinate government in somw ways, which in the past has been fairly accused of being undemocratic, and whose decisions can also be relatively far reaching. It is still a form of Government. If you do choose not to view the EU governance as a government, thats your choice. I would disagree, but if you must bring this into it, can you explain why?
You brought it up:This is the sort of thing a Government has to think about, and if the EU leadership really see themselves as a government - and I hope they do - then they need to start acting like a serious government, with a serious electorate who expects them to be pragmatic in their spending habits.
I thought it was an interesting point - admittedly probably deserving of a thread in itself, because I would see the self-perception of the EU as not being a government. I note you haven't actually disagreed, although you've slighted my opinion as being an opinion, which is after all what it was offered as. It's relevant for exactly the reason you originally gave - that the self-perception of the EU determines how they act with respect to the apparent austerity that national politicians are engaged in (more on which later, because that's largely optics as well).
Do I think Cameron has a point here? Nope. Purely and simply an optical issue - making the question of the EU's self-perception probably the most, or even only relevant issue here, politically speaking. Unless you're particularly interested in the way that Tory PMs play to the right-of-centre eurosceptic gallery in the UK by decrying the EU as an out of control free-spending bureaucracy, no matter how much they have to ignore inconvenient facts to do so?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Ok, still irrelavant then.No, but cheaper than moving around
The European council started phasing out their mobility in 2002, and completed it shortly thereafter. I am not questioning that they immediately felt they needed a new building for summits that ususally come to about 8 days out of 365, I am asking why this was felt appropriate in the first place. What is the specific benefit of having their own 300 million euro building, which has onlt started construction since the financial crisis? Why were the plans not put on hold or the project downsized?
How much does this come to? You seem to have some information that I do not have, nor anybody I have spoken to in relation to this has. What sort of breach of contract, specifically? I find it rather icnredible that the cost can be revised upwards but not downwards, I have not seen any information that would lead me to believe that to be the case, but no doubt you will now post that.Had they abandoned the project, with any moneys already committed - and for a large project, quite a lot is spent before the foundations are laid, never mind any breach of contract issues - simply wasted, Cameron would really have had something to complain about.
The point is that the EU Council really ought to be mindful, like most governments are individually, of the public perceptions to their policies. It was not an invitation to get into a tedious attempt at goalpost shifting to decide upon whether or not the EU actually is led by a government or teams of governance.You brought it up:
I think the political capital that can be gained for the eurosceptics out of PR-blind projects like this is quite interesting, actually, yes. I think it is representative of how Euroscepticism is taking advantage of the EU by playing politics, while the EU carries on like some apolitical think tank or some dreary state agency.Do I think Cameron has a point here? Nope. Purely and simply an optical issue - making the question of the EU's self-perception probably the most, or even only relevant issue here, politically speaking. Unless you're particularly interested in the way that Tory PMs play to the right-of-centre eurosceptic gallery in the UK by decrying the EU as an out of control free-spending bureaucracy, no matter how much they have to ignore inconvenient facts to do so?
In such a situation the EU becomes little more than a pawn that one knocks off the board for having attempted a series of daft moves, the stupidity of which ought to have been anticipated.0 -
Ok, still irrelavant then.
The European council started phasing out their mobility in 2002, and completed it shortly thereafter. I am not questioning that they immediately felt they needed a new building for summits that ususally come to about 8 days out of 365, I am asking why this was felt appropriate in the first place. What is the specific benefit of having their own 300 million euro building, which has onlt started construction since the financial crisis? Why were the plans not put on hold or the project downsized?
Why would they be? In the context of public buildings, the Europa building isn't even particularly expensive. Consider that the UK, where Cameron is busy complaining about the cost of the building, recently completed a new "civic centre" for Brent Council at a cost of £100m compared to the cost of £215m for Europa.
And while summits were only held 8 days a year, there is a permanent staff associated with the European Council, and rather a lot of activity at the moment. If they wanted a building specifically for the Council - and they did, the Justus Lipsius building was always a temporary solution - why not have one?How much does this come to? You seem to have some information that I do not have, nor anybody I have spoken to in relation to this has. What sort of breach of contract, specifically? I find it rather icnredible that the cost can be revised upwards but not downwards, I have not seen any information that would lead me to believe that to be the case, but no doubt you will now post that.
