Williamson wrote:
Indeed, it would cheaper to do like NATO where English and French are the core languages.
Why don't they apply the same principle to E.P.?
Most MEPs know one of these languages and if they live in Brussels, they are bound to pick up English or French, the one being an official language of the country they sojourn in (during the week), the other being the lingua franca. Otherwise, they won't go far in their daily private life.
[Edited at 2009-02-20 10:50 GMT]
This opinion is typically expressed in countries where there is a multilingual tradition, or at least a high level of a second language taught as standard in schools. Unfortunately this is not the case for many countries across Europe. What about countries that have two languages which aren't EN, FR or DE?
Why should the people of Europe be forced to elect a democratic representative who can speak a second or third language?
Why should countries like the UK and Ireland be given a considerable advantage in negotiations by having the other parties speaking a foreign language?
Why should laws/regulations affecting all EU countries (and which have to be translated anyway), be drafted in a common language where non-natives have to choose between politically sensitive terms which they may not fully understand?
Why should the people of Europe be forced to listen in a foreign language if they want to follow the live meetings of the EP in plenary, committees, press conferences etc?
Why should a politician, whose task is to reflect the opinions of the people and sway others with his argument, have his influencing capacity reduced compared to his native speaker counterparts?
Why do people assume that the English spoken by Europeans is equivalent to the English spoken in the UK? (It is different: more ambiguous, less clear, more variable than a language can be while remaining operational). Is this what the people of Europe deserve?
You cannot slice up democratic representation just to save a relatively minor cost (compared to say, admin costs as a whole, which are also tiny compared to the scale of the project). The argument really falls down because people think being conversationally fluent in a language is equivalent to having a sufficient command of it. It isn't. When Dutch members speak broken English, the Spanish will understand one thing, the Finns another, and it frequently comes tumbling down as a result. If we're talking about wasting money, I'd argue that a huge amount is wasted by bad English. Don't forget that your MEP may be speaking great English, but do the others listening without interpretation actually fully understand it?
In my experience, when things get difficult, and when members really need their message to be expressed eloquently, then they speak their mother tongue. That's the way a credible, democratic institution must work. How much MEPs earn is another matter entirely, but it is actually the gripe behind many of these arguments.