1980 BUDGET PROCEDURE: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT'S VOTE

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament is virtually obliged to take note of the Council's decisions on the 1980 budget, even though some of the Members decide to give way in view of an apparent attitude of openness on the part of the Council.

After making this speech and having the last word regarding this financial question, Spinelli has a meeting - in a room in the "Au Crocodile" restaurant in Strasbourg - with eight colleagues who, with several others, responded to his appeal of 21 May 1980 and decides that they should set up a club bearing the name of the restaurant where the meeting is held. The political consequences of the Crocodile initiative are analysed by Spinelli and by Felice Ippolito - from October 1980 to June 1983 n a "Letter to the Members of European Parliament", also entitled "Crocodile", published in French, English, German, and Italian.

The story of the Crocodile Club and of the Committee on Institutional Affairs is described in "Verso una Costituzione Democratica per l'Europa - Guida al Trattato d'Unione Europea by Pier Virgilio Dastoli and Andrea Pierucci (Marietti, 1984). "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 9 July 1980)

Mr President, the I budget which the Council is offering to us for a second reading today is a slightly worse version of the budget we sent back to them a month ago. A month ago we Italian Members of the Communist and Allies Group made very plain our opposition, and the reasons for our opposition, to that budget, and so there is no point in my going into them in detail again.

I will simply say that this budget, as put to us by the Council, fails to meet the Community's needs and the demands made by this House last December for fundamental changes in the structure of the budget and of Community policies.

The only reply we had from the Council was 'no' and a few crumbs thrown under the table. I must say how very sorry I am to hear Mr Langes and Mrs Scrivener more or less unashamedly saying thank you for those crumbs after helping us with the fight to get a new budget. At least Mr Scott-Hopkins has had the courage to admit that even if he votes against rejection he will vote with unease. And you say that you are satisfied' How can you be? And then tomorrow Mr Tugendhat will present the 1981 budget to you saying that he is dancing to the Council's tune: that budget will be even worse because nothing will have been changed. Under circumstances such as these we would not wish to bring up the big gun of rejection, a procedure which we cannot easily use lightheartedly, and so, along with the Socialist Group, we shall not be taking part in the vote. But let there be no doubt about it: we do not support this budget!