ACCESSION OF GRECE TO THE EEC

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament considers the prospects of enlarging the Community to include Mediterranean countries which no longer have totalitarian regimes, on the basis of a report by the Political Affairs Committee concerning accession negotiations with Greece.

The negotiations arc now drawing to an end and after national ratifications Greece will become a member of the Community on 1 January 1981. It is appropriate to mention Spinelli's role, as a Member of the Commission, regarding democracy, the removal of civil liberties and political prisoners in Greece, Spain and Portugal, which often brought him into open conflict with the majority of the other Mcmbers of the Commission. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 17 January 1979)

Mr President, on behalf of the majority of the Communist and Allies Group, I should like to make some comments.

The Community countries have from the start appealed to all the other peoples of Europe, inspired by the same ideal, to join in their efforts. To Greece, Portugal and Spain which, having freed themselves from dictatorships, have introduced democratic government in their countries and have subsequently knocked at our door asking for admission to the Community, our answer must therefore be an affirmative one. Thus we are in full agreement with the first point of the motion for a resolution, in which the political will that these countries be united with the Community is unequivocally expressed.

Yet as regards the rest of the motion for a resolution, I have to express our disquiet, for reasons similar to those put forward by the spokesman for the Socialist Group.

The accession of these countries to the Community is a significant event, first of all because it makes it necessary for us to deepen and enrich the common policies and go more deeply into the political and institutional problems which are basically a consequence of the common policies to be followed.

It is therefore quite difficult to assess the institutional consequences which we have to face without first having a clearer idea of the scope and general characteristics of the common policies. I talk of common policies rather than sectorial policies, the latter being merely an aspect of the numerous common policies which we would have to work out together with the new Member States.

It is clear that, by incorporating in practice several of the Mediterranean countries - whose economics are more problematic than those which make up the present Community, or the majority of them, and which have more complex social and regional problems and less stable democratic structures - we shall inevitably be led to provide for greater aids, and considerably greater regional harmonization than we have at present; we shall have to face more complex problems of social policy as well as of general and foreign policy.

Without going into these problems, it seems to me that the reply given to Mr Dankert by the chairman of the Political Affairs Committee is clear: the Political Affairs Committee will deal with these problems as a whole and draw up the opinion to be submitted to Parliament with a view to achieving an overall understanding of them.

We can say straight away that these problems bring about both a quantitative and a qualitative change in the nature of our policies. No basic Community policy can remain as it was before. Even though it may still be possible in the transitional stage, when we are dealing with the imminent accession of Greece, to put off the inevitable day, the question will take on a different aspect when we are dealing with the accession of Spain and Portugal, countries which have much more serious economic and social problems than Greece.

In this situation, we must of course allow a preparatory or transitional period for these countries; but to be absolutely frank, the Community must also regard this as a transitional period for itself. During the whole time in which these countries need to implement their policies, and to adapt them satisfactorily to Community policies, the Community itself must undertake a series of policy changes - and it is our job to indicate what they should be.

We should therefore examine whether these changes can be introduced and maintained with the necessary continuity and impact on reality using the institutional instruments at present available to the Community. This is the problem to which we must find an answer.

I do not want to try to prove now that we must have much stronger and much more efficient instruments based to a much greater extent on democratic structures - i.e. structures which ensure a consensus between the rulers and the ruled - than we have at present. But it is certain that this problem will arise. No mention is made of all this in the resolution. It refers to trivialities such as exchanges of opinion to be carried out in the preparatory period; it states that these countries must be invited to adopt common policies. It has rightly been pointed out here that we should tell the Greek and Spanish governments that they tool like all the others, should have diplomatic relations with Israel, which already implies greater consistency in the foreign policies of our countries, since with the present economic cooperation structures, it is quite possible for a Member country of the Community to have diplomatic relations with a third country with which other member countries are not so linked.

The motion for a resolution mentions the need to defend the Community achievements rather than modify them, in order to create a new and distinctly different Community, continuing that of the Nine but going beyond it. It mentions the need for a transitional period but does not clarify the fundamental point which it would perhaps be worth defining straight away, namely the participation of these countries in the whole decision-making process from the start - even in the transitional stage - rather than the offer at that stage of a kind of semi-accession.

I should like it to be clearly stated that the acceding countries must participate from the start in the work of developing and perhaps changing the Community itself.

Now if we as a Parliament do not give this kind of guidance, if we do not seek to understand that we are faced with a political event to great importance, we are failing in our duty. That the Community must change itself is something which at least the Heads of Government realized when they accepted the French President's proposal to entrust three 'wise men' with the task of putting forward proposals on the changes to be made in the Community institutions.

Must we also wait until the three 'wise men' have given their opinion on the subject which now concems us? The history of the Community is a graveyard of opinions by 'wise men', and we would only be adding one more cross to that graveyard if we waited. Even when these three 'wise men' have expressed their equally wise opinions - just as wise as those of Werner, Tindemans and many others - the common political will to put the ideas into practice will still be lacking.

My view is that at this stage we should perhaps link the prospect of a Parliament strengthened by direct elections with the need to debate the nccessary institutional reforms in the light of the policies to be developed.

The enlargement of the Community gives greater urgency to a problem which would in any case exist without enlargement, but which now becomes more serious, given that in six months' time we shall have 14 Commissioners, with the accession of Portugal 15, and with that of Spain - since one cannot have 1 112 commissioners - we shall have two more, giving a total of 17. It is clear that something must change in the policy-making and mode of operation of the executive.

Of all this - I repeat - there is no trace in the motion for a resolution. We shall therefore follow the example of the Socialist Members in voting in favour of the first paragraph of the motion, so that it will be cleat that the criticism I have expressed do not indicate any mental reservations about the accession of these countries. Nonetheless, we shall abstain on the rest of the motion for a resolution, because it is beside the point - i. c. it does not tackle any basic aspect of the problem.