REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNCIL UNDER DANISH PRESIDENCY

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament considers the usual report by the President of the Council by rotation (on this occasion Denmark) on the result of the previous six months activity.

The report was presented to the House by the Danish Foreign Minister, Mr Andersen. In "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 14 June 1978)

Mr President, I should like to echo the earlier speakers in thanking and congratulating Mr Andersen. However, I should not like this expression of friendly regard to be taken automatically to mean that I am kindly disposed to what the Council has done. If we look back on the achievements of the last six months, we can only have mixed feelings, as our British colleagues might say. I am well aware that the basic fault does not lie with the President, and that is why I wanted to distinguish what I said to him and what I am going to say to the Council.

I am not going to talk about what ought to be done in the various sectors. This will be debated when Mr Andersen's successor comes before us to outline the programme for the next six months. Instead, I am going to talk about what the Council has done or failed to do in the last six months - and in doing so I shall try to be as objective as Mr Andersen was. We have to bear in mind what he said, namely, that various sectors have been marked by failure. There have been attempts to do something about fisheries, energy and the European judicial area, but nothing definite has been achieved. There has been agreement on some points, and I must say that I am rather surprised that no one has commented on what Mr Andersen said to the effect that the last six months have produced a number of important decisions, such as those on agricultural prices. I should just like to say in connection with this that at last, for the first time in years, there seems to be a more thoughtful approach to of the agricultural policy I am

pleased that this has occured during the Presidency of a northern country and that, for the first time, there has been more awareness of the problems of southern agriculture.

For the first time, too, we have managed to curb significantly the growing spiral of prices. Guidance measures are now being diversified and expanded, and more importance is being given to the so-called 'Mediterranean package'. However, if we compare what has been done with the extent of the problem, we have to admit that we are only at the beginning. If this first step is not followed by much more radical changes, the effects of what we have done could well rebound against us.

Another important feature of the last six months was the attempt to revive the idea of economic and monetary union. I believe that this will be the subject of much debate during the coming Presidency, and consequently I am not going to go into details here. I merely want to say that the Danish Presidency have not led to any serious progress being made in the attempt to relaunch economic and monetary union. All we have had are promises for the future, uttered with commendable resolve - if that is the right phrase. We carry on making joint declarations. You know the kind: 'The growth rate ought to be such-and-such' or 'Here is how inflation should be curbed'. We make plenty of common declarations but there, is never a common policy. The answer to this is usually:

The Governments want a Pragmatic approach. Now, being pragmatic means that what is done is precisely the considering the facts, but the facts reveal opposite of what is needed and that a wrong policy is being pursued.

In the last six months the Council has adopted an approach - to be discussed at next week's conciliation meeting - which I feel Parliament ought to give some thought to. I am referring to the idea, which has gained ground in the Community, that the Community should be given the financial resources needed to carry out a policy of intervention. However, the line which the Council has taken, and which is the result of lengthy deliberations by the governments of the Member States and by the Permanent Representative, practically contradicts all the major political commitments undertaken by the Council itself. The Council had given a formal undertaking that it would look at financial matters with Parliament, but in fact it has decided to ignore Parliament.

The Council itself and a various other so-called European 'summits' have declared that the executive role of the Commission must be reinforced, but instead the Commission has been stripped of its power and downgraded to the rank of broker, instead of being the executive arm of common policies.

Although the Council is always ready to produce grandiose visions and high-sounding declarations of principle, when it comes to putting them into practice it greatly reduces their scope and very often acts in a quite contrary manner.

I feel that this ought to be vigorously condemned because, if these are the methods we are going to use to tackle the tremendous problems of reviving the economy, our role will be restricted to rubberstamping the items on the agenda and will certainly not be one of policy-making.

Another point which I do not quite understand is why the accession negotiations are taking such an inordinate time. As for foreign policy, the successful agreement with China stands out. It is likely, in the probable event of China's developing a more open economic policy with regard to international trading, that this will be of benefit to the Chinese and to us. As for the specific problem Of enlargement, we are unfortunately holding off these nations which want to joint the Community. The accession negotiations are dragging on terribly. We are only just beginning to negotiate with Portugal, and the same goes for Greece, even though a fair number of problems were solved when the association agreement was worked out. We have still a long way to go. Are we really aware of the risks that these countries are taking? Do we realized that we could well be too late to be able to offer them the haven and the common stronghold that the Community ought to present? Our negotiations with these three applicant states are

going ahead far too slowly and too cautiously. This is dangerous for these countries and for the Community.

Those were the major points I wanted to make. Another member of our Group will speak on the vast issue of our relations with and policy towards Africa.

In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to see a renewed appeal to the Council to consider the development of the Community as a kind of inter-governmental development, like international agreements. If we continue with the present system, we shall always have Councils displaying an insurmountable gulf between what should or could be done and what is actually done. This only leads to a feeling of frustration in everyone.