POSITION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REGARDING THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament gives its definitive evaluation of the results of the inter-governmental conference and therefore of the Single European Act, having noted the Governments' negative response to the requests approved in the House at the sitting on 1 1 December 1985.

The Italian Government's reservation having come to nothing, in so far as Italy is prepared to sign the agreement thus concluded together with the other Governments, the European Parliament records in this debate and by this vote its own lack of success and at the same time the lack of success of the battle which commenced with the approval of the draft Treaty establishing European Union.

Spinelli bitterly refers to the defeat and to the fact that his predictions as to the damaging effects of national diplomacy have been fulfilled.

Profoundly convinced that the strength of the federalist ideal lies in its capacity to re-emerge with greater strength after any defeat, Spinelli calls upon the European Parliament not to accept defeat and not to give up, but to prepare itself "once more to take to the high seas" in order to seek new means of achieving progress towards European Union.

This is the last speech made in the House by Altiero Spinelli. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 16 January 1986)

Mr President, in his composite speech the President-in-Office of the Council outlined the programme of the Dutch Presidency in the next six months and informed Parliament of the results of the international conference which has finished its work. On behalf of the Committee on Institutional Affairs, I shall deal only with the response our committee proposes to give to the second item.

I can well imagine how embarrassed the President-in-Office of the Council must have been when he gave us the results of the Intergovernmental Conference. He often found himself on a sticky wicket, and for two reasons. In the first place, it is rather difficult to defend the arrogance of the Council and the Conference, which rejected any participation by the European Parliament in drawing up institutional reforms. Secondly, it is rather hard to explain how after all the work by Parliament, the Dooge Committee, the Milan and Luxembourg summits and the Intergovernmental Conference the net result is what many people suspect, a dead duck anyway.

I shall make a brief analysis of these two aspects of the Single Act which we are considering now. The Community is a political body with its own organs: administrative, executive, legal and representative. Its laws, which are applied in specific areas, are distinct from the laws of the Member States and we all want the European Community to have a basis in European democracy. Consequently, if there has to be change in its constitution, it should be the representative institutions which push for these reforms; in other words, the Parliament which represents the citizens of the Community and the Council which represents the Member States.

There is, to be sure, no provision for this democratic process in Article 236 of the EEC Treaty, but according to traditional diplomatic practice, drawn up at a time when the Community existed only on paper and before there had been any European elections. Article 236 saw the revision of the Community constitution in the same way as an international act concerning the State's foreign policy and not as an internal act of a developing Community.

The fact is that the work of drawing up reforms was started not in diplomatic circles but by the elected Parliament. When Parliament's initiative forced the governments to understand that reform was necessary, they turned to Article 236. In order to comply with the basic needs of European democracy, the European Parliament then proposed that Article 236 be applied in such a way as to allow Parliament to take part in the formulating and drafting of the Act.

We called on the governments, meeting in conference, to give a political undertaking to discuss with Parliament the text of the reform and to sign it only if it had been drafted by both the institution which represents the citizens of Europe and the institution which represents the national governments.

This demand was ignored in a highanded fashion. Ministers and diplomats from the Member States monopolized the preparation of the reform and proved - for the benefit even of those who were reluctant to believe it - that the representatives of Europe's voters are quite capable of having a common and constructive vision of European union - but not our national diplomats. It is what is to be expected. The political thinking of the European Parliament is European in scope. The political thinking of the Conference is an amalgam of national ways of thinking. This experience should provide the European Parliament with some conclusions for its future work.

Let us have a look now at the dead duck which has been produced. The Single Act speaks about the establishment of a single market, monetary resources, cohesion, regional policy, research, technological development, the environment, social policy and political cooperation. The important and decisive factor is not the definition of these policies - which are always rather vague - but rather the very precise definition of the institutions and instruments which are needed to carry out these policies.

