30. 12. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 329/43 
APPENDIX 3 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Minority statement 
Following the vote by roll-call on the Opinion as a whole, members (listed below) of the employers' group, 
who had voted against the Opinion, issued the following statement: 
The employers' group at the Economic and Social Committee firmly rejects the conclusions set out in the 
own-initiative Opinion. 
The group has expressed its support on a number of occasions for measures to enable employees to be 
informed and involved in respect of decisions by which they are directly affected. This right is guaranteed in 
all EC Member States by national legal provisions or practice. The right is guaranteed regardless of whether 
companies (or groups) for which employees work are organized on a purely national or international basis. 
Employees are likewise protected as regards labour law provisions and collective bargaining rights. 
The Opinion calls for the introduction of a new battery of instruments, in a form not found in any of the 
EC States. In the view of the employers group the proposed instruments are neither desirable nor expedient. 
European advisory committees would be inflexible and rake no account of existing information and 
consultation procedures and machinery in the individual Member States. They would not provide an 
appropriate means of tackling the problems raised in the Opinion. 
In the final analysis the conclusions to the Opinion are calling for establishment of an additional body of 
employee representatives in all parent companies or groups, given the illogicality of the distinction drawn in 
the Report between cross-frontier and purely national groups. 
It is unacceptable that the occasion of the debate on matters covered by the 10th Directive should be used 
for the purpose of introducing an additional system of worker participation throughout the Community. 
Arets, Bagliano, Beltrami, Bredima-Savopoulou, Broicher, Campbell, Ceyrac, Collas, Corell Ayora, Coyle, 
van Dam, Dodd, Donck, Fresi, Garcia Morales, Giacomelli, Hancock, Kazazis, Kenna, Kirchfeld, Kroger, 
Low, Machado von Tschusi, Meyer-Horn, Noordwal, de Normann, Pardon, Pearson, Petersen, Petropoulos, 
Poeton, Proumens, Ribiere, Riera-Marsa, Rolao Goncalves, Romoli, Schade-Poulsen, Schnieders, Solari, 
Tamlin, Telles, Termes Carrero, Tukker, Wagner, Whitworth, Wick. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 797/85 as regards the rates of reimbursement for the set-aside of arable land 
(89/C 329/15) 
On 31 July 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 October 1989. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Luchetti. 
At its 270th plenary session (meeting of 19 October 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 
1. The Committee would first reiterate the reservations 
voiced in its earlier Opinion on the introduction of the 
set-aside scheme('). 
(') OJ NoC95, 11. 4. 1988, p.7. 2. As the Committee predicted in this earlier 
Opinion, the scheme has had uneven results. Contrary 
to the intentions of the Commission and the Council, 
it has been mainly used in certain regions (such as 
the Italian Mezzogiorno and Lower Saxony) where an 
No C 329/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 12. 89 
insignificant drop in production has been accompanied 
by an increased risk of desertification and hydrogeologi-
cal imbalance. 
3. The Committee sees the present proposal as only 
one means of ensuring that the set-aside mechanism is 
used in an effective and balanced manner. 
4. While approving the proposal, the Committee 
notes that one of the main reasons why the scheme has 
Done at Brussels, 19 October 1989. been insufficiently used is that some of the Member 
States for whom it was principally devised are not 
applying the maximum aid-level allowed. This prevents 
farmers from receiving full compensation and thus ham­
pers the use of the scheme. 
5. The Committee therefore asks the Commission to 
use the instruments at its disposal to press the Member 
States to set their aid at a level which truly reflects the 
agronomic and economic needs of the various regions. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the report on Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in the European Community 
(Delors report) 
(89/C 329/16) 
On 30 May 1989 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph of 
Article 20 of the Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the abovementioned 
report. 
The Section for Economic, Financial and Monetary Questions, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 10 October 1989. 
The Rapporteur was Mr Meyer-Horn. 
At its 270th plenary session (meeting of 19 October 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 111 votes to six with four abstentions. 
1. Causes, conditions and benefits of EMU 
1.1. EMU is described as a realistic target in the 
report which was presented on 12 April 1989 by the 
committee of central bank governors and economists 
chaired by the President of the Commission of the 
European Communities, Jacques Delors, in accordance 
with the terms of reference issued by the European 
Council in Hanover on 27-28 June 1988. 
1.2. The conditions for the achievement of Economic 
and Monetary Union are better now than they were at 
the time of the Werner plan (Council Decision of 22 
March 1971) or of the establishment of the European 
Monetary System (EMS) (Council Resolution of 13 
March 1979), which has never moved on to stage two: EMU will supplement the Internal Market which is 
to be established by 1 January 1993 .under the terms 
of the Single European Act. The advantages of the 
Internal Market will be felt in the monetary sector, 
too; as a matter of fact, monetary union is even a 
key feature of a Community-wide internal market. 
A single monetary area would also be a logical 
sequel to the plan for liberalizing capital movements 
by 1 July 1990 (even if transitional rules are to apply 
until 1993 for Ireland and Greece and until 1992 
for Spain and Portugal), and to the lifting of all 
restrictions on banking under the terms of the 
second Directive on the coordination of banking 
legislation.