Altiero Spinelli, 18 november 1976

SUMMARY: The European Parliament examines, on the basis of a report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs prepared by Mr Artzingcr, the economic situation of the Community, as presented by the Commission in its annual report. This is Spinelli's first intervention in the House, he having been nominated as a Member of the European Parliament one month earlier.

(in "Altiero Spinelli, Speeches in the European Parliament, 1976-1986", ed. Pier Virgilio Dastoli).

Mr President, having occupied - up to a few months ago - one of the seats on the Commission, I can say that I understand and share the sad sense of frustration emanating from the pages of the Commission's report and the resignation of the officials who drafted it. This report contains none of the ideas that we heard the President of the Commission express hardly two years ago at the start of his second period in office. It contains none of the ideas that appeared in the Commission's report on political union; instead it has been drawn up by the Commission like a homily from a venerable uncle passing on his good advice to the younger generation. Overall its recommendations are wise and so are its strictures, because the reason for them is that the recommendations are not always followed. But the report goes no farther than this.

We also know very well that this document will be submitted to and perfunctorily debated by the Council and that it will have no influence whatsoever on Member State's policy next year. You only have to recall the fate met by similar recommendations passed in previous years.

This is the reason why everything in this document has to be said in approximate and vague terms, with no entering into detail or taking stands. However, there is one thing that is missing - and it is a radical omission - in this report. It says how the various Member States ought to behave but it forgets to say how the Community should behave, in other words the Community institutions themselves, with their resources and means of action. It omits to say what further instruments the Community should equip itself with if those it now has are inadequate and what additional financial resources would need to be provided if those it has at present are not enough.

But the Community justifies its existence only if it is an instrument capable of helping to bring about a greater degree of convergence in economic policies. Because, if the Community has to be reduced to the status of the OECD, the economic Council of Europe which advises member countries how to behave, I say that then it would really be a completely useless structure.

From an analysis of the data given in this report it can be seen that, in the past, faced with the serious problems of the crisis, individual States have behaved in different ways, in other words taken greatly varying measures. Today, each faced with the serious problems of the crisis, individual States have behaved in different ways, in other words taken greatly varying measures. Today, each individual state is making its own efforts to extricate itself from a situation of crisis I inflation and depression but this, in itself, has serious latent dangers, because it is highly likely that all countries will take measures tending to reduce their degree of interdependence and resulting in divergent policies which, in the end, could nullify the efforts the various countries are making.

The Community is there to save us from falling into this situation, not just to comment that the Member States should give more proof of their goodwill. To have any influence it is necessary not merely to give advice but to back this advice up by some degree of real power of a financial or regulatory nature and so on.

This report ought to have said: what the Commission has done last year was not enough for the reasons given. Today, faced with these problems, in order to help individual governments in executing the tasks that are set out in the report, such and such action and such and such support is required from the Community. It needs to have access to the capital market and to have financial measures that it can use in order to lend credibility and support to the advice that is given. There needs to be a transfer of certain powers of decision to the Community.

The present political atmosphere is said to be against this. Well, we should reply that if these measures are taken we shall be able to beat the crisis with a strengthened, more united and more unanimous. Community, whereas if we do not take them we shall be moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Of all this there is not one word in the document we are considering. Having observed that goodwill has achieved nothing in past years, we confine ourselves to saying serenely in this report that, for the future, we are again counting solely on the goodwill of governments and placing not the slightest reliance on the Community having any strong or real influence.

Faced with this situation, we will be greatly tempted, Mr President, to vote against Mr Artzinger's motion for a resolution because it fails to spotlight clearly and plainly this basic defect in the Commission's report and on the contrary ends with doubting whether reports of this kind have any utility at all. However, because Mr Artzinger's motion for a resolution and his explanatory statement refer to the need to curb inflation and consumption and to follow a policy of investment, instead of limiting ourselves to a purely and simply deflationary policy, and because we want to avoid a vote against the motion being interpreted as disagreement with these needs which, on the contrary, we uphold, we shall abstain. However, we want it to be clear that this abstention implies a criticism of the fact that the Commission has completely omitted any mention of the Community's future responsibility at the economic level and has thrown all responsibility onto the shoulders of the Member States, saying that they should

extricate themselves from the present economic situation by introducing a package of wise measures.