RESULTS OF THE LUXEMBURG COUNCIL MEETING AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament gives its first evaluation of the results of the inter-governmental conference, which was concluded at the Luxembourg Council meeting of 2 and 3 December 1985. The final agreement is contained in a document described with appropriate "modesty" as the Single European Act, which limits the institutional changes to marginal aspects of the functions of the Commission, Council and Parliament, to the inclusion in the Treaties of areas of responsibility (such as environmental and technological policies and foreign policy co-operation) which already formed part of Community activities, leaving substantially unaltered the power relationship between national States and the Community.

The President of the French Republic, Mr Mitterrand, who had caused the conference to come into being by his speech of 24 May 1984, expresses his disappointment by describing the results of the conference as falling "below the vital minimum level for the Community".

The European Parliament approves by a large majority the motion for a resolution submitted by Spinelli on behalf of the Committee on Institutional Affairs, stating that the results of the conference are regarded as unacceptable, particularly as regards the democratic powers of the Parliament, and inviting the Governments finally to discharge their European responsibilities by making essential amendments to their decisions or by agreeing to effective co-operation with the Assembly.

The Parliament's position is supported at this stage by the Italian Government which declared that its final approval of the Single Act was subject to positive vote by European Parliament. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 11 December 1985)

Madam President, this Parliament asked the European Council and the Intergovernmental Conference on numerous occasions, in resolution and orally, to be effectively involved in the preparation of the draft Treaty and the final vote on it before it was signed and submitted for ratification.

The Council and the Conference loftily rejected or ignored these requests. And you have come here, Mr President of the European Council, convinced that your task is to inform us, not even to consult us.

We owe thanks to President Craxi and Mr Andreotti for having appreciated that such scorn for European democracy could not advance the development of European unity.

By reserving their acceptance of your conclusions until the European Parliament had given its judgment on your efforts, they have ensured that this Parliament is not reduced today to listening to what you have to say and then applauding or hooting, as the case may be. The European Parliament will be judging you r efforts, and you will have to take account of this. Thus we can see a glimmer of European democracy on the horizon.

Having studied the conclusions of the European Council, having closely followed the proceedings of the Conference from start to finish, and having taken account of the contribution from the political groups in this House, the Committee on Institutional Affairs is proposing a motion for a resolution to express Parliament's judgment. The judgment that we are commanding to you is carefully considered and measured. It acknowledges that, after 30 years' existence, the conference has addressed the main problems of the Community. However, we are forced to the conclusion that you have failed to find a proper solution to any of them.

I do not have enough time to examine each of the committee's conclusions one by one and shall therefore, with your leave, consider three or four of them which cast light on the rest.

You have apparently seen the completion of the single market, the European area, as the keystone of your edifice. You have included this objective in your conclusions, defining what you mean by it, setting a deadline for completion in 1992 and introducing majority voting in the Council on certain issues instead of unanimity. But you have kept the requirement for a unanimous vote on the matters which are of greatest importance to the creation of this single market, such as tax harmonization, free movement of persons and, most important of all, monetary policy.

Moreover, you have also allowed the so-called 'Luxembourg compromise' to survive. When President Pflimlin and I myself raise this problem with you - on more than one occasion - at the conference, there was no answer. And President Delors now assures us, as though he were President of the Council, that the Council is going to abolish the right of veto by amending its rules of procedure. But Mrs Thatcher was more forthcoming in the House of Commons, where she stated that the Luxembourg compromise, which allows a Member State to invoke a very important national interest to prevent a decision from being taken, was unaffected, that it remained fully in effect.

What all this amounts to is that the unanimity method, in one form or another, remains the rule in Council decision-making. And this is the instrument with which you intend to ensure that what should have been accomplished in the 12 years from 1957 to 1969 is going to be carried through over the next seven years? A likely story! You are so sure that you cannot keep to this commitment that you have felt it necessary to state in your conclusions that the definition and deadline have no legally binding force! In other words, neither our citizens nor this Parliament will be able to invoke the text of the new Treaty to insist that the commitments which it contains be adhered to and given effect if you have not so decided.

Apart from this, I listened in amazement to the words of President Santer and President Delors on the progress made when referring to monetary reform.

You are proposing that we move forward by keeping the same powers and the same voting methods, in other words unanimity, as in the past. No, I tell a lie, you are actually proposing a considerable retrograde step, since institutional developments - such as the creation of a real European Monetary Fund which, under the European Monetary System, could of course have been decided upon unanimously, but decided by the Council - would now entail revision of the Treaty. And you regard this as a step forward in policy on the Community's monetary capacity?

Thirdly, you have completely ignored the serious and increasing dissatisfaction with the inadequacies of the system for financing the Community. Where in the world is there a country where the budget has had to be rejected by its parliament three times in six years? Every year, in fact, an acute inter-institutional crisis erupts. The European Parliament had made detailed proposals for reform which were responsible. You had only to read the chapter on finance in our draft Treaty: it was not maximalist, it was very moderate.

Finally, Parliament has been asking, demanding even, for a long time that action be taken to put an end to the situation - unworthy of a Community which considers itself democratic - of having an elected parliament which is devoid of legislative powers. All that you have offered is to recognize that Parliament has the right to express its opinions twice instead of once and then meekly hope that the Commission in its wisdom will agree with some of them and submit them to you for your approval. Moreover, this would only apply within the very limited range of 10 cases, out of the 40 where majority voting would apply. For the remainder, and for all cases where voting would have to be unanimous, mere consultation would remain the rule.

I will spare you any further analysis. What I have said explains why the Committee on Institutional Affairs is inviting you to consider the results of the European Council as unsatisfactory overall and unacceptable in their present state, especially, but not only, as far as the powers of the European Parliament are concerned. In a spirit of cooperation with the conference and the Council, our motion for a resolution gives an immediate indication of the spirit of the amendments which Parliament is proposing to the Council meeting on 16 and 17 December. It invites the Council to incorporate into the text drawn up by the European Council a limited number of clarifications and amendments concerned, in particular, with cooperation between Parliament and the Council to as to establish a real procedure for co-decision. It also calls for the restoration of the Commission's total responsibility for the implementation of decisions. I must admit to being full of admiration for this Commission which is able to maintain

that its responsibilities have been increased when it has been told in unequivocal terms that 'the Council is going to remove some of your executive powers because it might decide to take them over itself.

In a display of a strange sense of democracy, it has been said in certain Council quarters that if Parliament is looking for a fight, it will get one. Let me close by saying that Parliament does not want a fight, either with the Council or with any other institution; all that it wants is to see the development of a democratic and efficient Community. It wants to be respected. For this reason, it must pursue its aspirations with strength and dignity. I therefore invite the House, on behalf of the Committee on Institutional Affairs, to vote in favour of its motion for a resolution and to follow its suggestions regarding the amendments, especially the compromise amendments proposed by the Committee on Institutional Affairs itself.