It forms part of the newspaper commentary on the issue:The problem, from the prime minister's perspective, is much of the money for "Europa" has already been spent.
I imagine we might be able to go further with a bit of digging in the EU's equivalent of the OPW, but, yes, most of the money will have been committed by this stage of the project, as is standard for large construction projects, and yes, contractors who have had money committed can generally sue successfully for at least some of that money - as per the Indaver waste facility in Ringsend.The point is that the EU Council really ought to be mindful, like most governments are individually, of the public perceptions to their policies. It was not an invitation to get into a tedious attempt at goalpost shifting to decide upon whether or not the EU actually is led by a government or teams of governance.
Lucky I wasn't doing that, then, but instead commenting on the question of how the EU views itself...which you are once again bringing into the discussion yourself:I think the political capital that can be gained for the eurosceptics out of PR-blind projects like this is quite interesting, actually, yes. I think it is representative of how Euroscepticism is taking advantage of the EU by playing politics, while the EU carries on like some apolitical think tank or some dreary state agency.
In such a situation the EU becomes little more than a pawn that one knocks off the board for having attempted a series of daft moves, the stupidity of which ought to have been anticipated.
Oh, sure - the EU can reliably hit itself in the foot 7 times out of 10 with any large issue, and once the issue is commented on by national politicians, the EU won't directly contradict them (instead it issues 'clarifications' which consist of fighting politics with facts and statistics). But that is the point I'm making about the EU's self-image.
Aside from anything else, this is about a decision taken by the national governments - that is, the European Council - that they should have a new building to house their activities in Brussels. What you're asking to have happen here is that the national governments when acting as the European Council should be as aware of the PR impact of their decisions on the EU as they are of their impact on their own electoral popularity of their decisions in the national arena. It's quite possible, of course, that they are - this one certainly suits Cameron.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You seem to be missing the point.In the context of public buildings, the Europa building isn't even particularly expensive... a new "civic centre" for Brent Council at a cost of £100m
Inserting random examples is fruitless. Mary Lou McDonald's house had cost less than CJ Haughey's house, therefore MLM's house was cheap. CJ Haughey's house cost less than Farmleigh, therefore CJ Haughey's house was cheap. Farmleigh cost less than Justus Lipsius, therefore Farmleigh is cheap. It is the exact same thing as you tried earlier with the the Jury's Inn site - well this cost x, therefore anything <x is acceptable. Do you see where this is going?
One has to demonstrate that a given expense provides a significant return or political utility - however that is measured - which might not otherwise have been enjoyed, in order for there having been any value in the undertaking. You have not said anything about value in the Brent case, and nobody appears to be doing so in the case of Europa.
That is why I keep asking specifically about the benefit of building for the European Council a new €300 million complex, (as opposed to keeping things as they have been for the past 9 years) in the Justus Lipsius Building. I understand the decision was reached 10 years ago, but I am curious, among other things, as to (a) why it was reached and (b) why it was not later revised.
Yes there is - but are you suggesting that the Justus Lipsius building, itself a complex of rather immense dimensions, is inadequate in size to accomodate this activity?And while summits were only held 8 days a year, there is a permanent staff associated with the European Council, and rather a lot of activity at the moment.
Bearing in mind the amount of CS staff who assist the European Council as part of the General Secretariat, and that permanent representatives need to attend Justus Lipsius through their work with the Council of Ministers. Surely, in terms of permanent reps, there is a lot to be said for having the CM and the European Council under the same roof.
The building should be finished in the next 18 months, so obviously a lot of money has already been spent. The question is whether it was too late to pull back from much of this spending in Autumn 2008 when the crisis deepened in Europe, and one year before construction work began on Europa.I imagine we might be able to go further with a bit of digging in the EU's equivalent of the OPW, but, yes, most of the money will have been committed by this stage of the project, as is standard for large construction projects
Well, obviously Cameron was not involved in the establishment of this particular golden calf, since he is a relatively new entrant to the fold.What you're asking to have happen here is that the national governments when acting as the European Council should be as aware of the PR impact of their decisions on the EU as they are of their impact on their own electoral popularity of their decisions in the national arena. It's quite possible, of course, that they are - this one certainly suits Cameron.0 -
I really don't see the problem with this. The EU needs a landmark building.
