Altiero Spinelli fonds - European University Institute

President.- As the report by Mrs Baduel Glorioso 

(Doc. 1-435/ 82) on the import system for certain 

products is not available the vote on urgent 

procedure is postpowed until 3 p.m. 

I call Sir Fred Catherwood. 

Sir Fred Catherwood. - Mr President, I would just 

like to give notice that I am against it. I do not 

know whether you would like me to explain my 

reasons now or later? 

President. - I presume you will be given the opportunity 

to speak when the matter comes up for 

discussion later at the 3 p.m. session. 

The difficulty is that the report has not been 

translated into all the languages so that we are not 

in a position to put the request to the vote at this 

stage. The vote will be taken at 3 p.m. and anyone 

anxious to oppose or support the request should be 

here at 3 p.m. 

At a meeting last night the Committee on Budgets 

adopted a report by Mr Adonnino on a joint 

statement by the institutions concerning the 

classification of budget expenditure. It has asked 

that this report be included on Wednesday's agenda 

for joint debate with the other budget reports. 

At the same meeting, the Committee on Budgets 

also adopted the report by Mrs Barbarella on the 

preliminary draft amending budget for 1982 

which has been scheduled as a possible item for 

Wednesday to be taken in joint debate with the 

Jackson report on the 1983 preliminary draft 

budget. 

I hope that these two documents will be available 

in the course of the day. I have been informed 

that the report by Mr Van Minnen on visas for 

Turkish workers which had been requested for 

joint debate with the von Hassel report scheduled 

for Wednesday, will be available later today. 

I shall consult thee House on these requests at 3 

p.m. today. 

65 

Reform al traktaterne og den europreiske union 

(fortsrettelse) 

Reform der Vertriige und Europiiische Union 

(Fortsetzung) 

ME-rappvOp.HTlJ no v I:vvOlJKWV Ka& njç 

·Evpcmra&Kijç 'EvwouJJç (ovvÉXE&a) 

Reform of the Treaties and European union 

( continuation) 

Réforme des traités et Union européenne (suite) 

Riforma dei trattati e Unione europea (seguito) 

Herziening van de Verdragen en de Europese 

Unie (voortzetting) 

President. - The next item is the continuation of 

the debate on the report (Doc. 1-305/ 82) by Mr 

Spinelli. 

I call Mr Jonker. 

De heer Jonker. - Waar haal je de moed vandaan, 

mijnheer de Voorzitter, ben je niet een onverbeterlijke 

optimist, als je vandaag aan de dag nog wil 

spreken over de institutionele vooruitgang in onze 

Gemeenschap?! Je zou het bijna wel zeggen. De 

discussies in de Raad de laatste jaren en ook de 

laatste weken, 'zijn niet indrukwekkend en het 

ziet er naar uit dat de plannen van de heren 

Genscher en Colombo bijgezet worden, zoals de 

verslagen van de heer Tindemans en van de drie 

wijzen plechtig bijgezet worden in het mausoleum 

van de Raad. Met dit verschil dat, zoals het er nu 

uitziet, het Genscher-Colombo-plan zelfs geen 

eerste klas begrafenis krijgt. Het plan is ter ziele 

gebracht door de duidelijke onwil van enige 

Lid-Staten om ernst te maken met de verdieping 

van de Europese integratie. En zo zouden wij 

verder kunnen gaan met het opsommen van de 

moeilijkheden waarin wij zitten. Het stemmen 

met de gekwalificeerde meerderheid, de discussies 

over het mandaat en, zo men wil, de discussies 

over de uitbreiding van de Gemeenschap. 

Maar waarom beginnen wij dan eigenlijk aan dit 

debat? Voor ons is het antwoord eenvoudig. Het 

rechtstreeks gekozen Parlement kan en mag ten 

opzichte van zijn kiezers, ten opzichte van de 

Europese burgers, niet verzaken aan zijn eigen 

verantwoordelijkheid te werken aan de verdere 

ontwikkeling en de verdieping van de Gemeenschap. 

Voor ons als christen-democraten is het 

duidelijk dat het fundamenteel gebrek aan evenwicht 

tussen de instellingen een van de belangrijke 

oorzaken is van de stagnatie in het eenwordingsproces. 

En die onevenwichtigheid tussen de 

instellingen heeft ertoe geleid dat ongeveer 7 % 

van de totale uit Brussel afkomstige wetgeving die 

de Europese burger bindt tot stand komt zonder 

behoorlijke parlementaire controle, hetzij Europees, 

hetzij nationaal. Als wij dus willen spreken 

over de greep op de Raad, gaat het ons niet minder 

clan om de democratisering van de Gemeenschap. 

Wij hebben die greep op de besluitvorming van de 

Raad nodig, omdat, als het zo doorgaat, de ktezers 

HAEU AHUE HAEU AHUE 

41 

66

42 

Jonker 

zich in ons Parlement bedrogen zullen voelen. 

Vele kiezers hebben op ons gestemd in de hoop dat 

het Parlement zijn bevoegdheden zou veroveren 

en als ons dat op de lange duur niet lukt, dan 

hebben rechtstreekse verkiezingen weinig zin 

meer. 

De heer Barbi heeft gisteren al verklaard dat wij 

weinig moeite hebben met de ontwerp-resolutie 

zoals die op tafel ligt, onze fractie vindt zich 

daarin terug. Wij hebben dan ook geen amendementen 

ingediend, wij vinden deze resolutie een 

goed uitgangspunt voor de zes rapporteurs. Het 

werk gaat nu echter pas beginnen. Wij zijn met 

elkander akkoord over het einddoel dat ons voor 

ogen staat, maar er kunnen nog lange discussies 

plaatsvinden over de politieke strategie om dat 

einddoel te bereiken. 

Het zwakke punt van de resolutie, dus ook het 

moeilijkste punt, betreft de positie van de Raad en 

de Europese Raad. Voor ons staat vast, dat het 

Europese Parlement de bevoegdheid moet krijgen, 

de besluiteloosheid van de Raad te doorbreken. 

Daarover hebben wij voorstellen gedaan, die liggen 

op tafel bij het Parlement en de institutionele 

commissie. Dit is te meer nodig omdat steeds 

meer blijkt dat de Raad in plaats van een gemeenschapsorgaan 

een instituut wordt ter verdediging 

van nationale belangen. Wij moeten er van af, dat 

het ene Raadsvoorzitterschap leidt tot zes jubelmaanden, 

onmiddellijk gevolgd door zes rampmaanden 

bij het volgende. Er is geen enkele continui'teit 

in de besluitvorming van de Raad of de 

Europese Raad. De besluitvorming hangt van toevalligheden 

aan elkaar. Wij moeten gaan inzien 

dat de contrale op de Raad in wezen alleen maar 

mogelijk is via een verdragswijziging. 

En de Commissie, mijnheer de Voorzitter, welke 

rol speelt zij in dat geheel ? Ik constateer in ieder 

geval dat, ondanks de investituurmotie die het 

Parlement heeft aanvaard en de toezeggingen 

van de heer Thorn ter zake, nog steeds geen voor 

stellen zijn gedaan voor het sluiten van institutio 

nele akkoorden. De Commissie heeft voorstellen 

op tafel gelegd, goede voorstellen, waarvoor ik 

ook waardering heb, maar altijd voorstellen aan 

Raad en Parlement. Maar de Commissie, zo staat 

in de investituurmotie, is gehouden een institutioneel 

akkoord te sluiten met het Parlement. Zo 

staat het in die motie, zo stond het ook in de 

resolutie van de heer Rey. En ik zou de Commissie 

willen vragen wat haar rol nu eigenlijk precies is 

in dit hele debat. Haar optreden wordt altijd toegejuicht 

en zeker dat van de heer Andriessen. 

Maar beperkt de Commissie zich tot lijdelijk toezien 

bij wat wij doen ? Dat betekent, naar mijn 

67 

gevoel, dat zij het initiatiefrecht uit handen geeft 

en het initiatiefrecht van het Parlement op dit punt 

aanvaardt en dat betekent dan ook dat zij de 

conclusies die wij uiteinçlelijk gaan trekken zal 

kunnen overnemen. Of gaat de Commissie artikel 

236 v an h et EEG-V erdrag ter han d ne me n e n 

trachten verder te komen door zelf ook een ontwerp 

voor Verdragswijzigingen op tafel te leggen, 

zoals haar recht is krachtens het Verdrag. 

Mijnheer de Voorzitter, het is niet te veel gezegd, 

als wij stellen dat de Gemeenschap ziek is, dat zij 

doodziek is. De crisis die wij thans beleven is 

ernstiger dan die van de zestiger jaren. Toen waren 

we met z'n allen nog bezig te redekavelen 

over wat voor soort Europa wij wilden hebben, 

over de identiteit van Europa, terwijl we nu eigenlijk 

bezig zijn aan een langzaam desintegratieproces. 

Zo kan het niet langer, naar ons gevoelen 

zal er gehandeld moeten worden, zal er opgetreden 

moeten worden. De Europese burgers begrijpen 

niets meer van onze aarzelende regeringen. 

Nu hebben we tot ons genoegen vastgesteld dat de 

drie voorzitters van de instellingen allen verklaard 

hebben, bij verschillende gelegenheden ter 

ere van het 25-jarig bestaan van de Euratom- en 

de EEG-Verdragen, dat er een nieuwe Messina-conferentie 

moet komen om te bezien wat nog 

mogelijk is in en met deze Gemeenschap. Maar 

sindsdien hoort men daar niet zoveel meer over. 

Vandaar da t wij, christen -democraten, vandaag 

namens de fractie een resolutie zullen indienen, 

waarin zal worden gevraagd om v66r eind 1983 

een regeringsconferentie te beleggen, die uiteraard 

openstaat voor alle leden van de Gemeenschap, 

om na te gaan : ten eerste hoe de bestaande 

Verdragen beter kunnen worden toegepast en 

verdiept, ten tweede hoe wij tot de verwezenlijking 

van de Europese Unie kunnen komen en ten 

derde hoe de besluiten van het Parlement op het 

institutionele terrein, waar wij nu aan bezig zijn, 

in Verdragen kunnen worden vastgelegd. Daarbij 

moet gepoogd worden, de aarzelingen van sommige 

Lid-Staten te doorbreken. Zou di t helaas niet 

lukken, dan dient te worden nagegaan welke 

Lid-Staten bereid zijn om zo snel mogelijk aan de 

totstandkoming van de Europese Unie mee te 

werken, uiteraard zonder de banden met de andere 

Lid-Staten te verbreken. 


Dit is een ontwerp-resolutie van de fractie, die 

voortbouwt op een historische ontwikkeling. Als 

ik het eens eenvoudig mag zeggen : zoals de Kolen- 

en Staal-Gemeenschap uit de Raad van Europa 

is voortgekomen, zoals de West-Europese 

Unie in wezen uit de Raad van Europa is gekomen, 

zoals het Europees Monetair Stelsel uit het 

EEG-V erdrag is voortgekomen - e n zo zijn er 

68

Jonker 

meer voorbeelden te noemen - zo moet het ook 

mogelijk zijn dat wij een Europese Unie tot stand 

brengen in moeilijke tijden, want de historie in 

Europa heeft aangetoond dat er in moeilijke tijden 

toch nog wel eens beslissende stappen gezet kunnen 

worden. Mijnheer de Voorzitter, deze resolutie 

wordt vandaag krachtens artikel 47 van het 

Reglement ingediend. Wij achten het niet noodzakelijk 

dat de bevoegde commissies deze meteen in 

behandeling nemen, wij laten die graag wat rusten, 

om daarna eens tegen midden 1983 na te gaan 

welke vooruitgang is geboekt door de drie voorzitters 

met de voorbereiding van die nieuwe Messina-conferentie. 

Wat we vandaag doen, mijnheer de Voorzitter, is 

de drie voorzitters houden aan hun woord. Dit is 

het begin van een parlementaire contrale op deze 

zaak. Ik hoop dat het ook het einde zal zijn. Eén 

ding is duidelijk : wij vragen die voorzitters om nu 

eindelijk eens te doen wat zij gezegd hebben. Wij 

kunnen niet langer wachten en zij kunnen rekenen 

op de steun van dit Parlement. 

(Applaus) 

President. - I call Mr Jackson. 

Mr C. Jackson. - Mr President, may I add my 

thanks to our rapporteur for his absolutely exemplary 

work on our behalf. 

The treaties which have served us all well for 25 

years or more are in some respects now creaking 

at the seams, while in other respects politica! will 

in the Member States has by no means been sufficient 

to ensure adequate progress in the provisions 

they contain. It took after all over 20 years to 

get this Parliament elected, and virtually no 

progress has been made on certain policies, such as 

transport, which were clearly envisaged back in 

1957. What, indeed, has happened to the single 

seat of the institutions? 

That is why I was one of the first participants in 

the 'Crocodile Club', and why I wholeheartedly 

supported the efforts to get this House to show a 

clear way forward to European union. 

My first point is that we must aim to build a 

Community of strictly limited functions but of 

equally real powers. Many things about Europe, 

about this Parliament and about European union 

are profoundly misunderstood in my own country, 

and indeed throughout the Community. That is 

why I am particularly pleased that the 'principle 

of subsidiarity', the inclusion of which I indeed 

proposed to the rapporteur, appears so strongly in 

our report. Those in all our countries who distrust 

69 

progress towards European union should mark 

paragraph 6 well. It states clearly that ·'the union 

shall only undertake those tasks which are executed 

more effectively in common than by Member 

States separately'. 

The great importance of this principle is that it 

provides a logical basis for widespread discussion 

of the Community's functions. It is possible to 

define, to argue over, to assess which functions the 

Community can really carry out better than the 

Member States individually. 

