RESULTS OF THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN MINISTERS OF 27 AND 28 APRIL 1980

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliarnent examines the results of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the EEC, presided over by the Italian Foreign Minister, Emilio Colombo, which - devoted essentially to Community financial and budgetary questions.

With the creation of the EMS (Bremen, July 1978) and rejection of the 1980 budget Parliament (Strasbourg, December 1979), there commenced a wide ranging discussion on the wholc financial policy of the Community, including the question of the British contribution to the Community budget, which gradually prevailed over all the other problems.

The EEC Council was under an obligation to respond in a satisfactory manner to the demands made by the Parliamcnt in rejecting the 1980 budget and to the request by the British Government (initially made also by the Italian Government) for a substantial reduction in the contribution "paid" by it into Community funds.

The solution adopted by the Council on 27 and 28 April 1980 is absolutely unacceptable to the Parliament, which would be obliged to tolerate a 1980 budget worse than that rejected six months earlier. It forms part of the British accounting logic, opening the way to the so called philosophy of a "fair return" which jeopardizes the survival of the Community spirit, which will be embodied by the Governments in the "mandate of 30 May 1980" given to the Commission to review Community policies in their entirely and the financial resources appropriated to them.

From that time forward, Spinelli takes the view that the time has come to takc action which will prompt the European Parliament - through the Crocodile Club and the Committee on Institutional Affairs - to Prepare and approve the draft Treaty establishing European Union.

The text of this speech and in particular the call to "reflect upon the necessity to change this Commun'ty of ours" will be sent by Spinelli to all the Members of the European Parliament, with an invitation to them to commit themselves fully to this initiative. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 21 May 1980)

Mr Colombo said in his speech that we run the risk of causing a major crisis in the Community. I think he was wrong. Absent members of the Council, you do not run the risk of causing a crisis, for you have already caused one, and this debate should have made it abundantly clear how serious that crisis is.

Following the speeches by Mr Fanti, Mr Arndt, Mr Notenboom, Mr Josselin, Mr Dankert, Mr Lange and others, I would not be speaking if I were merely going to express my agreement and my intention to vote in favour of the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Budgets.

I asked to speak so that I could say something about the present situation of the Community which has not yet been said, and which I think is worth saying with a certain clarity. We should ask ourselves why the Community has become, as it were, paralysed, and is gradually becoming more and more incapable of taking decisions. It is frequently said that there is a lack of political will. That is not true, for the political will to work together in Europe exists, as shown not only by the fact that this Parliament was elected and continues to meet, but also by the fact that, despite all the failures, the representatives of the national governments continue to seek joint solutions for the more serious problems, because they know that, if one day we had to admit that the Community was finished, we would return to a situation in which, in practice, every country would begin once more to regard its neighbour as a possible enemy, and we would have a Europe for which eighty years would have passed to no avail.

We should have the courage to admit that, if anything is lacking today, it is adequate institutional means of turning shared aspirations into joint political action.

The Commission, with all its defects and limitations, is capable of taking up common positions - even if it has only the power to put forward proposals. The European Parliament should also be able, in its debates, to agree in joint action. Ours is a community in which all decision-making power is vested in the Council, and the Council has gradually extended its structure downwards through meetings of experts, and upwards to what was once called the Summit and is now known as the European Council. The Council of Ministers guides and governs the Community, claims increasingly to administer the Community, and has succeeded to a large extent, through procedural tricks in arrogating that right to itself. What is worse, the Council, in legislating on Community affairs, disregards even the basic laws with which it should comply.

To confine myself to one example, the Council has the duty to draw up the draft budget and submit it to Parliament. The Treaty sets deadlines for this, and institutional logic itself requires the Community to have a budget.

Now, Mr Colombo - whom I pity, as does Mr Lange, because as a Member of the European Parliament he too voted for the rejection of the budget - comes and tells us that the Council is not yet in a position to submit the budget and will therefore not submit it to us. What is the reason for this? Merely that they have decided not to submit it, not to discuss the budget and not to vote on a draft budget. They could certainly do so, because the Council which votes the budget is the only one which takes decisions by majority vote. Thus, not even unanimity is needed in order to have a budget. They say that it is necessary to wait for the agricultural price porposals, but there has never yet been a draft budget submitted after the agricultural prices were fixed, and in any case it is possible to resort to supplementary budgets. But this time, no - either the agricultural prices are fixed or no budget. Or again, the submission of the budget is made conditional upon solution to the problem of the British contribution.

The British problem exists, but I see no reason why it should prevent us from drawing up a budget. If the agreements reached to solve the British problem were to have consequences for the budget, it would be possible to pass a supplementary budget or draw up a letter of amendment If we do not yet have a budget, it is simply because the Council, which has pretensions to absolute power, has decided not to submit one.

If this omnipotent Council were at least capable of governing, we would even accept its authoritarian power. But as time goes on it becomes more and more incapable of any action. Of course, as long as it is a question of expressing pious hopes, it is not at a loss for words, and Mr Colombo told us just now what the Council hopes to do on energy, the fight against inflation, the North-South dialogue and so on. But when it comes to taking decisions, the situation becomes increasingly difficult, because one cannot carry through a policy which of necessity becomes increasingly complex and requires a decision making process involving the wishes of nine governments. Anyone with a smattering of historical knowledge knows that all confederations, from the Latin League to the Holy Roman Empire and the American Confederation, failed for this reason. If we go on in the same way as at present, we shall meet the same fate.

I would now ask my fellow-Members of Parliament to think about the need to change this Community of ours. There are only two centres of political power which can assume the responsibility of drawing up plans for reform and asking the national parliaments to ratify them. if it is the governments which do this, we shall have the Europe of frontiers - 'l'Europe la carte' mentioned by Mr de la Malne, i.e. the destruction of all that has been achieved so far. Alternatively, this Parliament must become aware that, as the representative of all the Europeans who have elected it, it has a duty to propose the institutional reforms which could enable the Community to emerge from this stalemate. If we prove unable to learn from the present crisis the lesson which it is necessary to learn in order to take such measures, we shall have failed in our duty.

We do not expect anything of the kind from the Council. We must point out to the Council not only that the budget problem remains unsolved, but also that its decision not to increase own resources above the 1 % level is tantamount to destroying the Community. We must also remind it that, should the request for consultation of Parliament on the appointment of a new President of the

Commission be ignored, we would not hesitate to use our power - as on the budget question - to bring down the Commission on the very day of its appointment.

I think these are the things we must tell the Council. The rest is up to us.