I suppose people complained about the building of the White House, Kremlin, Houses of Parliament etc etc, when they were constructed but they are powerful representations of their respective seats of power. The EU needs its own and this looks like a pretty good effort.0 -
You seem to be missing the point.
Inserting random examples is fruitless. Mary Lou McDonald's house had cost less than CJ Haughey's house, therefore MLM's house was cheap. CJ Haughey's house cost less than Farmleigh, therefore CJ Haughey's house was cheap. Farmleigh cost less than Justus Lipsius, therefore Farmleigh is cheap. It is the exact same thing as you tried earlier with the the Jury's Inn site - well this cost x, therefore anything <x is acceptable. Do you see where this is going?
One has to demonstrate that a given expense provides a significant return or political utility - however that is measured - which might not otherwise have been enjoyed, in order for there having been any value in the undertaking. You have not said anything about value in the Brent case, and nobody appears to be doing so in the case of Europa.
That is why I keep asking specifically about the benefit of building for the European Council a new €300 million complex, (as opposed to keeping things as they have been for the past 9 years) in the Justus Lipsius Building. I understand the decision was reached 10 years ago, but I am curious, among other things, as to (a) why it was reached and (b) why it was not later revised.
The reason for citing Brent is that - apart from the fact that it points up the very hollow nature of Cameron's complaint - the expected utility of the Europa building is hardly going to be less than that of civic offices for a local council, while the cost is hardly more.
As greendom says, why not? Is there a reason why the European Council shouldn't have a landmark building?Yes there is - but are you suggesting that the Justus Lipsius building, itself a complex of rather immense dimensions, is inadequate in size to accomodate this activity?
Bearing in mind the amount of CS staff who assist the European Council as part of the General Secretariat, and that permanent representatives need to attend Justus Lipsius through their work with the Council of Ministers. Surely, in terms of permanent reps, there is a lot to be said for having the CM and the European Council under the same roof.
Apparently the European Council didn't think so. And while it's possible that they simply built it for the laugh, I suspect that there may be a little more justification than that. Oddly enough, some part of the reason appears to have been the fact that the press require accommodation, because European Summits attract a lot of press. For example, this is from an examination of the implications of a permanent seat for the Council:One of the first practical concerns raised by the Council of Ministers’ General Secretariat, responsible for the planning of the forthcoming European Council in October 2002, is the question of housing the press. As one senior Council’s official expresses, ‘if we squeeze them into all sorts of places we make it up to 1200. But they would not find the normal conditions they would be used to at a European Council, where they are all there in the right place; here they will be dotted all over the place. The above-mentioned current figure of 4000 accredited journalists who participated in the Seville European Council makes it clear that more space is needed. Furthermore, it is planned that in the first half of 2003 Representatives of the Candidate States will take part as observers; they are probably very interested in sending more press representatives from their country; hence, housing the press will become an even more acute matter. An alternative would be to host the press in the Heysel stadium50, the only big space available right now, as it was done during the Laeken Summit in December 2001 under Belgium Presidency. But, as the senior Council’s official puts it, ‘this is a horrible alternative and the press would not be happy as they would be away a couple of kilometres from the main event.
It has been suggested to prepare space for some press representatives for the next European Council in the lower level of the Justus Lipsius building, the main building of the Council of Ministers, and to prepare for later on some extra space in a building called the ‘Residence Palace’ just next to the Justus Lipsius building and make it available free of charge by the Belgian Authorities. The Residence Palace contains mostly Belgium government offices; it has a theatre, restaurant and swimming pool. Right now, the international press centre is located there. It was used as the press centre when Belgium held the EU’s rotating Presidency. Currently, some work is been done on this building. There are some plans that suggest that some extension could be done to that building so that it could provide dedicated facilities to the European Council.