Now I am, in one sense, a minimalist for the 

Community and for every other level of government, 

be it local or national. I want decisions and 

decision-making to be kept as close to the people 

as possible, only raising them to a more remote 

level - a county, or a state, or European level - if 

there is real advantage to the people in doing this. 

But it is no contradiction that I want to build a 

Community of real powers, more than at present, 

but of functions, of course, limited to those matters 

which the Community can perform better than 

the Member States. 

This 'principle of subsidiarity', however, has its 

problems. It is quite clear to me that we should not 

transfer powers from Member States to the 

Community until we have institutions that can 

operate those powers to the benefit of European 

citizens. It is for this reason that institutional 

reform is of vital importance- otherwise we shall 

get caught in the Community's 'Catch 22'. The 

Community's Catch 22 is that governments may 

deny the Community functions it should perform 

on the grounds that the institutions do not work 

well enough, while at the same time denying 

institutional reform because we do not yet have 

the functions which make such reform imperative. 

My second point is that we should aim both to 

draft a new treaty and to propose small amendments 

to the existing treaty. I am convinced that 

the most prudent course will be to carry forward 

extremely limited amendments to the existing 

treaty. But equally, I am sure we must produce 

among our papers the structure of a new draft 

treaty for use in future years. W e must be realistic, 

but we must take the freedom we need to build on 

what our founding fathers did with such success 

and thus provide a framework that can last the 

Community for at least the next 50 years. 


My third point is that debate outside this Chamber 

is all-important. It is all very well for this Parliament 

to put up a draft treaty, to draft amendments, 

but we all know that any treaty amend- 

43 

70

44 

Jackson 

ments will have to run the gauntlet of the parliaments 

of ali the Member States and that failure 

in any one of them means no treaty amendments. 

It is because of this that I have set down an 

amendment to the resolution which emphasizes 

the need to encourage informed debate in the 

Member States and to take evidence. We shall not 

succeed in our ambitious aims unless there is 

informed debate which leads the politica! and 

intellectual forces in our Member States to support 

us and thus to carry a majority in national parliaments. 

Our contribution to this debate must be 

substantial but I hope - if I may say this en passant 

- we shall not feel any compunction in borrowing 

from the practice of the British House of 

Lords in taking oral and written evidence from 

the finest experts we can find, and then publishing 

this as a basis for further discussion. 

My fourth point is a more difficult one. It is that 

we should continue to use our unwritten constitution 

as a basis for progress. It struck me a t the time 

of the farm-price majority vote that no one should 

understand better what was going on constitutionally 

than the British themselves. I dare say no one 

is more familiar with un.written constitutions than 

we are. And so far as majority voting is concerned, 

we all know that the Treaty says one thing, that 

our informai practice in the Community, our 

unwritten constitution, half stated in the Luxembourg 

disagreement, says another. And we ali 

know, too, that it is a feature of unwritten constitutions 

that, put under enough strain, they shift 

like a river going round an obstacle. I hope that in 

this case our unwritten constitution has shifted to 

a much greater and more constructive use of the 

majority vote. 

The fact is, that we already have a large number 

of non-treaty working practices, from foreign 

policy cooperation downwards and I put it to this 

House, pragmatically, that this may be no bad 

thing. It gives suspicious and reluctant Member 

States a chance to try things out without entering 

into a commitment which could be politically 

impossible at first but which, given time and the 

evidence of success, may prove perfectly acceptable 

later on. So I believe we should encourage 

experiments, inter-institutional agreements, such 

as those proposed in the Hansch report ; 

agreements between Member States, and then 

later, include them in treaty amendments after 

they have been tried, perhaps amended, and 

found successful. 

Mr President, at the same time I confirm that 

certain treaty changes are vital right now. Surely 

we have learnt what the Americans learnt 200 

years ago, that the advantages of a confederai 

7 1 

approach, are outweighed by the disadvantages? 

The fact is that we do need, as Winston Churchill 

said just after the war, a 'kind of United States of 

Europe' - our own kind, but a union nonetheless. 

My fifth, and final point, is this: our European 

Community, with its 270 million peoples, its annua! 

income greater than that of the USA, its 

enormous intellectual and human riches, is a giant 

in the world. Yet we all know it is a giant so 

restricted, so shackled by nationalism that it cannot 

give its people or the world the benefits it 

should bring. 

Beyond everything else, then, this report is about 

creating a constitutional framework that can 

carry Europe forward for the next 50 years, that 

can, in effect, cut loose the shackles binding our 

Community. We vote on our resolution today and 

I hope it will be carried overwhelmingly : but, at 

the same time we are asking people throughout 

the European Community to help us with the task 

of building European union. For without their 

help all our efforts will come to nothing. 

(Applause) 

President. - I call Mr de Pasquale. 

De Pasquale. - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, 

i comunisti italiani danno il loro pieno 

appoggio alla proposta di risoluzione presentata 

dalla commissione istituzionale e illustrata dall'onorevole 

Spinelli, che anche noi vivamente 

ringraziamo. 

Dopo aver approvato tale risoluzione, il Parlamento 

europeo dovrà affrontare il lavoro più 

delicato, più difficile e più impegnativo di questa 

prima legislatura a suffragio diretto. Siamo perfettamente 

consapevoli delle difficoltà e dei pericoli 

insiti in questa seconda fase del nostro lavoro, 

nella quale dovranno essere precisati con la massima 

ponderazione i compiti dell'Unione, le competenze 

e le strutture delle sue istituzioni, le procedure 

adatte a garantire coerenza e armonia nuove 

nel complesso rapporto tra la Comunità e gli Stati 

sovrani che la compongono. 


Non è quindi il caso di avventurarsi oggi nell'esame 

delle scelte di merito che dovranno essere 

compiute a cominciare da domani, nelle fasi successive 

fino all'atto conclusivo. È bene, anzi, 

rispettare le tappe previste, anche perché esse 

servono - come si è visto - attraverso una discussione 

ordinata e non convulsa, a dissipare equivoci, 

ad avvicinare posizioni e a far maturare 

intese non formali. Oggi come oggi, l'Assemblea è 

invece chiamata ad approvare - o a disapprovare, 

72

De Pasquale 

o a modificare - soltanto l'orientamento generale, 

gli indirizzi di fondo esposti nella risoluzione e a 

cui dovranno conformarsi le scelte future. Noi, 

come ho già detto, li approviamo, avendo contribuito 

ad elaborarli. 

A questo punto, signor Presidente, potrei concludere 

il mio intervento, ma, dato che ne ho il 

tempo, vorrei aggiungere qualche altra sommaria 

considerazione. 

Il nostro primo e fondamentale apprezzamento 

riguarda la concezione del passaggio dall'attuale 

Comunità alla futura Unione, quale emerge dai 

lavori della commissione istituzionale. Nella 

risoluzione viene affermata con chiarezza la 

necessità che il processo di integrazione progredisca 

congiuntamente su tutti i campi, da quello 

politico a quello economico e sociale, a quello 

culturale. L'idea-forza della risoluzione si distacca, 

dunque, nettamente e positivamente da tante altre 

proposte, tutte parziali e unilaterali, venute in 

questi ultimi tempi da varie parti, si tratti dell'Atto 

europeo Genscher-Colombo, o del Memorandum 

del governo francese. In una crisi così profonda e 

generale com'è quella attuale, è assurdo pensare 

che si possa sviluppare l'integrazione economica e 

monetaria senza una forte cooperazione politica, e 

viceversa. Ed è altresì evidente l'estrema difficoltà 

di aprire nuovi spazi sociali per i lavoratori, per i 

disoccupati, per i giovani, per le donne, senza 

politiche e strumenti che spingano verso la convergenza 

dei sistemi economici europei. Si è anche 

visto quanto siano ardui e di esito incerto tentativi, 

pur generosi, di rilancio economico-sociale su scala 

nazionale, ma non concertati nell'ambito europeo. 

Queste diverse proposte, sia pur deboli e 

insufficienti, dimostrano tuttavia che l'esigenza di 

fare qualcosa per uscire dalla paralisi viene avvertita 

anche nelle sedi più restie al cambiamento. Si 

tratta, quindi, di un'esigenza oggettiva, storicamente 

matura. Siamo arrivati - come hanno detto 

il relatore e molti altri colleghi - a un punto 

limite» L 'esperienza comunitaria del passato, 

giunta da tempo a maturazione, rischia ormai di 

marcire e ha bisogno d'essere rinnovata, non a 

pezzi e bocconi, ma nel suo complesso. Aggiustamenti 

e rimedi parziali o settoriali non solo servono 

a poco, ma si rivelano addirittura inattuabili, 

come dimostra anche- per citare solo l'ultimo caso 

- il fallimento del mandato. 

È utopia, dunque, proporre una riforma dei trattati 

che rimetta in moto il processo di integrazione 

che si è inceppato e che, anzi, è entrato in una fase 

regressiva? Noi non lo crediamo. Certo, sarebbe 

velleità se la risoluzione ci proponesse - come è 

stato detto - un « superstato >>. Ma non è così. E qui 

73- 

interviene un secondo apprezzamento positivo che 

ci sentiamo di fare. La risoluzione non ci chiede di 

sconfinare nella sovrannazionalità, non ci chiede 

di stravolgere l'attuale impianto della Comunità, 

ma, al contrario, ci chiede di rafforzarlo, migliorando 

l'equilibrio delle istituzioni e il loro 

reciproco ruolo, per assolvere ai compiti previsti 

dai trattati e a quelli che, con il passare del tempo, 

sono venuti alla ribalta. Viene affermata senza 

equivoci una continuità con il passato- una continuità 

critica, beninteso- non per restare fermi al 

passato, ma per andare avanti. Questo è realismo, 

se realismo non significa, come io credo, rassegnazione 

e rinuncia, ma dinamismo consapevole e 

responsabile. 

Si avanzano, tuttavia, anche obiezioni di segno 

opposto. Qualcuno, a sinistra, lamenta una certa 

indeterminatezza nell'indicazione di quelle che 

dovrebbero essere le basi sociali dell'Unione, di 

quella che dovrebbe essere la società europea del 

2000. Ma a che varrebbe, onorevoli colleghi, 

ammesso che fosse possibile, mettere sulla carta i 

connocati di una società nuova ? Il rinnovamento 

della società non potrà che essere il frutto di 

grandi movimenti di lotta e di opinione, di un 

sostanziale cambiamento dei rapporti di forza, di 

un successo delle lotte politiche e sociali su scala 

europea. Il nostro obiettivo immediato, che può 

essere condiviso da un vastissimo schieramento di 

forze sociali e politiche, deve essere quello di 

raggiungere, nella democrazia e nella pace, una 

autentica « dimensione Europa >>, per poter 

costruire all'interno di essa l'unità di tutte le. forze 

progressiste e democratiche capaci di rinnovare la 

società. 

L'azione che il Parlamento sta portando avanti per 

la riforma dei trattati va in questa direzione, va 

nella direzione di un allargamento e di un consolidamento 

della democrazia in Europa. Questo è 

l'essenziale, che non dobbiamo perdere di vista in 

un momento in cui l'uso della forza prevale su 

quello della ragione e mentre avanzano fenomeni 

gravi di imbarbarimento, spinte repressive 

incontrollabili, pericoli di guerra. 


C'è ancora chi non comprende questo legame 

nuovo tra la costruzione europea e la crisi mondiale, 

ed è portato, in conseguenza, a sottovalutare 

quel che stiamo tentando di fare, considerandolo 

non molto di più di un mero eserctzw 

intellettualistico. A tutti costoro noi voremmo dire 

che quel che si sta facendo qui è qualcosa di qualitativamente 

diverso rispetto al passato. Sì, è vero, 

ci sono stati tanti rapporti sull'Unione europea - 

tutti pregevoli ed utili. Stavolta, però, non si tratta 

dell'ennesimo rapporto, non si tratta di tranquille 

elaborazioni destinate agli archivi e alle bibliote- 

45 

74

46 

De Pasquale 

che : si tratta di un'azione politica vera e propria, 

di un'iniziativa del Parlamento eletto verso i 

popoli, i parlamenti, i governi degli Stati membri, 

iniziativa urgente, assunta nel contesto di una 

situazione che è già insostenibile e che può portare 

a esiti catastrofici. Qui è la differenza ! Questo è lo 

spartiacque tra il passato e il presente ! 

È un'assunzione di responsabilità a cui il Parlamento 

non può, in nessun caso, sottrarsi e che ha 

un grande valore politico, quale che sia l'esito 

nell'immediato. E l'esito non potrà essere che 

positivo se sapremo raccogliere tutte le forze e fare 

appello a tutte le volontà. A tale proposito, è da 

sottolineare positivamente la dichiarazione di 

disponibilità per un lavoro comune, fatta qui ieri 

sera dal Presidente Thorn. Certo, meglio sarebbe 

stato se tale dichiarazione fosse venuta un anno 

fa : oggi saremmo più avanti. Occorrerà comunque 

discutere con tutti, anche con i governi più ostili ; 

occorrerà coinvolgere e cointeressare l'opinione 

pubblica nei singoli paesi. Se riusciremo a rendere 

con chiarezza, durante l'elaborazione e prima delle 

elezioni, l'esatta portata della proposta del Parlamento, 

credo che avremo fatto un buon tratto di 

strada verso l'D nione europea. 

(App[ausi ) 

President. - I call Mrs V e il. 

Mme Veil. - D'autres, mieux que je ne saurais le 

faire, ont analysé ou analyseront le rapport de M. 

Spinelli ; d'ailleurs, personne mieux que son auteur 

n'était qualifié à cet effet lorsqu'on se réfère à 

sa compétence et sa conviction dans ce domaine, 

auxquelles je tiens tout de suite à rendre hommage. 

