Regional Reports
John Lisman
DIA Global Forum
Europe Regional Editor
fter the UK’s decision to leave the EU (Brexit) was announced, there was a lot of interest in the remaining EU member states to host the EMA.
Rumour has it that Amsterdam was the preferred option. This makes sense, because Amsterdam is probably the closest to London and would bring on the least change in a number of different ways. On the other hand, one of the principles when setting up new agencies is the desire to spread the EU hotspots more or less evenly over the EU territory. Currently, most of EU activity is established in the northwest part of the EU, to which the Netherlands definitely belongs.
At the end of the day, the selection of the new EMA home was decided in a meeting on 20 November. The procedure consisted of three rounds of voting. In the first round, each of the 27 member states could allocate three points to their favorite city, two points to the next city on their list, and one point to their third choice. The outcome of the first round left three candidates: Milan (25), Copenhagen (20) and Amsterdam (20). In the second vote, Copenhagen lost and left only Amsterdam and Milan in competition. The third and last round ended in a tie when both cities received thirteen votes. As the number of remaining member states is 27, one country evidently abstained (social media claim that Slovakia was the abstaining country) due to the (lack of) geographic spread. No city from the newer members of the EU, in the middle and eastern part of the region, made it to the second or third rounds. Up until the selection procedure, Bratislava was considered to have a good chance, especially if the other Central and Eastern countries would unite to support Bratislava. Spanish candidate Barcelona was said to be the victim of political unrest in Catalunya. In the lottery that was held to resolve the tie between Amsterdam and Milan, the choice of Amsterdam was just a matter of simple luck.
What Can EMA Expect from Amsterdam and the Netherlands?
Furthermore, the Dutch government has proposed to team up early and to meticulously prepare for the actual move, enabling the continuity that EMA needs and “unburdening” the EMA and its staff. To fill possible gaps in expertise, the Dutch competent authority Medicines Evaluation Board gets additional budget (2 million Euro) to train and prepare additional regulatory experts. These experts could replace the UK citizens who will leave the agency because of Brexit.
First Reactions
EMA’s reaction was very positive. Implicitly, a sigh of relief could be heard about the choice of Amsterdam, because this will lead to the highest possible retention of staff and therefore the best possible guarantees for EMA business continuity.
The life sciences industry in the Netherlands is enthusiastic too. Life sciences lawyers have voiced their excitement in national journals, with the expectation of lawyers moving from London to Amsterdam and improvement of direct contact with EMA staff.