Another practical concern is the question of interpretation. Physically it is impossible at the moment to organise a meeting with many more languages. Nearly all the meetings have absolute top capacity of cabins; no further cabin can be squeezed in. There are a couple of dedicated spaces which allow twenty odd cabins eventually but that is about it. The Council’s secretariat-general is still not quite sure how it would work in the Justus Lipsius building. Infrastructure will apparently be the capital cost and this signifies that the Council will provide the infrastructure for the future - at least at the beginning. This means building works, ordering certain equipment, cabling and other issues will be dealt with by the Council for the benefit of each successive European Council meeting. The Belgium Delegation has already mentioned the possibility of a dedicated building for the European Council in the future. A new building, which should be next to the Residence Palace, is planned but it will not be ready before 2006. This new building is already conceived with significant size meeting rooms, numbers of double-decker interpretation boots. Thus, a new improved infrastructure for the European Council will be located closed to the Council of Ministers.
Tedious stuff, and terribly logistical - not enough space for the press, and not enough room for translation facilities. Summits are bigger affairs than the meetings of the Council of the EU.The building should be finished in the next 18 months, so obviously a lot of money has already been spent. The question is whether it was too late to pull back from much of this spending in Autumn 2008 when the crisis deepened in Europe, and one year before construction work began on Europa.
So in order to give the impression of saving money, it would have been more sensible to spend only part of the money to provide nothing at all?Well, obviously Cameron was not involved in the establishment of this particular golden calf, since he is a relatively new entrant to the fold.
The optics work out well for him, certainly.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It does not ''point up'' anything - I don't know, personally, whether or not Brent represents poor value. I think there are far clearer examples of British Government - and, indeed, Tory - overspending, but it isn't my job to debate for both of us.The reason for citing Brent is that - apart from the fact that it points up the very hollow nature of Cameron's complaint - the expected utility of the Europa building is hardly going to be less than that of civic offices for a local council, while the cost is hardly more.
One issue with Europa is what the measure of the value or utility is, which Europa provides to the European taxpayer. What does this new building provide that is unique, and which was not provided in Justus Lipsius, to the extent that 300 million euros of an expenditure would seem reasonable.
Is there a reason why the European council shouldn't have a 600 million euro landmark building with bells on?Is there a reason why the European Council shouldn't have a landmark building?
It is rather an unusual defence to suggest that governments - sorry, teams of governance - should resort to such significant expenditure without laying out reasons why such expense is beneficial in itself, and questioning should first be met with ''prove we don't need it''. I can't prove that the European Council does not need a 300 million euro, 600 million euro, or 1 billion euros project.
As they are the ones who instigated the project, I am asking what their reasoning was both from the outset and in light of the financial crisis, after which the construction work was undertaken.
I think you're reading into that what you want to read it - seeing as how the paper is dated 2002, for one thing, and the media facilities do not seem to be a major problem in Justus Lipsius as it is. It is quite possible that the media facilities have seen refurbishment in the Justus Lipsius in that time. Indeed there are well over 1,000 media workstations in the JL building at present.Apparently the European Council didn't think so. And while it's possible that they simply built it for the laugh, I suspect that there may be a little more justification than that. Oddly enough, some part of the reason appears to have been the fact that the press require accommodation, because European Summits attract a lot of press. For example, this is from an examination of the implications of a permanent seat for the Council:
Either way, lets assume for a moment that the media facilities in the Justus Lipsius are indeed, poor. Well then, ideally one realises that such press concentration is limited to perhaps about one week of the entire year, and one goes for the more reasonable option of extending the press facilities to increase the number of workstations or live standpoints or to improve translation facilities. Presumably one does not build a 300 million euro glass urn (/uterus) with windows sourced symbolically from all across Europe and say that it is being built to home the European council without ever giving a rational explanation as to why it is so.
Nothing at all? No 300 million euro golden calf? How dreadful!So in order to give the impression of saving money, it would have been more sensible to spend only part of the money to provide nothing at all?
The point is that even if it was too late to turn around from building something, did the price really have to not just stay the same, but actually increase significantly? Was the building not toned down at all? This is a political issue as muich as a purely cost based one - personally I don't give a damn because I'm not going to gain nor lose out in any direct way. But governments - or whatever you want to call them - spending this much money in a time of austerity have to be mindful of the image they are creating, especially when the EU is as crucial as ever and as possibly as unpopular as ever.0 -
It does not ''point up'' anything - I don't know, personally, whether or not Brent represents poor value. I think there are far clearer examples of British Government - and, indeed, Tory - overspending, but it isn't my job to debate for both of us.