Je ne reviendrai donc pas sur le contenu de la 

proposition dont nous avons à débattre, mais essentiellement 

sur le contexte politique dans lequel 

elle se si tue, et ce à trois points de vue. En considérant 

tout d'abord la situation actuelle de la Communauté, 

ensuite la situation du Parlement et, 

enfin, les perspectives ouvertes par le vote de cette 

proposition de résolution. 

Pour ce qui est de la situation actuelle de la Communauté, 

si l'on fait exception des crises ouvertes 

par la guerre de Corée, le blocus de Berlin ou 

Cuba, jamais la situation n 'a été aussi désastreuse 

dans le monde qu'elle l'est aujourd'hui. Les situations 

conflictuelles s'ajoùtent les unes aux autres 

sans qu'aucune ne soit résolue. Le déséquilibre 

s'accrolt entre pays industrialisés et pays en développement 

tandis que les deux superpuissances, 

qui consacrent leur capacité d'inventer et leur 

patrimoine à l'armement, semblent préoccupées 

75 

essentiellement à mettre l'autre à genoux, l'une 

n 'hésitant pas à utiliser le terrorisme ou la manipulation 

et l'autre à envisager l'arme alimentaire. 

Que fait l'Europe ? Elle regarde ou, plutòt, elle 

essaie de jouer les intermédiaires et elle subit, en 

première ligne, les conséquences des coups portés. 

On peut meme dire que ces coups sont souvent 

portés à travers elle. 

Au lendemain du Sommet de Versailles, notre 

désarroi, notre faiblesse sont si manifestes que 

chacun savait, avant meme qu'il se tienne, que le 

dernier Conseil européen ne pourrait que déplorer 

des dégats et peut-etre manifester, pour une fois, 

un esprit de solidarité en faisant cette constatation. 

Si j'ai brossé ce très rapide et sinistre tableau, il 

faut bien le dire, de la situation, on peut se demander 

quel est le lien avec le rapport de M. Spinelli. 

Eh bien, c'est pour montrer que, dans l'état auquel 

est parvenue l'Europe, si nous proposons un projet 

d'union, ce n'est pas seulement pour rever mais 

parce que cette Europe- qui a plus d'habitants, un 

produit national brut supérieur à celui des États 

Unis- devrait pouvoir jouer le ròle qu'elle ne joue 

pas. Que faisons-nous de ce potentiel, de notre 

intelligence, de notre capacité à dialoguer dans le 

monde? Rien ou presque rien ; là où "il faudrait 

s'unir, nous continuons à mener, chacun de son 

còté, notre petite politique isolée. 

C'est là le premier point que je veux souligner : 

l'idée de l'union n 'est pas une idée abstraite, une 

chimère inutile, elle est une nécessité. Ce n 'est pas 

l 'objectif de maniaques obsédés par un mythe 

absurde. 

Au surplus, nous sommes menacés par des dangers 

plus graves que jamais. Ces dangers, nous les 

connaissons, mais il prennent un accent plus dramatique 

que jamais lorsqu'on constate les dérives, 

les différences s'accentuant entre nos politiques 

économiques, sociales et monétaires. Ces dangers, 

résident- davantage que lors des crises précédentes 

- dans les questions de principe qui sont évoquées, 

le « juste retour )) et le protectionnisme. J e le 

dis clairement: je crains que l'on passe parfois de 

la reconquete du marché intérieur à un protectionnisme, 

au début mal déguisé, mais qui serait un 

danger mortel pour notre Communauté. 


Il est vrai que ce n 'est pas dans un contexte aussi 

désastreux que s'est inserite la démarche qui a 

conduit à la mise en place de notre commission 

institutionnelle et à l'intiative de M. Spinelli. Il 

faut rappeler qu'elle remonte à deux ans déjà, et 

sans doute l'idée meme de cette initiative est-elle 

76

48 

Veil 

projet réalisable et efficace - devrait se traduire 

lors de nos élections par une dynamique dans 

toute l'Europe. C'est un pari qui a été fait, c'est un 

pari auquel j'adhère totalement et, parodiant Pascal, 

je dirai qu'en tout état de cause, ou nous avons 

raison et nous avons gagné ou nous avons perdu. 

Je préfère ne pas l'envisager, car je veux faire 

confiance à l'Europe et aux Européens, pensant 

qu'ils veulent se battre pour survivre. 

(Applaudissements) 

Velkomstord 

BegriiJJung 

KocÀroç flUJoc-re 

W e/come 

Souhaits de bienvenue 

Benvenuto 

Welkomstgroet 

VORSITZ : BRUNO FRIEDRICH 

Vizeprasiden t 

Der Prasident. - Ich darf dem Haus mitteilen, dai'> 

wir mit sehr grof>er Freude auf der Ehrentribi.ine 

den Prasidenten des islandischen Parlaments, 

Herrn Jon Helgason, begri.if>en, der unserer Institution 

fi.ir einige Tage die Ehre seines Besuches 

gibt. 

(Beifall) 

Das Europihsche Parlament unterstreicht die ganz 

besondere Bedeutung dieses Besuches, da es sich 

um den ersten Kontakt mit dem islandischen 

Parlament in der Person seines Prasidenten handelt. 

Wir hoffen, dai'> die verschiedenen Gesprache, die 

Herr Helgason in Straf>burg fi.ihren wird, moglichst 

fruchtbar und nutzbringend sein werden 

und dai'> sein Besuch die Aufnahme engerer Beziehungen 

zwischen unseren beiden Institutionen 

ermoglicht. 

79 

Reform af traktaterne og den europreiske union 

(fortsrettelse) 

Reform der Vertrage und Europaische Union 

(Fortsetzung) 

Me-rocppv0p.HT1J -rrov !:vv01JKrov Kat:l -rijç 

'EvpctJ1roclKijç 'Evwuemç (uvvtxeloc) 

Reform of the Treaties and European union 

(continuation) 

Réforme des traités et Union européenne (suite) 

Riforma dei trattati e Unione europea (seguito) 

Herziening van de Verdragen en de Europese 

Unie (voortzetting) 

Der Prasident.- Das Wort hat Herr Horgan. 

Mr Horgan. - Mr President, I feel very privileged 

to be speaking in this debate on behalf of the 

Socialist Group, and indeed on behalf of my own 

party, the Irish Labour Party, as a comparative 

newcomer to this Parliament, having been here 

only since October. 

The first thing I would like to do is to congratulate 

the authors, and particularly Mr Spinelli, on the 

idealism and the vision which have informed not 

just this initiative, but all the work, and indeed the 

passion, that have been devoted to the cause of 

European unity for many years now. I welcome 

the report in its board outlines, even though I 

might demur on many of the details. 

I think it is important that we should realize that 

it is a bad time, unfortunately, for idealism now in 

Europe. When we look at the moves towards 

greater European unity, we have to ask ourselves, 

whether the politica! will for greater unity is there 

at the moment throughout the Community, and if 

it is not there, why it is not there. I suspect that 

the politica! will for greater unity is not yet there, 

and that one of the main reasons for this is not 

that anybody distrusts or dislikes Mr Spinelli or 

this report or his beliefs in this matter, but that the 

Community is not seen to have delivered on its 

promises. That perception impels different people 

in different directions. It impels people like Mr 

Spinelli towards greater cooperation, greater unity, 

greater institutional change. It impels the suspicious, 

the sceptical and the downright hostile in 

other directions. I fear myself that the political 

will for greater unity will not come about until the 

Community is seen to have delivered more in the 

economie sphere than it has until now. 


One of the ideas behind the creation of the 

Community is that of convergence, the idea that 

the Member States economies and the standard of 

living of their citizens would converge over a 

period of time. Instead of convergence, we have 

had divergence. The situation has got even worse. 

The gaps in living standards between the rich and 

the poor - whether they are farmers or industriai 

workers is irrelevant - have actually widened in 

many parts in the Community. 

If we are to be honest, we shall have to accept the 

fact that the problems of the Community relate 

80

Horgan 

not only to problems between the Institutions, but 

also to problems within the Institutions. Everybody 

knows about the problem within the Council 

and the question of the Luxembourg compromise ; 

everybody, too, knows about the problems of the 

C.ommission and the hand of national interest that 

makes its presence felt even there ; but there are 

also problems here with the Parliament. I think it 

is extraordinary that we still waste so much time 

in this Parliament trying to deal with amendments 

which go through all the committees and 

right onto the floor of this House and act as a 

log-jam for the work of this Parliament. I think 

we sometimes take decisions about what we discuss 

which encourage people not to take us too 

seriously. I am thinking of reports on the need to 

standardize the height of motorcar bumpers in 

Europe or on trying to decide the length in centimetres 

of a feeding trough for a battery hen in 

Europe. These are all no doubt important matters, 

but they are hardly matters for this Parliament. 

We also have problems with the policies. While it 

is true that the agricultural policy, for example, 

has resulted in a substantial transfer of resources 

to my country, this has not been without cost, 

because it has happened in a way that has distorted 

agricultural production and in many cases 

given rise to unnecessary hostility between town 

and country. We should beware when we talk 

about policies saying that because the present 

policies have not worked, we should just pump 

more money into them. We might be throwing 

good money after bad. We have to look at all the 

policies and ask if they are not doing what they 

are supposed to be doing. Is it because they are not 

being supported financially enough, or is it 

because there is something structurally wrong 

with these policies? W e should then have a look at 

the structures of these policies and if possible take 

steps along the lines recently suggested by the 

Commission for adopting an integrated regional 

approach to the problem. 

Finally, Mr President, I would like to say a word 

about European political cooperation. My country 

is a neutral country - that is, it will not take part 

in any military alliance- and in the early stages of 

discussion on this report I put down some amendments 

designed to underline that fact. 

We shall be withdrawing these a men dments, 

because we do not want to divide the House unnecessarily 

; but they have been put down as 

markers, because I think it is important to realize 

that neutrality in the Europe of the future is not 

the disease that some right-wing people would 

have us believe but is, certainly in the case of my 

country, a positive and creative response to the 

81 

problems of world peace, both in Europe and in 

the world as a whole. Insofar as questions of 

security are concerned, I should like to see European 

politica! cooperation developing, not least in 

conjonction with the other European countries 

outside the Ten who also have a strong and long 

tradition of neutrality, into a new force for world 

peace based on respect for the United Nations 

Charter and for the ideals that it embodies. 

Der Prasident.- Das Wort hat Herr Lalor. 

Mr Lalor.- Mr President, I am afraid I have to say 

that the Spinelli report, while admirable in very 

many ways, runs the risk of adding to the growing 

disillusionment with the Community amongst our 

peoples. 

I agree that we must move forward, improve the 

institutional balance and decision-making in our 

Community. I .am also anxious that we fix our 

sights on European union as the ultimate goal of 

all our efforts. However, it seems to me that Mr 

Spinelli is putting the cart before the horse, to use 

an old expression. The result of all this will be to 

strengtQ.en the hand of those who are opposed to 

the Community. 

Let us look at the political facts in the Member 

States at present. In the UK there is a near majority 

opposed to Community membership. In addition, 

even the present government there is totally 

opposed to the terms of their membership which 

have been renegotiated on at least two occasions. 

Mr Jackson says political will is lacking. Yes, I 

agree, political will will continue to be lacking 

unless they get their way. In Denmark there is 

also strong opposition to the Community. Even in 

my own country an 85 % enthusiasm and endorsement 

of Community membership is now more 

realistically in the region of 50 %. To add to this, a 

tendentious and unnecessarily coloured report is 

in my opinion certainly not called for at this time. 


European integration must not be founded on the 

basis of contesting the legitimacy of the Member 

States but rather on the integration of their economies 

and the harmonization of their policies. 

Further politica! integration can only follow economie 

and social development. The primary motivation 

for integration is the further development 

of the Community through the Treaty framework. 

This means, firstly, the resolution of the complex 

of internai problems facing the Community in the 

immediate future. Secondly, the development of 

an ever closer Community of interest through the 

adoption of concrete and visible measures designed 

to face up to the economie and social prob- 

49 

82

50 

Lalor 

lems of the Community and to further the aim of 

convergence of the economies of the Member 

States. In this connection we recall that since 

accession we have actually seen more divergence 

in Member States' economies. Thirdly, this means 

the provision of the necessary resources for the 

Community to maintain existing policies and to 

develop new ones designed to achieve the aims 

already mentioned. 

It will be evident that the Community is an evolutionary 

concept whose further development is 

conditional on the necessary politica! consensus 

being created at each successive stage. 

The paralysis from which the Community suffers 

at present stems from politica! factors and cannot 

be resolved by dramatic initiatives or tinkering 

with the existing institutional structures. In fact, 

given the known divergence of views in the 

Member States at present, any attempts of 'the 

great leap forward' variety envìsaged here in 

this report could well be divisive and ultimately 

counterproductive. In particular, amendment of 

the Treaties is nota realistic proposition. 

The development of the Community as an entity, 

as already pointed out, depends on the development 

of an ever closer preconceived Community 

of interests ba·sed on the economie and social 

objectives already referred to, and until this has 

evolved and is seen to be evolved significant shifts 

in the inter-institutional balance cannot be contemplated. 

Mr President, the Genscher-Columbo debate has 

shown the difficulties for several Member States 

of accepting proposals far weaker and less extensive 

than those envisaged in the Spinelli resolution. 

Der Prasident.- Das Wort hat Herr Pfennig. 

Pfennig. - Herr Prasident, meine Kolleginnen und 

Kollegen ! Als 1979 die ersten Direktwahlen zum 

Europaischen Parlament begannen, auBerten 

viele die Befurchtung, das neugewahlte Parla 

ment werde sich zu einer Verfassunggebenden 

Versammlung Europas entwickeln. Andere dagegen 

hofften und forderten, daB das neue Parlament 

eine europaische Verfassung erarbeiten solle. 

