1980 BUDGET PROCEDURE: SECOND READING IN PARLIAMENT

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: This is the last phase of the first budget procedure dealt with by the directly elected Parliament which, conscious of its responsibility as a legitimate representative of the European people, makes this procedure a fundamental part of a wider ranging political and institutional battle.

On conclusion of the debate, the European Parliament votes by a large majority to reject the budget, thus opening a new phase in the institutional crisis and laying the foundations for the action commenced by Spinelli in 1980 to reform the Comunity. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 11 December 1979)

Mr President, I rise on behalf of the Communist and Allies Group. Mr Dankert has, as rapporteur, fully explained why the budget should be rejected and all I need say is that we are of the same mind.

At the end of the first reading of the draft budget, we said we were dissatisfied with the draft in the form in which Parliament forwarded it to the Council. At the same time, we recognized that substantial improvements had been made to it and that our Group had played a large part in getting them accepted. Today, a month later, we can see what the Council did with Parliament's work. It is hard to say which is the greater: the Council's arrogance towards Parliament or its irresponsible attitude towards the Community.

To deal first with arrogance, the Council has made a hollow farce of consultation with our delegation, the purpose of which was to bring the two institutions to a common point of view. The gentlemen of the Council, however, did not merely take note of our views. One or two of them expressed those of their governments, and some even went so far as to give us assurances which their subsequent actions showed to be false, as occurred in the case of the representative of one of the larger States, who told us that he would support Parliament's amendments on the EAGGF but coolly voted against them in the Council a few hours later.

Despite our appeals, the Council refused to let us have its preliminary comments so that we could consider them in conjunction with our own and see if we could agree. Again, the Council knew that Parliament would not, as a first step, accept as final a decision on the maximum rate of increase for no-compulsory appropriations since, under Community law, the rate can only be decided jointly by the Council and the Parliament at a later stage. The Council brushed all this aside and informed us that, as far as it was concerned, the last word had been said before we had taken any decisions or had any consultation with them. The Council evidently follows the same rule as the late Roman emperors, sic volo, sic jubeo, sic jussu esto, and for example, rules that expenditure which is quite clearly non-compulsory is to be considered compulsory.

Finally, after rejecting the whole of Parliament's amendments, the Council assures us that it has noted our reasons with understanding; one wonders whatever it would have done if there had been no understanding. And now, at the eleventh hour, it has suddenly realized that, in all probability, its draft will be rejected by Parliament and is taking the unusual step of offering further conciliation, which is so important that it must take place tomorrow! I wonder what there is left to agree on. The Council cannot now alter its draft because all the deadlines have gone by; it can only tell us that it is prepared to make a concession on the maximum figure for commitment appropriations. This is 'Taschengeld'. (I know that the Council has ruled that this word must no longer be used because of a sudden realization that it was insulting to Parliament but 'Taschengeld' it remains, nervertheless). In exchange for this Taschengeld of a few hundred million units of account, the Council is asking us to adopt its draft bud

get and rest content with the assurance that expenditure on guaranteeing agricultural prices will in future be brought under control. But we cannot forget how often and over how many years the Council - whether as the European Council or otherwise - has promised to curb this expenditure without the slightest effect. Now that the Council has grasped the fact that there must be an agreement with Parliament, it will just have to accept our refusal and get down at once to the job of working on a new budget which takes account of Parliament's demands.

Is its arrogance just a reflection of the Council's outstanding efficiency or of consciousness of its responsibility in dealing with Community affairs? Neither, of course, and tomorrow there will be lengthy references to the futility of the European Council in Dublin because it failed to deal with the question of a more equitable distribution of Community taxation, the question of providing the Community with badly needed structural policies which are tougher and better integrated, or the Community's crying need for new resources.

But to return to the Council's decisions on the budget. In response to Parliament's demand for a reduction in expenditure to support agricultural prices, the Council has submitted a supplementary budget of almost 800 m EUA for 1979, while restoring the astronomical figure for milk subsidies in 1980. This expenditure is not the result of some natural catastrophe but of a financial catastrophe caused by the Council itself when, a few months ago, it approved new prices for milk. The Council wants a Community budget capable of guaranteeing Community loans but refuses to itemize them in the budget. In claiming to fix a low maximum rate of increase for commitment appropriations, the Council is contriving to smother Parliament's proposal that these appropriations should be used for the planning of the Community's financial policy on a multi-annual basis, which is a sine qua non for any community, especially one still in process of development.

In the circumstances, there is only one way in which Parliament can reply to such arrogance, and that is by rejecting the budget and asking the Commission to prepare another preliminary draft and, as a consequence, the Council to present a fresh draft. In doing so, Parliament will be proposing the only proper course for the restoration of the inter-institutional cooperation which is so necessary for the wellbeing if the Community. We want cooperation, not war, between the institutions.

This morning, Commissioner Tugendhat warned us, rather vaguely but with a sort of 'ideological terrorism', of the terrible consequences if we rejected the budget. It is true that, if the Commission goes to sleep or, as one of its Officials told the Committee on Budgets the other evening (whether speaking for himself or for the Commission I have no idea), refuses to draw up another preliminary draft budget, it will paralyse the Community. But gentlemen of the Commission, you will be the ones to blame because, in the Community it is always your job to make proposals. If, however, the Commission gets on with it, only a few days will be needed to incorporate the substance of Parliament's proposals in the previous preliminary draft budget and only a few weeks to propose the necessary changes in the Regulations on milk which you have had in mind, and probably even in draft, for several years. Nor does the Council require more than a week or two to reconsider the position in the light of the fact that, from now on,

it must pay regard to what Parliament wants. As far as we are concerned, I am sure that the House will not waste the time of anyone who is prepared to be reasonable.

With today's debate, we shall be marking the close of the year of the European election and making it known to Europe, our countries, our governments, our institutions and, indeed, ourselves that the people of Europe sent us here to cooperate in working out a policy for the development and advancement of the Community and that we have tried to ensure that this is recognized by all concerned. If, however, we accept this budget and the crumbs offered us by the Council, we shall be telling Europe, the governments, our institutions and ourselves that we have given up trying to mean anything and the Community will somehow muddle through with its weary bureaucratic routines and the constant triumph of individual interests over the general good.

The Italian Communists and independent members of the Left have made their decision and we shall vote to reject the budget.