The first thing we have to note is that the Council has retained its monopoly of legislative decisions. In other words, it has retained without any change the undemocratic and bureaucratic oligarchy of Community legislation. Any powers which have been taken from the national parliament will remain in the hands, not of the European Parliament, but of a few senior officials and ministers from the Member States who are in fact outside any political direction and control.

Secondly, the Single Act sanctions the Council's take-over of executive powers which should belong to the Commission. It is laid down that the Council has the right to take over certain of the Commission's executive powers and perform them itself, but it would not know how to go about it and this would reinforce the system of consultative committees, which this Parliament has consistently criticized, whereby a committee of national civil servants - often of the second rank - can always veto any executive decision by the Commission and refer it to the Council.

Thirdly, the Council retains the unanimous-vote system with its paralyzing effects on major decisions, Granted, in seven or eight cases the unanimous vote gives way to a majority vote, but the pernicious Luxembourg compromise is retained, whereby each State has the right to plead significant national interest and thereby ensure that there is no vote unless unanimity has been achieved. Consequently, apart from matters of minor importance, the life of the Community is still going to be paralyzed by the veto.

The Dutch Presidency is preparing to put on the Council's agenda the reform, in the regulations, of the Luxembourg compromise. This has not been promised, however, by either the Council or the Conference. In fact, one or two heads of government have already stated formally that the Luxembourg compromise is unaffected by anything in the Act, and we have to keep our hands off!

Fourthly, in the seven or eight cases where it was decided that there will no longer be a unanimous vote - and only in these cases - and contrary to what was said, if I understood him correctly, by the President-in-Office of the Council who said that this change would apply in all cases where a unanimous vote was not required - listen to this! - Parliament would have the right to be consulted twice instead of only once and to know that its requests would be acted on only unanimously, which is something that the Council can already do because it can unanimously change in any way it wants any text which it is considering. And the Council expects us to be grateful for its generosity!

Fifthly, there is nothing about the introduction of a common monetary policy, without which it is simply ridiculous to talk of a single market and a free capital market.

Sixthly, there is nothing new - and in fact the matter was not even discussed - with regard to the reform of the Community's finances. And yet the financial system of the Community is evidently in a sorry state, because every year it throws up institutional crises and drastically curbs the Community's income, which makes a joke of social and regional policy and scientific research, because the money is not there and all these sectors need Community money and yet according to the Single Act they are to be reinforced.

Lastly, it is ridiculous to have put into this Single Act articles on cooperation alongside those on Community reform, because there is nothing new when it comes to political cooperation, which is far from providing even the basis of a common foreign policy, and also because there is no link at the Communitycooperation level to allow a gradual switch from the haphazard, fairly meaningless intergovernmental cooperation which we have at present to a genuine common formulation and response in foreign affairs.

These, then, are the reasons for which the Committee on Institutional Affairs asks you to approve a motion for a resolution which reiterates the opinion voiced in the resolution of 11 December 1985, in which Parliament considered that the results of the European Council meeting in Luxembourg were generally inadequate and could not accept the proposed modifications in their present form.

The Single Act has in fact incorporated the December decisions in its articles but there is nothing new in it. There is no reason therefore to change our opinion of it.

However, there is more to the motion for a resolution than these criticisms and this opinion. In voting for it, Parliament will show that the question of European union is still an open one, because, it has not been solved yet, and it will show its commitment to working out a way of bringing it to the attention of our citizens. The Committee on Institutional Affairs is seeking your mandate to prepare the strategy for this and to submit it to your approval.

Ladies and gentlemen, when we voted on the draft Treaty of Union, I mentioned to you the short story by Hemingway about the old fisherman who catches the biggest fish in his life, which then gets eaten up by sharks so that he arrives home with only the bones of the fish. Well, we have arrived home too, and all we have left are the bones of the fish. This is no reason for Parliament to give up the struggle. We have to get ready to venture out again, with better tackle to catch our fish and to save it from the sharks.