Zu letzteren zahlen auch die europaischen 

Christdemokraten, die von Anfang an die Gemeinschaft 

als den foderalistischen Weg zu einer 

Europaischen Union verstanden haben. Wer nun 

diesen Weg weiter gehen will, benotigt auch eine 

europaische V erfassung. J eder ande re kann si c h 

mit normalen Staatsvertragen zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten 

zufriedengeben. 

83 

Der Institutionelle AusschuB hat jetzt dem Europaischen 

Parlament einen Arbeitsplan vorgelegt, 

der vom Parlament ein Ja fordert auf die Frage, 

ob der Institutionelle AusschuB eine europaische 

Verfassung ausarbeiten soll. Die Leitlinien dieses 

Arbeitsplans zeigen auf, wie in der Gemeinschaft 

als ktinftiger U nion verfahren werden soll, zum 

einen zwischen der Union und den Mitgliedstaaten 

und - zweitens - zwischen der Unionsorganen 

untereinander. Die Leitlinien machen 

deutlich, daB das Parlament nach seinen verschiedenen 

Vorschlagen ftir institutionelle Verbesserungen 

im Rahmen der derzeit geltenden Vertrage 

jetzt auch einen konstitutionellen Impuls zur 

Fortentwicklung der Gemeinschaft geben soll. 

Wenn das Parlament diesem Verfahrensvorschlag 

des Institutionellen Ausschusses zustimmt, muB es 

sich tiber vier Dinge im klaren sein, damit der 

eingeschlagene Weg auch zum Ziel ftihrt. 

Erstens : Di e Burger der in der· Gemeinschaft 

vereinigten Mitgliedstaaten- so lautet die Formulierung 

in der W ahlakte fi.ir di e Direktwahlen 

durch die von uns vertretenen 270 Millionen Menschen 

- mtissen verstehen, warum die Gemeinschaft 

konstitutionelle Fortschritte braucht. 

Zweitens : Das Ergebnis der Arbeit des Institutionellen 

Ausschusses darf somit nicht nur eine Beschreibung 

sein, wie die Europaische Gemeinschaft 

funktionieren und sich fortentwickeln soll, 

sondern muB vor allem beinhalten, was die Gemeinschaft 

in Zukunft konkret tun soll. 

Drittens: Den nationalen Parlamenten kann ein 

erneuter Teilverzicht auf ihre Souveranitat zugunsten 

der Gemeinschaft nur dann zugemutet 

werden, wenn sie - erstens - den Umfang des 

Verzichts genau erkennen konnen und wenn - 

zweitens - die Aufgabe von nationalen zugunsten 

gemeinschaftlicher Befugnisse nicht mit einem 

weiteren Verlust demokratischer Legitimation 

und mit der Starkung btirokratischer, anonymer 

Ministerratstatigkeit verbunden ist. Anders ausgedrtickt: 

Weiterer nationaler Teilverzicht auf Souveranitat 

ist nur zumutbar, wenn die Interessen 

der Burger in Zukunft gemeinsam wahrgenommen 

werden, durch das Europaische Parlament, 

das allen Bi.irgern in allen Staaten der Gemeinschaft 

gleichzeitig verantwortlich ist, und 

durch den Ministerrat, dessen Regierungen den 

nationalen Parlamenten verantwortlich sind, die 

wiederum nur den Bi.irgern ihres jeweiligen Landes 

gegentiber verantwortlich bleiben. 


SchlieJ3lich der vierte Punkt, der mir durchaus 

auch am Herzen liegt : Ohne die so oft genannte 

vierte Gewalt in unseren Demokratien - d.h. 

84

52 

Johnson 

actually to draft articles in the Treaty which will 

cover those policies, which will give us a much 

firmer legal basis for things we know we want to 

do, because we are doing them at Community 

level, but which will put beyond doubt the 

Community's competence in these fields. That, I 

think, is a major role for Parliament and for the 

committee now. 

The next item is to look at two aspects of our work 

which are not covered at all in the Treaties, i.e., 

for which there is no legai basis or where there 

are lacunae to be filled. Here, too, I think, we need 

to draft careful articles which will enable us to 

move beyond the present situation. 

My own view is that, if we can get the substance 

right, if we can now ; as it were, reframe and 

reformulate the Treaties, some of the problems 

which seem today most pressing and some of the 

issues which are the source of greatest contention 

between States, will fall away. If, for example, 

there were proper emphasis on regional, structural 

and environmental policies in the Treaties, I 

am absolutely sure that the budgetary problem 

which is now so acute would not be what it is. 

Countries like Britain, Greece and Portugal would 

not have the same difficulties, because the whole 

balance of the Community's spending would be 

different. Again, had we managed to write into 

the Treaties right from the start the kind of formula 

which Mr Lange suggested two or three 

years ago to this Parliament for an automatic 

corrective mechanism as far as budgetary contributions 

are concerned - a kind of mechanism 

based on gross per capita domestic product or 

perhaps just gross domestic product - the issues 

which divide us so much now would be much less 

important. 

So the substance is cruciaL I think that when we 

look at the five points in paragraph 4 of the 

Spinelli resolution which refer to the tasks of the 

union - growing politica!, economie and social 

solidarity within a framework of respect for 

human rights, effective commitment to balanced 

and just economie and social development for all 

the countries of the world, a strong and responsible 

contribution to peace and security and, finally, 

responsible conservation. and rehabilitation of 

natural environment - we recognize the 

guidelines which really ought to make it possible 

for us to look again at the substance of the Treaty 

and to come forward with intelligent ideas. 

I do hope that the Commission, whic_h isso much a 

repository of brains and imagination, will not 

neglect this opportunity to think very carefully 

and to give us the benefit of its thought as far as 

87 

the suggestion of new ideas, new areas of work, or 

even new formulations for the Treaty are concerned. 

This does not have to be done formally by 

the Commission. I merely say, since Mr Andreissen 

is there, that I do very much look forward, - I 

think we all do, - to getting thoughts from them as 

welL 

On the institutions - because that, if you like, is 

the second aspect of our work, the actual institutional 

relationships - of course there are a number 

of issues which are very much in our minds. It 

was, perhaps, extemely unfortunate that the farmprices 

vote- the famous decision to fix farm prices 

by a majority vote in accordance with the Treatyhappened 

at exactly the time when the Council 

was also considering the Genscher-Columbo 

proposals; but I think we ha ve a chance in our 

work on this institutional business to abstract 

from the immediate and give now some rather 

careful thought to those Treaty revisions which 

may improve the situation. 

I am not going to go into detail of the possibilities. 

I believe we need some kind of matrix which will 

indicate what sorts of decision can be taken by 

what kind of vote and indeed by what institutions. 

There may very well be some decisions which can 

only be taken unanimously, but there will be 

many which can be taken by a majority vote in 

the CounciL There will be many decisions which 

the Commission itself should have the power to 

take. I think it is important that we look at those 

things in some detaiL There is a chance now to 

move away from the present crisis in decisionmaking 

and to produce some long-term proposals 

which of course safeguard all the interests which 

need to be safeguarded. 

As far as the Parliament is concerned, we need, I 

think, to make it quite clear that this institutional 

work, this 'crocodile' initiative, is not in any sense 

a grab for power by Parliament. It would be very 

wrong at this juncture to present i t as that ; probably 

we should not have public support for our 

work if it were to be presented as a grab for power 

by Parliament. The powers of Parliament are only 

one aspect of this issue, and they are probably not 

even the most important aspect by any means. 

Nevertheless, I do think there is one thing which 

we need to make fairly clear and that is this : 

when the European Parliament, by a clear decision, 

has asked the Commision to do something - I 

am not now talking about decisions taken late at 

night by twelve votes to ten, I am talking about a 

decision clearly expressed - then there is an obligation 

on the Commission to respond. If the 

Commission doesn't feel that now, then it is important 

that we manage somehow to write it in to 


88

54 

Chambeiron 

la construction européenne par le biais d'une 

transformation institutionnelle, correspond bien 

aux exigences actuelles et si elles sont bien à 

l'ordre du jour de l'actualité. 

En d'autres termes, existe-t-il, dans nos pays respectifs, 

aussi bien au niveau des gouvernements 

qu'au sein des opinions publiques, une volonté 

suffisante pour justifier le dépassement de la construction 

européenne actuelle, et pour quoi faire ? 

N'y a-t-il pas, au sein de notre Assemblée, une 

surestimation de la sensibilité des opinions publiques 

à l'égard de ce qu'on nomme communément 

l'esprit européen? Admettons-le franchement, 

meme si cela peut etre désagréable à entendre : la 

Communauté, en tant qu'institution, est loin de 

susciter partout un enthousiasme égal. 

Les promesses que l'Europe des Six d'abord, des 

Neuf ensuite, des Dix enfin seraient une chance 

irremplaçable pour les travailleurs, pour les paysans 

ont fait rapidement piace à une inquiétude, à 

un mécontentement nés de la montée du chomage, 

de la persistance de l'inflation, de la fermeture 

d'usin"es, de la disparition de milliers et de milliers 

d'exploitations agricoles familiales, de l'incapacité 

de la Communauté de faire face aux défis dans le 

domaine de l'énergie ou de matières premières. 

L'absence de fermeté à l'égard des désordres monétaires, 

engendrés par la politique dominatrice 

des États-Unis, a fait germer le doute quant à la 

volonté commune de s'opposer à la perspective 

d'une Europe vassalisée et réduite progressivement 

à un sta tut de (( super - sous-traitant ». Et je 

n 'évoque pas la question des droits de l'Homme, 

trop souvent envisagée, notamment au sein de 

notre Assemblée, avec un esprit de sélectivité 

évident. 

Peut-on affirmer que, dans la recherche de solutions 

communautaires aux grands problèmes auxquels 

sont confrontés nos pays, toutes les virtualités 

que recèlent les traités ont été explorées? Un 

nouvel habillage juridique ne fera-t-il pas apparaìtre 

la Communauté camme plus attachée à la 

forme qu'au contenu d 'une politique efficace, 

cherchant, dans une sorte de fuite en avant, un 

moyen d'esquiver ses responsabilités? On invoque 

généralement le fait national pour expliquer les 

grippages des institutions, camme s'il y avait des 

États entièrement acquis à l'idée européenne et 

d'autres qui le seraient moins ou pas du tout. C'est 

peut-etre oublier un peu vite que le conflit des 

forces sociales qui caractérisent nos pays respectifs 

a sa projection naturelle au niveau de l'Europe. 

Qu'on le veuille ou non, le fait national existe. Il 

n'est pas, camme on le prétend un peu vite, l'expression 

d'un égoi"sme, voire d'un chauvinisme 

détestable. Il est une réalité vivante, solidement 

91 

ancrée dans le terreau historique de nos pays, et 

on ne gommera pas cette réalité, meme avec la 

plus belle construction juridique. 

Dans nos sociétés, le droit n'a jamais été autre 

chose que le reflet des mreurs, la traduction, au 

plan juridique, d'un lent murissement des idées. Il 

est trop simple d'incriminer la loi, au motif que le 

juge l'applique mal. Nous devons savoir faire la 

part du reve et de la réalité. Ce qu'attendent de la 

Communauté les peuples de nos pays, c'est qu'elle 

apporte des réponses positives et tangibles aux 

grands problèmes de l'heure. Ce n'est pas le cadre 

juridique qui constitue le frein, mais l'absence de 

volonté politique. Il existe incontestablement, 

parmi les peuples de la Communauté, une volonté 

profonde de voir se développer la coopération 

entre les pays de la Communauté. Si la célébration, 

un peu triste, du 25• anniversaire de la signature 

du Traité de Rome a fait apparaìtre l'échec 

d'une certaine politique dans le cadre d'une crise 

profonde, elle ne doit pas cependant conduire au 

renoncement. Il faut inventer les moyens d 'une 

coopération européenne nouvelle et efficace et 

aider à créer un véritable esprit européen. Mais 

gardons-nous de construire des cathédrales aussi 

longtemps que la foi sera absente. 

Der Prasident.- Das Wort hat Frau Spaak. 

Mme Spaak.- Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et 

Messieurs, camme le rappelle l'exposé des motifs 

de M. Spinelli, toutes les propositions déposées au 

cours des années pour pallier les insuffisances des 

structures des Communautés et passer à une meilleure 

intégration se sont enlisées dans ce qu'il 

appelle joliment (( les méandres diplomatiques ». 

Cinq éléments fondamentaux nous obligent cependant 

aujourd'hui à aller de l'avant et à renforcer 

l'Union politique européenne. Je les cite dans le 

désordre. La crise économique qui frappe les dix 

États de la Communauté européenne, chacun 

d'eux incapable d'en sortir isolément sans la solidarité 

des neuf autres. L 'élargissement prévu à 

l'Espagne et au Portugal. Le role pacificateur que 

doit jouer l'Europe dans un monde où se multiplient 

les conflits. Dans le dialogue Nord-Sud, 

poursuivre et intensifier une politique qui a déjà 

porté ses fruits. Enfin, dans nos relations avec les 

États-Unis, nous comporter en partenaires égaux, 

responsables des intérets de nos peuples. 


Je félicite M. Spinelli pour son rapport et suis 

d'accord avec son analyse. M. Spinelli a une large 

expérience du fonctionnement de la Communauté, 

et, mieux qu'un autre, il peut en dénoncer les 

faiblesses, tout en définissant les améliorations 

indispensables. Il le fait en termes clairs et vigou- 

92

Spaak 

reux, notamment en ce qui concerne les limites du 

Conseil européen. 

Je voudrais insister sur la non-contradiction qui 

existe entre tirer tout le parti possible du traité 

existant pendant les années restantes de cette 

législation, et réfléchir en tant que Parlement sur 

un projet d'amélioration de ce traité, et cela, bien 

entendu, avant les prochaines élections. Et je voudrais 

insister ici sur toute l'importance du principe 

de la subsidiarité. Au cours de la campagne qui 

précédera les élections européennes, nous devrons 

présenter aux électeurs un projet cohérent et porteur 

d'avenir. 

