Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament discusses the results of the meeting of the European Council held at The Hague on 29 and 30 November 1976. Among the matters for which encouragement was to have been provided by the Heads of State and Heads of Government of the Community were the questions of economic and monetary union (the general objectives having been decided upon at the previous summit meeting at The Hague in 1969) and political union (for which the general objectives had been fixed at the European Council meeting in Paris in 1972, in respect of which Tindemans presented his report in 1975).

Once more the Heads of State and Government have failed in their task of providing political impetus: Spinelli seizes the opportunity to issue a message addressed to the Parliament to be elected by universal suffrage, and announce the battle in which he is to play a leading role until approval of the Treaty establishing European Union.

(in "Altiero Spinelli, Speeches in the European Parliament, 1976-1984", ed. Pier Virgilio Dastoli)

Mr President, I should like first of all to give my full backing to Sir Peter Kirk's call for the European Council to be represented here in this House.

The Treaty of Rome states that each state shall send to the Council the Minister it wishes or, if need be, it may be represented - as is often the case by its permanent representative. But this is impossible in the case of the European Council, which was set up as a gathering of Heads of State or Government. Consequently, my group seconds Sir Peter Kirk's request that the President of this House inform the President of the Council - with all due respect to Mr Brinkhorst, who bears no blame in this matter - of our wish that the European Council be represented here in Parliament, in future, by its own President.

In its document on japan the European Council reaffirmed its role as a driving force. I should like to look a little more closely at just how it has performed in this role. After yesterday's debate we are all aware of the problems posed by Japan. The European Council should have made just one decision if it really wished to perform this role, namely to invite the Community institutions - the Council, Commission and Parliament - to send a delegation to japan with the authority to speak for the Community, to negotiate with the Japanese on behalf of the Community, and to investigate and exploit any unexplored opportunities for exporting to that country. This was the only available option, the alternative being to succumb to the temptation of imposing protectionist measures against japan, simply because it is more dynamic and go-ahead than we are.

We know - and anyone who has negotiated with the Japanese on behalf of Europe also knows - that the major problem is that the Japanese never know who they are talking to, and as a result they never know if and why they should give specific assurances. If we look at the European Council document, can we find any evidence of an undertaking by the Heads of Government - and each one is the top representative of his country - to support this or that plan? There is none, just as we can find no other evidence of the guiding role which ought to be that of a European Council.

Take the North-South dialogue: the issues at stake have been clearly outlined by Mr Granelli, and I can only add our approval of what he said.

Another subject: the economic situation. This is the most urgent problem facing Europe but what does the European Council do in performing its guiding role? It does not produce any report of its own, however vague it might be, but merely rubber-stamps the Commission document without any indication of approval, disapproval or any possible amendments.

Nevertheless, it would have been worth while making at least some comment on the economic situation, and various speakers have stressed the importance of making a determined effort to revitalize our economies, but in such a way that they move closer together. Let us take a frank look at the situation: as things stand now, there can be no denying that the Council, Commission and Parlia-merit can make all kinds of recommendations to the various Member States. But when it comes to curbing inflation and combating unemployment, the basic responsability still lies with the national governments, and will continue to lie whith them. What can the Community do? If all the European Council can do is pat us on the head and say 'Be good', it is not serving any use at all, since each of us his own will be trying to be better than he can be.

If one or two countries are finding it difficult to keep up or put their house in order, it is no through any lack of ability or desire, but because they are faced with massive restructuring problems, which are partly the result of their past mistakes. These are the countries which need policies for redevelopment and reinvestment, for without these they cannot implement further policies to hold down inflation and restrict consumer spending. But they do not have the resources to do this.

This is a serious matter, and the present role of an institution like the Community should be one of encouragement. Instead of letting these countries wander about the world in search of aid, the Community - with the Council giving the lead - should be able to say: 'Since the Community has a fairly good reputation in the financial world (look at the terms at which the Community institutions manage to obtain loans), we ought to have some kind of policy for the world's financial markets - which are not restricted to Germany and the United States - so as to be able to find the means of helping those countries which need aid'. It would not matter if the loan conditions did depend on a policy alignment, since they would be conditions imposed within the family, not by some outsider but by others in the household. But is there any hint that such action may be forthcoming from the European Council, with its claim to be a driving force in the Community? Alas, not a sign.

Let us move on to the document on European union, which was supposed to be achieved even after we had more than ample proof of how difficult, indeed practically impossible, it would be to achieve economic and monetary union without the tools for the job. Furthermore, the report on economic and monetary union which the Werner Committee prepared for the Council had reached the conclusion that the first stage, consisting of the very simplest agreements, would have to be followed by the creation of some body empowered to take political decisions. The result of all this was that the Commission set up a working party under Mr Marjolin.

Let me pause for a moment on this name. Mr Marjolin was the Member of the Commission who believed that gradual economic union could be achieved by cooperation among interdependent governments. He worked steadfastly towards this goal in the years that he served on the Commission. He cannot therefore be labelled an advocate of federalism, but quite the opposite. He is an economist, an intelligent man, surrounded by top-rate political and economic experts. The document has been published and you only have to read there the names of our fellow citizens who were members of the working party. In short, Mr Marjolin, who evolved the theory of union as a result of simple cooperation, concluded that it was senseless to make any proposal for economic and monetary union without first setting up a political body for Europe.

We have the economic theory, we have the institutional theory, and we have even had the string of failures to promote economic union, but look what happens - the Heads of State or Government spend two days talking and then conclude that economic and monetary union is a basic prerequisite for political union. This is precisely the opposite of what logic, theory and experience tell us.

Is that what performing a guiding role means? No, ladies and gentlemen, this is something of which the European Council is totally incapable. This has been recognized on all sides, while Sir Peter Kirk - with the characteristic bluntness of British parliamentary parlance - has gone so far as to urge the European Council to leave us alone; he has told the Heads of Government to stay at home and get on with their own national affairs, and to keep out of European affairs, because these are beyond them.

I should, however, like to take a closer look at why this Council in particular, and its machinery in general, fail to function. Almost all the meetings of the European Council have been failures or near failures. But the fact is that we know who these men are, and we know that none of them is opposed to the concept of Europe. They are men who have had long experience, not only in the processes of parliamentary democracy but also in the processes of government itself, and they know what it is to develop political resolve and impetus in a political body, as in a state. The fact is that decisions are no longer taken by a head of government alone. This happened in the brief and exceptional period when countries were arising reborn from the ashes, when the machinery for moulding opinion was not yet in action, and when someone like Adenauer, Schuman or De Gasperi had a relatively large freedom of action. But things are different at a meeting of the Council of Ministers today. The ministers sit round a table, back

ed by a phalanx of junior ministers, under-secretaries and civil servants of one type or another, and these are the people who help in formulating any decision.

When decisions have to be taken which closely affect the lives of our citizens, in each Member States there is a highly complex interplay of political and administrative forces, a series of drafts, until a decision finally lands on a minister's desk. It is the minister who dots the 'i's' and decides on the final form, but the decision is never his alone.

If this is what happens at a national level, it is clear that even the most European-minded minister has his hands tied when one of his proposals comes before the European Council. The machinery, in this case, clearly does not work.

It is for this reason that our Group will abstain on the motion before the House. We do not wish to keep up the pretence of believing that this machinery can achieve what it patently cannot achieve. Indeed, with the approaching election of this Parliament by direct universal suffrage, it is time we realized that one of the major tasks of the elected House will be to assume responsibility for initiating discussion on the institutional and political reforms which are necessary in Europe. This is the only way out of the present deadlock, since otherwise neither the European Council nor any national assembly will be capable of finding the way out.