A decision on new locations for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA), both currently housed in London, will be taken by the General Affairs Council on 20 November.
The 19 cities bidding to host the EMA are Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Bonn, Bratislava, Brussels, Bucharest, Copenhagen, Dublin, Helsinki, Lille, Milan, Porto, Sofia, Stockholm, Malta, Vienna, Warsaw and Zagreb. The eight cities applying to host the EBA are Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris, Prague, Luxembourg, Vienna and Warsaw.
As Frankfurt, a major banking venue, is now seen as the overwhelming favourite to host the EBA, attention is shifting to the increasingly fierce competition to house the EMA post-Brexit.
RELATED CONTENT
Both agencies are much sought-after and each of the candidates have been busy in their efforts to sell their merits and details about their respective locations. Some highlight the suitability of their infrastructure, transport links, working conditions and schools while others, in central and eastern Europe, say it’s time that more EU agencies and bodies were located in their region.
The Parliament Magazine canvassed opinion from MEPs from various groups and most agreed the voting process should depend on the best candidate, not political favours, getting the nod. Many also bemoaned the loss of such prestige bodies to the UK.
Molly Scott Cato, a Greens/EFA group member, said, “The loss of the Medicines Agency from London is a significant economic blow, since it is likely to mean nearly 1000 high-quality, well-paid jobs moving overseas.
“But the indirect consequences could be more severe. It is no accident that the two EU regulatory agencies that the UK laid claim to oversaw the activities of two of our most important economic sectors: banking and pharmaceuticals.
“While the agencies have no political influence, it is unquestionably useful to have them close by and our financiers and drug designers of the future will lose this advantage.”
She added; “It is not surprising that there is hot competition for the honour of hosting the EMA, with 19 cities jostling to be the new home for this major regulatory organisation and the boost the frequent visits by 36,000 EU regulators could bring to their city.”
UK S&D group MEP Seb Dance said, “The EMA being forced to leave London is yet another totally avoidable result of Brexit. Naturally the other European countries are now competing to see where it will relocate to, as it has always been considered the jewel in the crown of the European agencies. As the EU’s largest city, London has been an obvious choice as Europe’s hub for medical research and regulation.”
He added, “Whoever eventually wins the new location, can look forward to receiving billions in investment, as well as an influx of some of the best and brightest professionals from all across the continent. Why any country would wilfully throw that away is beyond me.”
German S&D group member Jo Leinen said, “The location of the seats of EU agencies is a purely political choice. The heads of states and governments are free in their decision. The best option would be to select Strasbourg as the new host city for the EMA as a compensation for moving the European Parliament entirely to Brussels.”
ECR group deputy Anna Fotyga said, “The geographical balance of locations of EU agencies should be ensured. As a Pole naturally I am strongly convinced that Polish proposals have many strengths and Warsaw will be the best place to host the EMA and EBA.”
Her group colleague Helga Stevens told us, “It’s crucial that the principle of business continuity will be guaranteed. The relocation of the EMA from London should take place in an effective manner, without the EMA having to temporarily interrupt its activities. If at a certain point some medicines cannot be validated, this could damage public health.
“This is why I fully support the Belgian bid (Brussels) since it meets all criteria, such as business continuity and connectivity.”
However, with the cost of moving the EMA alone put at a cool €30m, Ukip’s Ray Finch questions why the agencies should leave the UK at all, asking, “Why not leave them in the UK? It would save the EU a fortune in relocation costs and we should want to continue to be friends and good neighbours. As for the alternatives, Barcelona or Milan would surely help to cement relations in those regions?”
If you wondered why each candidate is so desperate to host the agencies, the reason is simple: the presence of such a significant institution enhances the standing and prestige of the host location enormously.
The EMA alone has a staff of over 900, receives visits from 35,000 national regulators and scientists each year and deciding where it’s based is vital for the healthcare sector.
The bidders will have to contend with an extremely unpredictable voting system - in the first round, candidates can even vote for themselves. But whoever emerges the victor, there is a general feeling that the UK is set to lose at least one of the jewels in the crown of the EU.