Une dernière réflexion, Monsieur le Président. On 

entend de plus en plus évoquer, dans le monde 

politique et dans la presse, ce qu'on appelle «l'Eurape 

à plusieurs vitesses ». J e pense que cette 

notion est une perversion absolue de l'idée européenne 

et qu'elle pourrait provoquer, si elle était 

entendue, des dommages irréversibles à l'idéal 

commun que nous défendons dans une grande 

majorité de ce Parlement. Qui peut imaginer qu'on 

puisse mener une politique industrielle à 6 plus 4, 

une politique monétaire à 5 plus 5, une politique 

agricole à 9 plus l, et que toutes ces actions soient 

coordonnées au sein d'une coopération politique 

cohérente? Il faut choisir, parmi tous les problèmes 

qui se posent, ceux dont la solution est prioritaire- 

celui du ch6mage me parait etre de ceux-là 

- dégager les solutions et les moyens applicables 

pour l'ensemble de la Communauté. Cela, bien 

entendu, au sein d'une organisation institutionnelle 

plus efficace et plus démocratique, comme le 

demande le rapport de M. Spinelli. 

Der Prasident.- Das Wort hat Herr Visentini. 

Visentini. - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, 

l'elezione diretta a suffragio universale di questo 

Parlamento, nel giugno del 1979, fu la grande 

speranza di molti cittadini della Comunità che 

ponevano e pongono l'integrazione europea come 

un loro ideale e come una meta politica e che 

vedono in essa la condizione per la sopravvivenza 

della cultura e della civiltà dell'Europa e della 

difesa dei suoi livelli economici e sociali. 

Tuttavia, già in sede di elezioni del 1979, eravamo 

consapevoli dei limiti angusti che i Trattati 

pongono all'azione di questo Parlamento e lo 

dicemmo chiaramente ai nostri elettori ; ma, 

proprio dagli elettori, ci venne un fermo richiamo. 

La loro volontà, infatti, non era di eleggere un 

Parlamento, disposto a subire la crisi della 

Comunità europea e la rinuncia all'integrazione. 

Essi, nel compiere il loro dovere di recarsi alle 

urne per eleggere un Parlamento europeo, hanno 

93 

inteso operare in modo che lo spirito e la volontà e 

gli ideali, da cui erano mossi, si traducessero in 

azione politica. 

Fin dall'indomani della costituzione di questa 

Assemblea eletta apparvero chiare l'impotenza e 

l'inutilità, se essa avesse dovuto limitarsi ad 

operare nell'ambito concesso dai Trattati. Ciò 

costituì motivo di soddisfazione per gli 

antieuropeisti, uno dei quali, proprio in quest'Aula, 

qualificò questo Parlamento come inutile 

e stupido. Ciò costituì invece ragione di profonda 

insoddisfazione per noi europeisti. 

Io stesso ho avuto ripetutamente occasione di 

sottolineare nei termini più vivaci la contraddizione 

di aver chiamato alle urne 250 milioni di 

europei per eleggere un'Assemblea, che si limita 

ad esprimere pareri consultivi sulle deviazioni al 

libero scambio, che vota ordini del giorno che non 

hanno alcuna rilevanza - né pratica, né politica - 

sul Cile e sulla Cambogia e sul Salvador e che non 

ha nessun reale potere neppure in merito al 

bilancio comunitario. Più volte ho invitato l'Assemblea 

a strutturarsi, in modo che essa non 

ripetesse nei suoi gruppi gli interessi dei partiti, 

delle relative correnti e i nominalismi interni di 

ogni singolo paese, ma operasse secondo gli 

impegni europeistici conformi al mandato 

ricevuto da ciascuno di noi, rilevando la necessità 

di iniziative intese a modificare la situazione di 

crisi della Comunità che deriva dall'insufficienza 

delle istituzioni comunitarie e fra queste del Parlamento. 

Il sistema istituzionale previsto dagli attuali Trattati, 

è un sistema di reciproche limitazioni e di 

possibili veti ; e il più debole fra gli organismi 

della Comunità, quello a cui non spettano neppure 

poteri reali di limitazione e di veto nei confronti 

degli altri, è proprio il Parlamento. 

Questo sistema istituzionale poteva avere senso 

nella fase iniziale della Comunità, quando vi 

potevano essere ancora motivi di sospetto, o 

comunque di cautela, nei rapporti fra i singoli 

Stati e quando si trattava di attuare la politica 

agricola e il libero scambio previsti l'uno e l'altra 

dai Trattati con norme precise e vincolanti. 


Le istituzioni, così come previste dai Trattati, 

come pure i meccanismi di decisione, si sono 

invece dimostrati incapaci di nuove creazioni e di 

rispondere alle esigenze di sviluppo che si 

ponevano, mentre problemi di grande portata 

politici ed economici sono posti anche all'Europa, 

senza che i singoli Stati abbiano possibilità di 

risol verli. 

55 

94

56 

Visentini 

Sono appunto le istituzioni e i meccanismi di 

decisione che occorre modificare. Non abbiamo 

mai avuto l'illusione che il libero scambio e i più 

stretti legami economici, portassero di per sé, in 

modo evolutivo, e quasi inerziale, alla integrazione 

politica; e certo non ripeteremo l'ingenuità- e mi 

sia consentito dire -la banalità, di affermare che i 

cittadini europei hanno esigenze di occupazione, di 

livello di vita, di tranquillità sociale e non di 

istituzioni, perché la soluzione di ogni problema 

economico e sociale presuppone istituzioni e processi 

decisionali, capaci di affrontarli e di 

risolverli. E ciò vale anche per la Comunità 

europea, dove la mancanza di istituzioni ha 

portato alle attuali crisi e alla sua impotenza anche 

nei problemi economici e sociali. 

Di ciò si è resa perfettamente conto questa 

Assemblea, la quale infatti, con la risoluzione del 9 

luglio 1981, ha stimato dovere elaborare proposte 

di riforma delle istituzioni comunitarie, dando 

incarico alla Commissione istituzionale di elaborarle. 

Si è presa in questo modo una iniziativa 

innovativa, nell'indirizzo dell'integrazione degli 

Stati, che è il solo mezzo per salvare l'Europa e si è 

respinta l'opposta soluzione, che va sotto i diversi 

nomi e diverse concezioni : di «Europa a due 

velocità >> o « di Europa alla carta>>, la quale 

prende anch'essa le mosse dal riconoscimento 

della crisi della Comunità, ma ne trae come conseguenza 

la rinuncia ad ogni processo di 

integrazione e la concezione della Comunità quasi 

come un club che offre servizi, dei quali ciascun 

associato può avvalersi o meno. 

Occorrono una unione e una integrazione di tutti 

per risolvere i problemi che, in una forma o nell'altra, 

sono di tutti i paesi e che chiedono l'apporto 

di tutti. Spetterà all'equilibrio politico di ciascuno, 

alla prudenza delle decisioni di evitare poi che si 

determinano situazioni insostenibili per singoli 

Stati o per le loro popolazioni. 

La proposta, che è stata elaborata dalla Commissione 

istituzionale, indica gli indirizzi fondamentali 

di principio e di metodo. Essa ripete giustamente 

che la meta è di modificare le istituzioni. Il 

punto centrale della risoluzione è, quindi, a mio 

avviso, il numero 8, in cui si afferma l'indirizzo 

fondamentale, per cui le diverse istituzioni 

comunitarie devono essere regolati in modo che 

ciascuno collabori nell'ambito delle sue competenze 

alla formazione del processo decisionale. 

Questa affermazione vuole quindi superare la 

situazione attuale in cui le istituzioni comunitarie 

sono disciplinate in modo da potere elidersi 

reciprocamente nel processo decisionale. 

Nel medesino punto 8 si delineano le future istituzioni. 

Questi sono, a mio avviso, - ripeto _- i pro- 

95 

blemi più importanti. Seguono al numero 9 le 

indicazioni dei problemi di carattere finanziario, 

altrettanto importanti, dove si dispone che, nella 

ripartizione nei limiti delle risorse fiscali 

periodicamente stabilite, l'Unione e gli Stati membri, 

determineranno in modo autonomo le proprie 

risorse e i propri bilanci. Rimane tuttavia da stabilire 

il punto difficile ed essenziale relativo alle 

procedure di ripartizione delle risorse fiscali fra 

gli Stati membri e l'Unione. 

Nel concludere, mi richiamo a quanto dicevo 

all'inizio sulle attese che molti elettori europei 

hanno riposto in questo Parlamento e nella 

pochezza invece dei suoi compiti istituzionali e 

della sua attività limitata a modesti aspetti 

burocratici o a inutili manifestazioni declamatorie. 

Bisogna impedire che la delusione diventi acquiescenza, 

rassegnazione e pigrizia. 

Questo Parlamento ha voluto assumere - anche se 

non è scritto nei _Trattati - l'iniziativa della 

riforma istituzionale della Comunità, assumendo 

così un'opera di ordine costituzionale ed esso presenterà 

le sue proposte direttamente ai parlamenti 

dei singoli Stati. In questa iniziativa il Parlamento 

europeo ritrova la sua ragione di essere come 

Assemblea eletta, la cui sovranità, il cui dovere 

iniziativa e la legittimazione dell'azione derivano, 

anche all'infuori dei Trattati, dal mandato 

direttamente ricevuto dagli elettori che hanno 

voluto eleggere un'Assemblea politica e non un 

organo burocratico di consulazione amministrativa. 

Der Priisident.- Das Wort hat Herr B0gh. 

Bogh. - Hr. formand, hele verden trues af inflation 

i penge, men EF trues yderligere af inflation i ord, 

og h0jdepunktet er formentlig naet med denne 

betrenknings orgier af ord og mytologi og visioner 

uden jordforbindelse. Ordene l0ber af med menneskene 

og river dem med i en religi0s, mystisk 

ekstase, hvor hverdagen og dens realiteter forsvinder 

i tage. 


Jeg bliver n0dt til at vrere lyseslukker midt i det 

ordorgie, der ber er fremme, og sp0rge om, hvad 

meningen egentlig er med disse krigshyl. Lad mig 

komme bare med to jordbundne sp0rgsmal i forbindelse 

med prremisserne for hele bygvrerket. 

Det ene er dette: Hvorfra ved disse geskreftige 

folk, hvad de europreiske folks forhabninger er? 

Mig bekendt bar vi kun to instrumenter til at 

grade befolkningernes 0nsker og begejstring i 

forhold til EF. Det ene er resultaterne af de direkte 

valg til EF-Parlamentet for 3 ar siden, og 

ber bar man abenbart lykkeligt glemt, at disse 

resultater i de lande, hvor der ikke var valgtvang, 

96

Jaquet 

taires, dans le domaine de la coopération politique, 

mais cette coopération, si utile qu'elle soit, ne se 

traduit pas encore par une action pleinement efficace 

qui seule devrait nous permettre tout à la fois 

d'assurer l'indépendance de notre Communauté et 

de faire face victorieusement aux grands· défis de 

notre temps. 

Si le problème de la contribution britannique a 

pris à certaines heures un caractère si inquiétant, 

c'est précisément parce que les préoccupations 

égorstes l'emportent toujours sur les préoccupations 

et l'intéret communautaires, c'est-à-dire, en 

fait, sur l'intéret bien compris de chacun de nos 

États. 

Devant une telle situation de fait qu'on ne saurait 

guère contester, la question qui se pose à nous peut 

etre formulée clairement. Allons-nous poursuivre 

dans la voie où nous sommes engagés? Dans l'affirmative, 

de compromis en compromis, de politique 

à la petite semaine en pratique à la petite 

semaine, ce qui n'est aujourd'hui qu'une union 

douanière deviendra, au bout du compte, une 

simple zone de libre-échange. 

Cette perspective répond peut etre au désir plus ou 

moins secret de certains. Elle n'est pas celle du 

groupe socialiste. Il nous faut donc réagir, alors 

qu'il est temps encore. 

Il faut réagir, mais comment? Bien évidemment, 

par une relance de la Communauté européenne. 

Plusieurs gouvernements se sont récemment penchés 

sur ce problème. 

Le gouvernement français a élaboré un mémorandum 

fondé sur 1

60 

Jaquet 

le vide, ce serait pour nos populations une illusion 

dangereuse suivie d'une sérieuse déception. Nous 

risquerions d'ètre engagés dans une sorte de fuite 

en avant qui nous donnerait peut-ètre bonne conscience, 

mais qui ne ferait guère progresser la 

construction de l'Europe. 

C'est pourquoi toute relance communautaire doit, 

je le crois profondément, comporter à la fois les 

politiques communes et les institutions pour les 

appliquer efficacement. Ce sont là deux éléments 

essentiels et inséparables, et c'est avec cette constante 

préoccupation que nous devons concevoir et 

poursuivre notre tache. 

C'est dans cet esprit que nous entendons examiner 

le rapport qui nous est présenté aujourd'hui par M. 


Pour bien préciser notre pensée, nous avons déposé 

un certain nombre d'amendements au nom 

du groupe socialiste, qui seront exposés au cours de 

ce débat, notamment par M. Jacques Moreau. C'est 

en fonction des réponses qui seront apportées à nos 

préoccupations que nous arrèterons finalement 

notre attitude. 

Presidente. - Ha facoltà di parlare l'onorevole 

Zecchino. 

Zecchino. - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, 

l'approvazione scontata della risoluzione che è al 

nostro esame mi induce a soffermarmi, più che sul 

contenuto, sulle ragioni che sorreggono o devrebbero 

sorreggere l'approvazione stessa. 

