HOT TOPIC


1,000 highly skilled employees and their families when they move from London; becoming the new home of two prestigious EU agencies that generate more than 36,000 hotel visits a year; and hosting organisations with annual budgets running into hundreds of millions of euros. Which is why 19 countries are bidding to become the new base


F


of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and eight nations are trying to entice the European Banking Authority (EBA). Both organisations are currently headquartered in London’s Canary Wharf, but, because of Brexit, must be moved and operational by the start of 2019. There are occasional moments of levity amid the glossy brochures


and slick videos many of the rivals have produced to support their very serious bids. Amsterdam, for instance, has cited the fact that the Dutch, like the Brits, have “a very stylish Queen” and enjoy fish and chips. And the Czech Republic’s offer of unlimited access to Prague Zoo is being countered by Warsaw’s claim that its restaurants are its best-kept secret.


The EU’s demands But behind the flashes of PR humour are intense competitions for the two agencies – a battle that will come to a head on 20 November, when foreign ministers from the 27 remaining EU nations will embark on a complicated voting process to select the two winning cities. Bids for the agencies were submitted at the end of July,


and only Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia opted not to make a pitch for either. Cyprus had originally intended to bid for the EMA but changed its mind, complaining to Brussels that the criteria set by the European Commission effectively excluded smaller member states from being considered. Those criteria include demands that the agencies be up


and running before the UK leaves the bloc in March 2019; that staff be accommodated in new homes by that date; that the successful cities have comprehensive air links to other member states; and that there be ready access to international schools for the children of current staff, medical and social security facilities for expat workers and their families, and suitably qualif ied staff available locally should some existing workers decide not to relocate from London. “Unexpected higher, faster or more permanent loss of staff as


a consequence of the agency’s relocation may lead to a situation in which EMA’s operations can no longer be maintained,” the agency warns bluntly. And the EMA, which is responsible for approving and


monitoring the safety of drugs across Europe, is the biggest prize. It currently has an annual budget of €305 million and a workforce of 890, most of whom have families. Small wonder, perhaps, that Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Bonn, Bratislava, Brussels, Bucharest, Copenhagen, Dublin, Helsinki, Lille, Malta, Milan, Porto, Sofia, Stockholm, Vienna, Warsaw and Zagreb have all made bids to become the agency’s new home. Meanwhile, the EBA, which has 189 employees in London


and coordinates banking regulations throughout the bloc, has seen Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris, Prague, Luxembourg, Vienna and Warsaw throw their hats into the ring, with Frankfurt – already home to the European Central Bank – tipped as the front-runner.


rom Amsterdam to Zagreb, it is a relocation battle the like of which Europe has never seen. The prizes – and the challenges – are huge: accommodating more than


But were Frankfurt


to land the EBA, it would mean Bonn could not win the EMA, as, under the commission’s rules, no one country can be awarded both agencies. Besides, Paris has been lobbying hard to attract the EBA as part of a wider effort to become the EU’s financial hub after Brexit. Former French President Francois Hollande wrote personally to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, saying, “Paris hosts four of the eight largest banks in the EU27. It is essential that the EBA is implanted in the heart of the financial ecosystem, allowing for a constant interaction with professionals in the sector.”


The candidate countries Complicating the whole bidding process is the fact officials have been suggesting that the European Commission would like to see at least one of the agencies located in one of the newer EU nations in Central and Eastern Europe. This is a sentiment that has boosted hopes in Warsaw and Sofia of attracting the EMA.


President Boyko Borissov said in a letter to Mr Juncker and Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, that Sofia’s bid “reflects Bulgaria’s commitment to common European values and fundamental principles, as well as the will of our country to continue to contribute constructively to the consolidation of the objectives of European policies, including in the field of public health”. For its part, Poland argues it is the perfect home for the EMA.


“Following a successful economic and social transformation over the past 25 years, Poland has become an attractive market for the pharmaceutical industry, offering stability and a predictable regulatory environment. Poland is currently the largest pharmaceutical market in Central and Eastern Europe and the sixth-largest across the continent,” the Polish government states. And while the Czech Republic’s somewhat surprising bid for


the EBA seems to centre on the fact that Prague is geographically located in the heart of Europe, an underlying argument appears to be that the Czechs are determinedly more pro-EU than some other eastern European countries. Such arguments have bothered Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, who has called on other EU heads to make sure their decisions are based on the quality of bids and not on “geopolitical rebalancing”. Speaking at the


relocateglobal.com | 7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60