REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ITALIAN PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament considers the report on the activities of the Community govemments during the half-year of Italian presidency of the Council. The report is presented to the House by the Italian Foreign Minister, Mr Andreotti.

During the half-year, the work was completed of the ad hoc committee on institutional questions appointed by the Council meeting at Fontaincbleau (June 1984), of which the Irishman, Mr Dooge, was the President.

The committee's report was presented to the Council meeting at Brussels (March 1985), with a suggestion approved by a majority of the members of the committee (British, Danish and Greek members against) that an intergovernmental confcrcncc bc convened to prepare a draft Treaty for European union based on the European Parliament's draft.

The Brussels Council meeting decides to defer any decision to the next meeting, at Milan (June 1985). At the Brusscls meeting, the Community Hcads of Govemment finally concluded the negotiations for the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community.

On the basis of the proposal of the Committee on Institutional Affairs and during contacts between the Doogc committee and a delegation from the Parliaincnt lcd by its President, Mr Pflimlin, and by Mr Spinelli, the European Parliament repeatedly asked to be treated as a full partner of the Governments in preparing the Treaty, as an essential precondition for ensuring that the final result of the negotiations complied with national and European requirements and to ensure that there was a drastic reduction in the conservative tendencies of national diplomacy.

The European Parliament's requirements are received in vcry vague terms by the Italian Government, which is preparing to suggest the convening of a traditional diplomatic conference at the European Council meeting at Milan and are hindered by the European Commission and in particularly byjacques Delors. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 11 June 1985)

Mr Andreotti, I shall offer you neither compliments nor good wishes - not for lack of courtesy, but simply for lack of time. I should like to concentrate in this speech on a single subject - the conclusions that the Milan Council should reach with regard to the Intergovernmental Conference on European Union. It is the fourth time that this Parliament has come back to this subject, not only with debates but also with precisely formulated motions that have been approved by large majorities, and so far we have not been able to have a precise answer to what we are asking.

I should like to recall what are the crucial points today, on the eve of the Milan Council. They are not so much concerned with the extent of the power of Parliament, the power of the Council and the power of the Commission, nor the extension of powers, but rather with the drawing up of a procedure for achieving all these objectives. We have asked, and continued to ask, that at Milan a decision shall be taken, not on the content of the Union, because that would be asking too much, but a decision to call on international conference to start negotiations. And we also ask that an end be put to all thoughts of additional protocols, or of more or less solemn declaration, of which the history of the Community is full.

Secondly, we ask that the Conference be called with a precise mandate which will permit work to go on quickly, and changes to be made. We are making clear the objective. We recognise the right to make changes, but we are setting limits - respect the spirit and method of the Parliament. The result will be a mandate that will make it possible to believe that, within a year, a definitive text can be arrived at.

The third thing that we ask for is that the Conference will be held even though all of the Governments may not wish to take part, since the only way to get them all probably present, or almost all, is for the majority to say: 'We shall make a start, even though you are not there'. If, instead, we continue to leave any doubts about this, I am convinced that the Conference will not happen, or if it does, it will no precise objective.

Fourthly, we ask for the Parliament to be associated with the drawing up of the final form of words, but we have not been able to obtain any assurances regarding this. 'Associating' the Parliament, as we understand it, does not however mean having one of those kinds of inter-institutional conciliation which we all know to be so laughable: they are meetings where the Council listens to what certain representatives - who are said to be representatives of the Parliament - have to say and then, having listened, bids them goodbye, sends them packing, and decides on its own as to what it wants. At most, it informs the Parliament. 'Associating' the Parliament means, as we have said and repeated time and again, that when the Conference comes to the first reading, after a certain amount of formulation has taken place, this must be discussed by the Parliament in accordance with normal parliamentary procedure - that is to say, with its work in committee and its decisions taken in plenary session. And if there are to be

changes in the text there will be appropriate coinciliation procedures, as is always the case when two sets of proposals have to be reconciled in order to arrive at a joint text. And only when a joint text has been arrived at will that text be submitted. I should like to emphasise that this request is not due to any vanity on the part of a Parliament that wants to be in on everything. It is simply logical, because, whilst on the one hand this draft is a Treaty, which must therefore be discussed by the representatives of the different governments, on the other hand it is also a Costitution, and as such it must be prepared by citizens of the Community that is being formed - in other words, by this Parliament. From the political standpoint we have to remember that within the Conference there will undoubtedly be good European ministers who, when they can find a few hours - excluding the hours when they sleep - to deal with European matters, will deal with them. But then they have to deal with the problems of na

tional life, and they will leave the European matters to their administrations, their diplomats. And we have seen them at work in recent months, all the diplomats without exception: they were the sharks that I referred to in my speech. They it was that set about trying to emaciate this draft and reduce it to a paltry affair. I am sorry to have to say that even in the Commission's own administration there have been instances of this kind, when instead we should have expected the very opposite.

Parliament's participation is a guarantee that ordinary citizens - just like all the other citizens of all Europe - who have been given a representative mandate, can succeed - thanks to the way in which this institution works - in secreting - if we can put it like that - the supranational element and engendering the creation of a genuine common will. That is why we think it is fundamental that Parliament should be associated in a real way with the drawing up of the final text.

Now your report, Mr Andreotti, is vague about precisely these points. And yet it will be these problems on which decisions will be taken in Milan, and on these decisions will depend the verdict whether Milan has been a success, a new chapter in the building of Europe, or whether it has been yet another chapter in the process of chipping away at the Community. You will not dodge this dilemma at Milan. I ask you to bear in mind that it is the fourth time that the Parliament is asking you - and tomorrow it will ask you solemnly again, with a resolution that I am sure, will be adopted by a very great majority. These are the requests that the Parliament is now putting forward. On this basis we shall have all the time, later on, to discuss whether this or that institution shall have greater or lesser powers, and how wide or how narrow shall be the new competences to be given to the European Union.