Infatti, al di là della quasi unanimità, che si 

registra intorno ad essa, io credo che non dobbiamo 

nasconderei l'esistenza di una serie di perplessità 

all'interno di questo nostro stesso Parlamento, 

perplessità anche soltanto sussurrate, ma 

che rischiano di minare, in qualche modo, la forza 

di questa iniziativa che deve essere vista, invece, 

come un iniziativa centrale della prima 

legislatura di questo Parlamento eletto a suffragio 

diretto. 

Infatti non dobbiamo dimenticare che la nostra 

iniziativa non si rivolge ad altri poteri comunitari, 

ma si rivolge soprattutto ai parlamenti nazionali e 

la possibilità di successo è legata alla capacità con 

cui noi sapremo trasfondere agli altri, all'esterno, 

ai parlamenti nazionali il nostro fermo convincimento, 

basandolo su motivazioni rigorose. 

A livello di enunciazione, credo che vi sia una 

generale concordanza sull'urgente necessità di far 

progredire l'Europa sulla strada dell'integrazione. 

Di fronte a questa enunciazione noi non possiamo 

103 

però che constatare come la situazione attuale sia 

caratterizzata da un modo stanco e lento, assai 

prossimo alla paralisi. Dobbiamo, come primo 

nostro dovere, farci carico di spiegare a noi stessi 

le ragioni di questo stato prossimo alla paralisi. 

Non possiamo non dire con fermezza, con chiarezza, 

che la situazione attuale è tale perché l'assetto 

istituzionale è oggettivamente impari e 

oggettivamente inadeguato rispetto alla realtà che 

abbiamo davanti. L 'assetto istituzionale nacque 

« sperequato >> fin dal momento dei trattati. É un 

assetto che vede la concentrazione della gran parte 

se non della totalità dei poteri, in un unico organo, 

in cui vige una sorte di regime " monopolista >>, il 

Consiglio, il quale, oltre ad esse re l 'unico 

depositario dei poteri reali, è l'organismo più 

avulso dalla logica comunitaria. 

A questa distorsione, a questo squilibrio, nato con i 

trattati, si è aggiunta una ulteriore spinta squilibratrice. 

Il problema dell'allargamento della 

Comunità è, politicamente, certo, un fatto positivo, 

ma ha finito per nuocere dal punto di vista dell'efficienza 

al funzionamento istituzionale. Inoltre vi 

è una prassi ulteriormente distorcente rispetto ai 

meccanismi iniziali. 

Di fronte a questo stato di cose noi, credo che 

dobbiamo con chiarezza porci il problema della 

modifica delle istituzioni, che deve rappresentare 

-io credo- il motivo e il movente centrale dell'attività 

di questo Parlamento. 

Ci dobbiamo rendere conto che il problema istituzionale, 

nel momento in cui noi lo affrontiamo, in 

termini di critica del passato, non deve significare 

critica rispetto a tutto ciò che la Comunità ha 

significato. Credo che se noi possiamo oggi porci il 

problema di nuove acquisizioni, lo dobbiamo al 

fatto stesso che esiste questa nostra Comunità. 

Esporre queste critiche significa soltanto dire con 

realismo che la possibilità dell'evoluzione 

comunitaria non può essere affidata ad una sorta 

di capacità autopropulsiva del sistema. Dobbiamo, 

cioè, renderei conto che occorre modificare le 

regole del gioco ; occorre, cioè, in poche parole, 

dotarci di nuovi strumenti di politica comunitaria. 


Di fronte a queste semplici verità, chi continua a 

prospettare come solutiva la politica cosiddetta 

«dei piccoli paesi >>, ritenedo quasi che a livello 

politico istituzionale viga una sorta di legge di 

Darwin che consente un'autoevoluzione degli 

organismi o nasconde una volontà di lasciare le 

cose come stanno o finisce per ripetere luoghi 

comuni privi di fondamento. Dopo 25 anni dall'entrata 

in vigore dei trattati non si può continuare a 

ripetere che i trattati debbono essere prima appli- 

T 

104

Zecchino 

cati nelle parti in cui non sono stati ancora applicati, 

senza farsi carico del perché esistono ancora 

spazi d'inapplicazione del trattato. 

Di fronte alla lezione dei fatti non si può bollare 

l'iniziativa di una rifondazione istituzionale della 

Comunità, come una inizativa astratta e astorica di 

marca illuminista. É piuttosto vero che chi oggi 

antepone ai problemi istituzionali i cosiddetti problemi 

di contenuto: la crisi economica e la 

disoccupazione, mi sia consentito dire che fa 

demagogia o non vuol comprendere che proprio la 

soluzione di questi problemi richiede la dotazione, 

da parte nostra, di strumenti validi il che significa 

di dotarci di istituzioni efficienti. L'efficienza 

istituzionale in un sistema democratico non può 

che nascere da due principi fondamentali: il principio 

della separazione dei poteri e il principio del 

bilanciamento dei poteri che significano anche 

responsabilità e reciproco controllo. 

Signor Presidente, concludo augurandomi che noi 

sapremo ridisegnare il modello istituzionale fondato 

su questi principi. Mi auguro soprattutto che 

sapremo sorreggere la nostra iniziativa con una 

doppia consapevolezza : che essa non ha 

alternative che, cioè, la strada che abbiamo intrapreso 

non ha alternative e che questo Parlamento 

ha la possibilità di legittimare la sua esistenza, 

soltanto se saprà concentrare il suo impegno e la 

sua forza su questa causa. 


Patterson. 

Mr Patterson. - Mr President, I want to address 

myself very briefly to what appears to be, on the 

face of it, a purely linguistic point but one which 

conceals important politica! arguments, namely, 

the principle of subsidiarity. Now this is a word 

the meaning of which is not readily apparent in 

English, and I notice that even Mr Spinelli says 

that i t is a term the translation of which is difficult 

in some languages. 

I was momentarily appalled when my colleague, 

Mr Jackson, who comes from a neighbouring constituency 

of mine, briefly seemed to claim paternity 

for this word. But I understand it is not the 

word but the concept which is in question - for 

which I am grateful - , because I have to say it is 

an extremely unfortunate word, M"r Spinelli, and 

gives rise to the question : 'In this union who is 

going to be subsidiary to whom ?' That is what it 

implies in English. And it does mean that we have 

to be extremely careful how we present what we 

are trying to achieve. 

For example, let us consider another question. 

'What is European union to be a union of ?' If we 

105 

take the model of the United States, which we all 

appear to be doing, and after all it is an institution's 

committee which has produced the report, 

we are talking about a union of states. But the 

EEC Treaty begins, not by talking about a union 

of states, but by talking about the ever-closer 

union of the peoples of Europe. And even if it is 

not legally true that we are talking about the 

peoples, it is certainly politically true. There will 

be no European union of any kind without the 

consent - and one could go even further and say 

without the enthusiasm of the people. I have to 

say, as far as my country, and I suspect most other 

Members' countries are concerned, at the moment 

they do not have that enthusiasm. Now what 

people do not want, in the first piace, is to repeat 

the errors of the traditional nation state at a 

continental level. In particular what they do not 

want is to superimpose on top of large-growing 

and remote national state apparatuses, another 

even more remote European bureaucracy. 

Now I know that is not really what we intend, but 

I am afraid i t is what most people think we intend. 

They think that what we are trying to do is to 

impose another layer of bureaucracy on them. In 

my country, opinion polls show wild overestimates 

of the current size of the European 

Community's staff in Brussels. That is because 

they fear precisely what we claim is an ideai. 

Hence the importance of the word 'subsidiarity'. I 

would suggest that three components of this word 

are essential. 

O ne, as Mr J ackson pointed out, the reservation of 

powers in our union at the most local level, compatible 

with efficient government. That is something 

which must be written in right from the 

beginning. Secondly, the history of the United 

States tells us that unless we are careful we shall 

get ourselves into a problem of states' rights and in 

constitutional terms what we must do is to entrench 

the rights 1 

of states in any union which we 

create. 


But finally, and here I return to the matter of 

people, we must recognize that the strength of 

European civilization lies in its variety. We are 

not talking just about a union of states, but a union 

of the components of the states and we must say 

something to the regions, to local cultures and, 

above all, to the desires of individuals and groups 

in our society. If we do not, if what we are attempting 

to do appears to be, or even worse is, 

merely putting more government on top of the 

superabundant governement we have already got, 

then we shall not have a European union in our 

time, and justifiably so and we, Mr Spinelli, will 

have been wasting our time in this Parliament. I 

61 

106

62 

Patterson 

look to your committee to produce proposals 

which will actually, when we get back to our 

countries, be appealing to the peoples w ho elect us. 


Boserup. 

Boserup. - Hr. formand, rerede kolleger, virkeligheden 

har det med at snyde os i denne sal. For 

fjorten dage siden blev det klart, at selv et sa 

moderat forslag SOffi den sakaldte Genscher-Colombo-akt 

ikke kunne vedtages, og sa 

bruger vi vores tid i dag pa dette her ! Det kalder 

vi at sta med f0dderne solidt plantet i den bla luft. 

Jeg kan i 0vrigt sige, at jeg er glad for endelig 

tydeligt at se en krokodille. Hvad er det for noget? 

Tja, det er jo et fredeligt dyr, der ligger stille 

og venter, indtil det pludselig hugger til. Dette er 

en krokodille. Den er ufarlig og skikkelig, nar den 

hengiver sig til 0nsketrenkning og selvf0lgeligheder, 

og det er der meget af. 0nsketrenkning, nar 

den fastslar, at vi kan lave en union, der sikrer 

individuelle og kollektive rettigheder, respekterer 

kulturelle og etniske forskelle, den skal oven i 

k0bet skaffe fuld beskreftigelse og sandelig ogsa 

hindre regionale forskelle. Og oven i alt dette, 

skal den ogsa s0rge for 0konomisk og social retfrerdighed 

i alle lande. Den slags har en minister i 

den nuvrerende danske regering med rette kaldt 

flommeeuropreisk. 

Selvf0lgeligheder er der nok af. Domstolen skal 

ud0ve sit virke i et samfund, der bygger pa retsorden. 

Ved I hvad, det plejer vi at regne med, at 

domstole g0r ! Men hvad er det sa for en retsorden 

? I dag synes Domstolen at fortolke til fremme 

af integration, og det vil den samrend nok blive 

ved med. Der er en godbid af selvf0lgelighed i 

punkt 10. Der star, at de retsakter, der i 0jeblikket 

grelder, skal grelde, indtil man laver dem om. Det 

kalder jeg kloge mrends dybe tanker ! Men hvor 

hugger sa krokodillen til? Ja, den snupper naturligvis 

kulturpolitik og beskatning og sikkerhed og 

social politik, og sa har den opfundet noget nyt. 

Den har lagt et reg. Det hedder subsidirerprin 

cippet, og det lyder da prent. Det siger, at unionen 

kun skal beskreftige sig med sager, der bedst behandles 

i Frellesskabet. Men der star intet om af 

hvem, og hvordan man finder ud af, hvad det er 

for nogle sager. Hvordan skal det afg0res? V ed 

flertal, i vrerste fald v ed vregtet flertal i Rade t. J eg 

ma bede om mine himmelbla. 

Og sa trues der i 0Vrigt slemt ved at skrive om den 

uundgaelige udvikling af unionen. Sig mig, er 

dette skrebnetro, er det religion, eller er det bare 

gammeldags marxisme ? Det, der skal laves, er 

menneskevrerk og kan naturligvis laves om af 

107 

mennesker og fri os da fra trusler om det uundgaelige. 

I punkt 11 viser krokodillen altsa virkelig sine 

trender. Den vil til at skelne imellem sma og store 

rendringer af traktaten. Der skal abenbart laves et 

system, hvor man kan lempe mindre rendringer 

igennem sadan nrermest i stilhed. Den gar ikke ! 

Den slags kaldes salamiteknik og er uanstrendigt. 

Jeg kan i 0vrigt godt sige lidt positivt. Der star i 

punkt 5 b, at unionen kun handler pa klart fastsatte 

omrader. Det synes jeg er fint, og det synes 

jeg, at vi skulle begynde med i morgen. Det vil 

fjerne megen harme i Danmark, hvis man holdt 

op med at bruge artikel 235 til at kaste sig ud i alle 

mulige sager, man ingen forstand har pa, og som 

der ikke star noget om i traktaten. 

Ordf0reren er i 0vrigt af den opfattelse, at man 

ved solid og formodentlig kostbar og af skatteyderne 

betalt propaganda vil forma folk til at engagere 

sig i dette. Jeg vil meget gerne hjrelpe ordf0reren 

m ed et godt rad. J eg v il anbefale ham a t 

skrive en ny traktat, der begynder saledes : Lande, 

der tillader fremstilling af og handel med 

kernevaben, kan ikke vrere medlemmer. Lande, 

der tillader opstilling af andres kernevaben pa 

deres jord, skal udelukkes. Se, dette giver engagement, 

ikke mindst blandt ungdommen. Det vil 

give et reelt indhold i al den snak om fred og 

sikkerhed. J a, jeg tror sagar, a t mine vrelgere vil 

give sig til at overveje sagen endnu en gang. 

Presidente.- Ha facoltà di parlare l'onorevole De 

Gucht. 

De beer De Gucbt. - Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik 

wens een paar dingen te zeggen over het enige 

probleem dat ons als volksvertegenwoordigers 

thans moet bezighouden, met name de toekomst 

van Europa en de toekomst van dit Parlement. In 

de eerste plaats doe ik dit als tweede jongste lid 

van deze Vergadering en als vertegenwoordigers 

van degenen voor wie wij het Europa van de 

tweede generatie moeten bouwen. Ook als vertegenwoordiger 

van de generatie die zich ernstige 

vragen stelt over het nut van Europa, die Europa 

in vraag stelt en die voor de Europese éénwording 

een nieuw perspectief verwacht. Deze verwachting 

is tot op heden niet ingelost. 