One issue with Europa is what the measure of the value or utility is, which Europa provides to the European taxpayer. What does this new building provide that is unique, and which was not provided in Justus Lipsius, to the extent that 300 million euros of an expenditure would seem reasonable.
Is there a reason why the European council shouldn't have a 600 million euro landmark building with bells on?
It is rather an unusual defence to suggest that governments - sorry, teams of governance - should resort to such significant expenditure without laying out reasons why such expense is beneficial in itself, and questioning should first be met with ''prove we don't need it''. I can't prove that the European Council does not need a 300 million euro, 600 million euro, or 1 billion euros project.
As they are the ones who instigated the project, I am asking what their reasoning was both from the outset and in light of the financial crisis, after which the construction work was undertaken.
I think you're reading into that what you want to read it - seeing as how the paper is dated 2002, for one thing, and the media facilities do not seem to be a major problem in Justus Lipsius as it is. It is quite possible that the media facilities have seen refurbishment in the Justus Lipsius in that time. Indeed there are well over 1,000 media workstations in the JL building at present.
Either way, lets assume for a moment that the media facilities in the Justus Lipsius are indeed, poor. Well then, ideally one realises that such press concentration is limited to perhaps about one week of the entire year, and one goes for the more reasonable option of extending the press facilities to increase the number of workstations or live standpoints or to improve translation facilities. Presumably one does not build a 300 million euro glass urn (/uterus) with windows sourced symbolically from all across Europe and say that it is being built to home the European council without ever giving a rational explanation as to why it is so.
Nothing at all? No 300 million euro golden calf? How dreadful!
The point is that even if it was too late to turn around from building something, did the price really have to not just stay the same, but actually increase significantly? Was the building not toned down at all? This is a political issue as muich as a purely cost based one - personally I don't give a damn because I'm not going to gain nor lose out in any direct way. But governments - or whatever you want to call them - spending this much money in a time of austerity have to be mindful of the image they are creating, especially when the EU is as crucial as ever and as possibly as unpopular as ever.
Shrug. My points here are fairly simple:
1. the cost of the building is by no means exorbitant in itself - about, as I pointed out, twice the cost of civic offices for a local council
2. by the same token, it's not in any way exorbitant for an institution like the EU, which is a little more important than a local council
3. the decision to undertake the construction of such a building was taken more or less immediately the Council decided to make Brussels their permanent seat
4. the reasoning given in the source I quoted seems quite sufficient to justify additional space, and also evidently formed part of the reasoning behind the project (that's why I've used a source from 2002, because that's when the decision was being taken, as per my earlier timeline)
In brief, the justification for such a building is not extraordinarily strong, but my point is that it doesn't need to be, because this is not an extraordinarily costly building, either for what it is or given who it's for. The justification for continuing to build it according to the original specification and plans seems equally solid, if, again, ordinary - cancelling or rowing back on the contract would produce the silly situation in which, simply for PR reasons, the Council spent a lot of money either building something that didn't do the job it was intended for, or wasn't there at all. Call me old-fashioned, but that strikes me as twice as wasteful and a good deal more stupid.
Finally, the building is under-budget, not over-budget:A spokeswoman for the European Council told the BBC the project is currently running below its budget - which was set at around £215m in 2004.
The situation is pure optics - taking a project agreed and a budget committed years before, and calling for something stupid and wasteful to be done just to be seen to be doing something, or bashing the non-doing of something stupid and wasteful. It's a cheap PR hit for Cameron, it plays well with a certain gallery, the EU will suffer no more negative PR over it than they would have done if they cancelled it, because exactly the same people would have been equally happy with a headline of Cameron condemning the wastefulness of a building project that never built anything - and would no doubt have done so, and probably commented on the inadequacy of the facilities in the Justus Lipsius building while doing so.
So, overall, I have no real idea why anyone would get their kickers in a twist over something like this.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes Scofflaw, you are absolutely correct.0
-
-
The project was signed off during a time of economic prosperity, not the current situation. That said it seems a bit lavish. It would be nice if they just built a seperate capital but anyway, that's just me
0
Advertisement