Mr President, I too should like to start by congratulating Mrs Napoletano on the expert manner in which she has managed to marry the overall picture with the detail. In the next few years, we in the European Union will have our hands full with the further enlargement through the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the integration of the new members from next year onwards, the development of new cohesion policy in the field of foreign and security policy and bona fide social market economy. The speed of the actual integration will largely determine the discussion about where the EU borders will ultimately be. It is therefore appropriate for this not to be the main theme of the present report and of the Commission’s communication. What is important now is to formulate policy for relations with our new neighbours for the next couple of years, and one thing should be paramount in this. We must prevent a ring of instability from being formed around the enlarged European Union; we should, instead, create a circle of friends. We do not want any new division. This is why we must, from the outset, make Russia central to the new policy of good neighbourliness not only because of that country’s not always equally positive impact on Minsk, Kiev and Chisinau, but also on account of the energy policy and, of course, because Russia is a nuclear power and a member of the UN Security Council. When we set out the detail of the new policy of good neighbourliness, we should, as a guideline, adopt the values for which Europe stands – democracy, human rights and a functioning market economy, but this is not just about values. It is important for the EU to extend the area where the same economic rules apply, where the campaigns against international crime and against terrorism are combined, where immigration issues are addressed and where borders are protected whilst remaining open. This enlarged Europe must be a security community. The Commission’s proposals form a sound basis for formulating concrete policy with two core elements; more cross-border cooperation, and our neighbours’ participation in the important areas of EU policy, starting with trade. Action plans form a good method of implementing this. It is understandable that countries such as Moldavia and the Ukraine should ask why the Commission’s plans avoid the issue of their possible EU membership. My response to that would be that the EU now has its hands full with what is presently on the agenda, besides which such a membership application is not really in order at this moment. Naturally, those countries have the right theoretically to apply for membership, in accordance with Article 49 of the current treaties, or Article 2 of the proposed constitution. In principle, we should, of course, welcome the EU aspirations of many in those countries, for those are mostly the reformers. What I would like to recommend to my friends in both countries, however, is to make optimum use of the opportunities which new EU policy is about to offer, and to work towards a level at which a credible discussion can be held about an association which can lead to possible membership. We ourselves cannot, of course, give any guarantees, because the efforts will need to come from the countries themselves. We should also, above all, be careful about setting any dates. However, we should also ensure that the European Union does not labour under the illusion that Europe is becoming safer by slamming the door permanently shut. In short, we should not raise any false expectations but we should not turn our backs on the East either.

Political group: PSE