Onze generatie verwacht van Europa een antwoord 

op de werkloosheid die vooral de jongeren 

treft. Onze generatie heeft niets aan diepgaande 

bespiegelingen maar wacht op concrete actie ; zij is 

weinig gevoelig voor een discussie over de instellingen 

van de Gemeenschap, een discussie die 

voor een stuk gedoemd is theoretisch en acade- 

108

De Gucbt 

misch te zijn. De vraag wat eerst moet komen, 

concrete politieke actie of een herstructurering 

van de instellingen, krijgt in dit licht een bijzondere 

betekenis. Het antwoord is dat de hervorming 

van die instellingen er vlug moet komen. Er 

is inderdaad geen ander antwoord. 

Zij die menen dat in de eerste plaats de aandacht 

moet gaan naar industriebeleid, monetair beleid 

en wetenschappelijk onderzoek vergeten dat de 

Gemeenschap niet beschikt of niet wil beschikken 

over de instrumenten om deze beleidsvormen ten 

uitvoer te leggen. Zolang er geen efficiente instellingén 

zijn kan men deze beleidsvormen vergeten 

en blijft elke discussie daarover woordenkramerij. 

Hoe wil men Europa opbouwen als men niet weet 

hoe de beslissingen moeten worden genomen die 

daartoe nodig zijn. Men spant de kar voor het 

paard. De instellingen die het meest gelijken op 

deze van het absolutisme, er is immers vereniging 

van wetgevende en uitvoerende macht in één 

band, zouden moeten kunnen antwoorden op de 

grootste uitdaging waarmede ooit een politieke 

entiteit werd geconfronteerd. Het creeren van één 

Gemeenschap uit de diversiteit van tien nationale 

staten die zelf nog maar hooguit 150 jaar bestaan is 

een onderneming zonder voorgaande en zal nooit 

kunnen slagen zonder efficiente instellingen. 

Sta mij toe even in te gaan op de kenmerken die 

zulke instellingen moeten hebben. Zij moeten in 

de eerste plaats democratisch zijn. Men kan er niet 

aan denken een Europa op te bouwen dat op 

termijn belangrijke taken van de nationale staten 

moet overnemen en dat niet democratisch is. De 

democratie in de nationale staten, hoe wankel 

ook, mag niet worden opgegeven voor een 

niet-democratisch Europa, ook al is het eengemaakt. 

Alleen een democratisch Europa heeft 

toekomst. Alles wat niet democratisch is ontspoort 

vroeg of laat. 

De instellingen moeten ten tweede slagvaardig 

zijn. De huidige instellingen kunnen op elk niveau 

en door iedereen geblokkeerd worden. Het is 

onontbeerlijk dat in de toekomst het uitblijven 

van actie binnen een bepaalde termijn tot gevolg 

moet hebben dat de bevoegdheden door een andere 

instelling worden overgenomen. 

Ten derde moeten de instellingen eenvouding zijn. 

Los van de samenstelling der componenten is de 

klassieke driedeling de meest aangewezen omdat 

zij eenvoudig is en wij ermee vertrouwd zijn in de 

nationale staten die voor de meesten onder ons de 

normale politieke ruimte betekenen. Zij spelen 

aldus in op de nationale realiteiten en gevoeligheden 

en dit is onontbeerlijk. Het communautaire en 

het nationale element moet weerspiegeld zijn en 

109 

zij moeten elkaar in evenwicht houden. Het meest 

duidelijk is dit in de wetgevende macht met een 

tweekamerstelsel. Men kan grote woorden hebben 

over een Europees gevoel, over het gevoel van 

Europese eenheid. In werkelijkheid hebben wij 

allen een verschillende en: meestal tegenstrijdige 

nationale achtergrond en geschiedenis. Wij mogen 

ons niet blind staren op het feit dat enkele zeldzame 

Europees denkenden met dit nationale 

aspect geen problemen hebben. De overgrote 

meerderheid denkt daar op zijn minst genuanceerder 

over. Ik zou willen besluiten met mijn 

dank en gelukwensen aan mijn collega, de heer 



Romualdi. 

Romualdi. - Signor Presidente, prendo la parola, 

per i pochi minuti che mi sono concessi, non per 

esprimere un giudizio di merito sul documento 

Spinelli - cosa praticamente impossibile in così 

breve tempo - il quale comunque riflette bene, 

anche se necessariamente in termini ancora 

troppo vaghi, il primo sforzo compiuto dalla commissione 

istituzionale - dalla quale lamento nella 

circostanza l'esclusione di un rappresentante 

dei non-iscritti -la cui costituzione rappresenta di 

per sé un atto di volontà e di indipendenza che 

onora il nostro Parlamento. Prendo la parola - 

dicevo- semplicemente per affermare che anche i 

non-iscritti della destra politica italiana sono d'accordo 

circa questi primi orientamenti, se pur 

troppo vaghi, delineati dalla commissione istituzionale, 

che mi auguro possa continuare in questo 

senso i suoi lavori per attingere a fasi successive, 

ovviamente tanto più difficili quanto più precise e 

incisive. 

Siamo d'accordo a che la Commissione assuma, nei 

nuovi trattati cui tendiamo, i compiti di un vero e 

proprio esecutivo con maggiore capacità di iniziativa 

e più vaste visioni d'assieme ; d'accordo a che i 

compiti del Consiglio, e del Consiglio europeo in 

particolare, siano meglio definiti, e con essi le 

modalità di assumere decisioni ed impegni ; e 

soprattutto d 'accordo a che il Parlamento abbia 

più vaste attribuzioni e poteri - in particolare di 

controllo e legislativi -in ogni campo. 


Vorrei a questo punto precisare che, pur se le 

direttive espresse da questo Parlamento non 

hanno carattere vincolante, tal che gli Stati non 

sono obbligati se non in pochi casi a renderle 

esecutive al loro interno, non si può nemmeno 

affermare, come ha fatto ieri un capo di Stato - e 

ne sono personalmente addolorato e mortificato 

come cittadino e uomo politico proprio di quello 

Stato - che il Parlamento europeo sia una camera 

63 

! IO

64 

Romualdi 

vuota i cui dibattiti non hanno alcuna eco in 

Europa e nel mondo. Questa affermazione è irresponsabile, 

soprattutto se si pensa che non è affatto 

colpa del Parlamento se la risonanza dei suoi 

lavori è poca o nulla, bensì proprio delle autorità 

dei vari Stati che forse per sacro egoismo 

nazionalistico - certamente male inteso - non 

riescono mai, o quasi mai, a superare i limiti dei 

loro interessi particolaristici. E non si rendono 

conto, nella loro miopia, che se l'Europa non sarà 

da tutti aiutata a procedere sulla via che porta alla 

fusione delle sue politiche, i suoi Stati, nonostante 

le loro grandi tradizioni e il loro peso economico, 

n·on potranno mai essere né grandi né ascoltate 

potenze nell'ambito del grande, pericoloso e drammatico 

gioco dei malfermi equilibri internazionali. 

Né potrebbero risolvere i loro gravi problemi 

economici, sociali, politici e istituzionali. 

È stato qui ricordato che questo Parlamento non è 

una costituente : d'accordo. Ma guai se dovessimo 

dimenticarci, onorevoli colleghi, del fatto che i 

nostri elettori, all'atto di mandarci qui, lo hanno - 

sia pur in modo vago e impreciso- creduto ! E guai 

se non ne avvertissimo la responsabilità e con essa 

quindi il dovere di agire per fare dell'attuale 

Europa comunitaria qualcosa di politicamente 

vivo e di più organicamente operante. 


Focke. 

Focke. - Herr Prasident, liebe Kolleginnen und 

Kollegen ! Es durfte den Burgern Europas nicht 

leichtfallen, das zu verstehen, was wir hier heute 

machen. Ich mochte es mit den folgenden Worten 

zu erklaren versuchen. 

Nachdem wir uns vor einem Jahr selbst den Auftrag 

erteilt haben, Vorschlage fiir Reformen der 

EG im Zusammenhang mit den Aufgaben und 

folglich auch den Institutionen vorzulegen, sind 

wir nun dabei, diesen vagen Auftrag genauer zu 

beschreiben. Uber dieses Stadium sind wir nicht 

hinausgekommen. Die eigentliche Arbeit kommt 

erst. Um welche Aufgaben es sich handelt, die 

dann besser als bisher, anders als bisher, jenseits 

dessen, was in pen schon bestehenden Vertragen 

steht, fur die Zukunft der Menschen in Europa 

angepackt werden mi.issen, ist nur stichwortartig 

angedeutet. 

Uber die Institutionen steht schon einiges mehr in 

dem Spinelli-Leitlinien-Antrag. Das ist so, weil 

fiir die Absatze i.iber Institutionen alte Schubladen 

geoffnet und Vorstellungen wieder hervorgeholt 

wurden, die vor 25 Jahren die Diskussion beherrschten, 

also zu einer Zeit, an die sich viele 

altere Streiter fi.ir Europa, die nun im Institutio- 

!Il 

nellen Ausschu.B des Europaischen Parlaments 

beisammensitzen, gern erinnern. 

Sie analysieren aber nicht nur die europaische 

Krise falsch, sondern ich fiirchte, sie uberschatzen 

auch, welchen Gefallen die neue Generation an 

diesen alten Vorstellungen finden kann. Sie fragt 

danach, was wir dazu beitragen wollen, da.B alle 

Arbeit haben, eine Aufgabe, ein Thema, das sich 

vor 25 Jahren so noch nicht stellte. Wir wissen 

inzwischen welchen Schaden die ungehemmte 

Wirtschaftsmaxime und -praxis des Gemeinsamen 

Marktes unserer Natur antut und wie sie die Kluft 

zwischen reichen und armen Regionen in der 

Gemeinschaft vergro.Bert statt verringert. Um das 

aber zu formulieren, braucht es nicht alte Schubladen, 

sondern neue Einsichten darin, wie die 

Europaische Gemeinschaft sich wandeln mu.B, um 

diese Probleme zu lOsen. 

Ich mochte deshalb den Bi.irgern Europas sagen : 

Nehmen Sie diese Leitlinien nur als ein vorlaufiges 

Signal dafi.ir, da.B wir den uns selbst gestellten 

Auftrag erfi.illen wollen, da.B wir aber dari.iber 

noch sehr unterschiedliche Vorstellungen haben. 

Deshalb erging es uns wie den vielen Kochen mit 

dem Brei. Dieser hier ist zwar nicht verdorben, 

aber vage, unklar und voller Widerspri.iche - vor 

allen Dingen zwischen Zielen und Mitteln, wie das 

halt so ist, wenn um der Einigkeit Europas willen 

von jedem Vorschlag etwas genommen und das 

ganze dann zusammengeri.ihrt wird. Die weitere 

Arbeit wird dies erweisen und hoffentlich korrigieren, 

soweit das nicht jetzt schon durch die 

À.nderungsantrage der Sozialistischen Fraktion 

gelingt. 

In unseren À.nderungsantragen wird die Ti.ir aufgesto.Ben 

zu einer bi.irgernahen, vielfaltigen Gemeinschaft 

anstelle jener bi.irgerfernen, zentralen 

bi.irokratischen Schaltstelle, die i.ibrigens, seit es 

uns wirtschaftlich schlechter geht, nicht mehr 

schaltet, weil sie keinen gemeinsamen politischen 

Willen mehr splirt. In unseren Anderungsantragen 

wird das Fenster aufgemacht fi.ir einen 

Blick auf eine zuki.inftige europaische Gesellschaft, 

die ihre eigene europaische Lebensweise, 

einen european way of live, wenn sie so wollen, 

oder eine identité européene bestimmt und politisch 

gestaltet, un d zwar in einer V erbundenhei t, 

die sich aus gemeinsamen in diesen 25 Jahren 

gewandelten Bedi.irfnissen herleitet und die auf 

gemeinsame Werte ausgerichtet ist, auf qualitatives 

Wirtschaftswachstum, auf menschen- und 

umweltfreundliche Produktionsweisen, Technik, 

Energie, auf einen behutsamen Umgang mit der 

Natur und ihren Reichti.imern, auf eine Beteiligung 

der Betroffenen an den Entscheidungen. 


l 12

Focke 

l 

Das hei./)t Mitbestimmung, aber auch Dezentralisierung 

und eine konsequente Anwendung des 

Subsidaritatsprinzips. Dies wiederum hei./)t in 

ganz einfachen W orte n : Es versto./)t gegen di e 

Gerechtigkeit, das, was die kleineren und untergeordneten 

Gemeinwesen leisten und zum guten 

Ende fohren konnen, fUr die gro./)ere und Ubergeordnete 

Gemeinschaft in Anspruch zu nehmen. 

Ebenso versto./)t es gegen dieses Prinzip, dann 

nicht durch gemeinsame Entscheidungen Regeln 

und Normen zu setzen, wenn es ohne diese gemeinsame 

Orientierung nicht zur Bedurfnisbefriedigung 

im notwendigen Zusammenspiel von 

der lokalen bis zur europaischen Ebene kommen 

kann. 

Der Richtlinienentwurf der Europaischen Kommission 

ftir e i ne U m w el tvertraglich kei tsprUfung 

ist ein interessantes Modell fUr eine solche neue 

Form der Willensbildung in der Gemeinschaft. 

Unser Parlament sollte sich eher damit beschaftigen 

als mit alten VerfassungsentwUrfen. 

Das Europaische Parlament hat sich einen Auftrag 

gegeben, von dessen guter ErfUllung neben 

der laufenden ordentlichen Arbeit viel abhangt, 

wie glaubwurdig es in den Wahlkampf zur zweiten 

Direktwahl gehen kann. Es geht auch um 

seine Kometenzen, aber vor allem um seine Rolle 

bei dem Versuch, die BUrgernahe der Europaischen 

Gemeinschaft herzustellen und die Bedurfnisse 

der Menschen in der heutigen Zeit ins Zentrum 

auch einer institutionellen Reform zu stellen. 

Das Europaische Parlament nimmt seine urparlamentarische 

Pflicht und schon vorhandene 

Kompetenz wahr, wenn es in einer Krisen- und 

Umbruchzeit neue Perspektiven, eine konkrete 

reale Utopie for die gemeinsam zu bewaltigende 

Zukunft aufzeigt - eine Zukunft, in der es vor 

allem darum geht, durch neue Triebkrafte und 

neu erkannte gemeinsame Interessen soweit zusammenzuwachsen, 

da./) die europaische Verantwortung 

flir den Frieden in der Welt handelnd 

wahrgenommen werden kann. Die Leitlinien, die 

wir heute beschliefien sollen, haben damit noch 

sehr wenig zu tun. Bringen wir sie rasch hinter 

uns, damit wir an die eigentliche Arbeit gehen 

konnen! 


Seitlinger. 

M. Seitlinger. - Monsieur le Président, mes chers 

collègues, au cours de ce débat, nous n'ignorons 

pas l'interpellation de l'homme de la rue qui nous 

dit: « Vos réflexions sur l'avenir de la Communauté 

sont académiques ; elles ne nous concernent 

pas. Nous nous soucions du chòmage, de la hausse 

des prix, des conditions concrètes de vie.» 

11 3 

Certes, nous nous rendons compte que les débats 

politiques et institutionnels se présentent de façon 

aride pour l'opinion. Pourtant, ils sont nécessaires, 

ils sont indispensables. Face à la crise, face aux 

défis, nous devons nous interroger. La réponse, 

certes insuffisante, que nous apportons, est-elle 

due au fait qu'il y a trop d'Europe ou pas assez 

d'Europe? Ceux qui, comme moi, pensent qu'il n'y 

a pas assez d'Europe, doivent également etre conscients 

du fait que si nous voulons davantage d'Eurape, 

il nous faut des institutions davantage structurées. 

Sans institutions - qu'elles soient issues de 

constitutions de droit écrit, de la coutume, comme 

en Grande-Bretagne, ou de traités internationaux 

- la vie politique est soumise aux aléas de la volonté 

arbitraire des hommes ou des groupes de 

pression. Nous savons que le droit est la meilleure 

sauvegarde pour l'individu, qu'il protège les minorités. 

Lacordaire nous a enseigné qu'entre le puissant 

et le faible, c'est la liberté qui opprime et la loi 

qui libère. A v an t lui, Montesquieu et Tocqueville 

avaient déjà magistralement démontré qu'à l'instar 

du droit les institutions étaient la meilleure 

protection pour la liberté. 

Dès la naissance de l'idée européenne, au lendemain 

de la deuxième guerre mondiale, les pères 

fondateurs ont compris que la bonne volonté des 

militants européens, le désir de paix et de construction 

d'une Europe forte et prospère ne pourraient 

s'accomplir sans etre soutenus par des institutions. 

La démocratie et les institutions sont indissociables. 

Les institutions communautaires sont 

démocratiques; elles prévoient le vote à la majorité, 

le contrale du Parlement, l'arbitrage de la 

Cour. « Oui, nous voulons effectivement la loi 

démocratique et, par conséquent, le vote à la majorité. 

La loi démocratique de la majorité, librement 

acceptée dans des conditions et des modalités préalablement 

fixées, certes, limitée aux problèmes 

essentiels de l'intéret commun, sera en définitive 

moins humiliante à subir que les décisions imposées 

par le plus fort >>. Ainsi s'exprimait Robert 

Schuman il y a trois décennies. Nous souhaitons 

aujourd'hui renforcer et compléter l'édifice institutionnel 

issu des traités parce que nous savons 

qu'il n'y a pas d'alternative à la construction communautaire. 

Nous savons aussi que toute tentative 

de batir l'Europe en dehors d'un cadre institutionnel 

fort et équilibré est vaine. Les expériences 

de la Société des Nations entre les deux guerres, 

celles de l'Organisation des Nations unies aujourd'hui 

montrent cruellement l'inefficacité de regroupements 

internationaux entrepris en dehors 

d'un cadre institutionnel structuré. « L'expérience 

de chaque homme se recommence », disait Jean 

Monnet, « seules les institutions deviennent plus 

sages; elles accumulent l'expérience collective, et 

de cette expérience et de cette sagesse, les hommes 


65 

114

unitary Europe. That is a dream which I do not 

share and which those who elected me to this 

House do not, and never will, share. 

We have a different dream and aspiration, a 

dream whereby a nation such as my own, the 

United Kingdom, would take back to itself the 

sovereignty and essential independence which it 

lost when it joined the EEC. We aspire to being 

once again able as a nation to be masters of our 

own destiny, to determine and pass our own laws, 

free from the indignity of abject subjection to the 

whim of external powers, able to decide and follow 

our own policy without having to scrape or 

bow to faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. That is the 

dream and aspiration which I and my people hold. 

Therefore this resolution and report ·is one to 

which we can give no encouragement or support. 

Our experience as a nation and Northern Ireland's 

experience as a region in the EEC has, I believe, 

strengthened the desire of my people to be no part 

of the organic European unity which this report 

would lead us to. A much-lauded European dream 

has even, though still in its early stages, proved to 

us more of a nightmare, and an expensive nightmare 

at that. 

However, forthright opposition to European unity 

in the form of a United States of Europe does not 

make one an isolationist. There is all the difference 

in the world between sensible and considered 

cooperation between neighbouring states for their 

mutual benefit and blind, contrived cooperation 

for the sole purpose of enforced fusion between 

the states concerned. My objection is only to the 

latter, and that is why I am happy to encourage 

the essential cooperation which exists within the 

Council of Europe and NATO and also that which 

we previously enjoyed through EFT A. This type 

of mutually beneficia! cooperation between equal 

and soverei.giJ. nations is possible and desirable 

and can be obtained without prejudice to what to 

me is all important, the sovereign independence of 

those cooperating. 

The collective economie and security needs of the 

nations of Europe can be more than adequately 

catered for through associations which do not 

prejudice our sovereignty. For example, it does 

not take a Unjted States of Europe to give security 

and protection to Europe. The security of Europe 

is catered for through NATO, not the EEC, and 

therefore this argument that the security of Europe 

demands politica! unity is utterly spurious. It 

is cooperation ,without surrender of national 

sovereignty that is, I believe, the right way forward 

for us all today. 

121 

De Voorzitter.- Het woord is aan de heer Rogers. 

Mr Rogers. - Mr President, I am very glad I am 

speaking at this point in the debate in order to 

follow the remarks of the British nationalist that 

we have just heard. If ever there was an argument 

for European union, it would be clear from listening 

to the blind dogma that Mr Paisley preaches in 

this Chamber and outside. That blind nationalism 

which unfortunately comes into many people's 

minds ançl into their arguments is the mentality of 

the cavemen, a ghetto mentality which prevents 

evolution. It prevents development. Whereas I 

may well land up on the sarne side of the fence in 

voting with Mr Paisley, I certainly would not 

want it to be assumed that I am there for the same 

motives. I have not fought the nationalists in 

Wales, which, perhaps more than Northern 

Ireland, has claim to be a separate country with its 

own customs, traditions and language, to come to 

Europe and preach British nationalism. 

Having said that, Mr President, I would now like 

to address myself to Mr Spinelli's report and to 

state my reservations about it. The Spinelli report 

is an important document, and I congratulate him 

on the work he has clone in committee with his 

many revisions of the original draft that he was 

forced to make. It was indeed a complete and total 

revision of his new testament, and unfortunately 

the last version is just as pious as the first. 

The chairman, Mr Ferri, referred to me in committee 

as the Devil's advocate, and quite rightly 

so, because I think I was often the only one to 

question the basic assumptions made by other 

members of the committee. But may I suggest 

very humbly that there is a slight possibility that I 

may be right and everybody else on the committee 

was wrong? 

I found the composition of the committee very 

interesting in that I often felt that members were 

talking to their mirror images, talking to the 

converted. As Mrs Boserup said quite rightly a 

little earlier, there was this underlying presumption 

of inevitability that wènt through all discussions, 

that European union was inevitable anq, 

indeed, the only step forward. Underlying most 

contributions was an assumption - may I say 

kindly, an arrogant assumption - that the people 

of Europe were crying out for European union. 

Indeed, the report in one of its paragraphs states 

that public opinion is crying out f9r progress 

towards politica! union. My feeling, from the contracts 

which I have with people, is that the people 

of Europe are probably thinking the opposite, that 

they want government to come closer to them, to 

become more relevant jo them, that they want to 


69 

122

70 

Paisley 

be more involved in these processes that are 

gradually becoming more .and more remote. We 

can see it in our own countries. We see it particularly 

in the United Kingdom, with the gradua! 

erosion, the transfer of powers from local authorities 

to the centra! government. 

People are becoming increasingly disenchanted 

with the processes of government. They want it to 

come closer, and I am not quite sure whether the 

institutional emphasis which is part of this report 

would bring government closer to the people and 

allow them to become more involved. The 

demand for greater power for the European institutions 

condemns the report in my eyes. I believe, 

as Mrs Focke quite rightly pointed out, that the 

Socialist amendments are an improvement on Mr 

Spinelli's original report in that they attempt to 

recognize the needs of the peoples of Europe. 

If I may refer to my country again, we had, as 

they say, a nationalist moveinent that painted 

signs on bridges and beside roads saying 'Free 

Wales', and then someone a little more intelligent 

carne along and painted underneath, 'From what, 

for whom ?' I would suggest to Mr Spinelli that 

what we may need to do, if not now then at the 

next stage, is to add a few more graffiti to this 

debate: when people paint up 'European Union', 

then someone underneath has to write, 'For what, 

for whom ?' 

(Applause) 

Mr Patterson asked in his speech what it was to be 

a union of. I would ask, what is it to be a union 

for? That is the big difference between some 

Members of this House and those of us on the 

Socialist benches. Will the so-called reforms lead 

to a perpetuation of the present chaotic, unjust 

system that does not work- maybe, as Mr Spencer 

said, because there is no politica! will for it to 

work ? The general framework of the Treaty does 

not create a Europe that is for ordinary people. W e 

see examples when Member States such as Italy - 

and I say this only as an example - can make 

arrangements in the last day or so with coal-mine 

groupings in South Africa who are producing coal 

on the basis of cheap labour to use energy frorh 

South Africa while there are European miners 

unemployed. What is the union to be for ? Is it to 

stay a capitalist club? Is i t to be a Europe of the 

rich ? Or is that side of the House saying that they 

want genuine reform, not just of institutions but 

also of ideals? If i t is to be a Europe for the people, 

if it is to be a Europe for the deprived, if i t is to be 

a Europe that is clean and fit for people to live in, 

then we can support it. If it is to be a Europe with 

freedom from fear of poverty, sickness and old 

age, then that too is a Europe we could support. 

123 

But I fear that what is being proposed in this 

debate is simply an extension of what presently 

exists - a Europe based on profit, a Europe based 

on pollution and greed, a Europe based on the 

principle of extending capitalist economies. 

There is a Welsh saying, Mr Spinelli: he who 

would be a leader, let him first be a bridge. If your 

bridge, if your path, if your ultimate report is to be 

for the people of Europe and not for profit and 

greed, then possibly I will give you help to lay the 

stones. But I am afraid that the report as it presently 

stands does not do this. I believe the 

Socialist amendments do help, but unfortunately 

even they are trapped in the conventional system 

that we are all bound in. 

Mr President, I would like to conclude by thanking 

Mr Spinelli. I think his basic motives are very 

much more in line with mine than those of many 

other Members of this House. And I would like to 

còngratulate him on his report, although I disagree 

with the contents. 

Le Président. - La parole est à M. Croux. 

De heer Croux.- Mijnheer de Voorzitter, geachte 

collega's, ik heb gedurende het debat dat gisteren 

op gang is gekomen soms gedacht aan een andere 

embryonaire parlementaire vergadering 200 jaar 

geleden bijna, in 1789, de derde stand van les états 

généraux in Frankrijk, die zich eerst uitriep tot 

nationale vergadering en zich toen de pretentie 

toemat een constituante te worden, een grondwetgevende 

vergadering voor Frankrijk. Het is de 

beroemde passage van le serment du Jeu de Paume, 

de eed in de Kaatsbaan. En natuurlijk hebben 

wij niet in deze vergadering het institutioneel 

heroi:sme van deze verre voorvaderen in Europa. 

Maar toch is dit een zeer belangrijk debat en ik 

zou het even willen belichten vanuit het standpunt 

van de burgers van Europa, de mensen van 

Europa waarover het tenslotte gaat. 

Ik zou vier opmerkingen willen maken de eerste 

van juridische aard : het is ontegensprekelijk zo 

dat de Europese Gemeenschap een politieke 

gemeenschap is en een rechts gemeenschap met 

directe werking van de besluiten van de 

Gemeenschap voor de burgers, bron van rechten 

en plichten rechtstreeks voor de burgers, m.a.w. 

iedere burger van een Lid-Staat is burger van 

Europa. Wij kunnen dit niet genoeg onderstrepen. 

Een nieuwe politieke dimensie is aan zijn gemeen 

schapsleven gegeven. Ten tweerde : politiek gezien 

moeten wij het volgende vaststellen : de jongste 

uitslagen van de Euro-barometer, de opiniepeiling 

die in het voorjaar werd gehouden, tonen aan dat 

meer dan 70 % van de burgers van Europa zeggèn 


r 

124

Altiero Spinelli fonds - European University Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?