Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, my group shall support the work of the rapporteurs and I congratulate them on its elegant balance. It is entirely appropriate at this stage that the European Parliament does not express a definitive view on the qualities of the Treaty of Nice, because we recognise – as the Treaty itself does – that more needs to be done. We want to be active persuaders and influencers in doing more, hence our commitment to the convention idea. I am very pleased to hear the President-in-Office's positive remarks in that regard. You have talked also about factoring in both the national dimension and the wider public debate. I hope I am not listening to the creation of a convention, which will be a sort of pub with no beer. We would actually like to see these things incorporated in a way that it would be vigorous and representative of a wider opinion. In my country, the Republic of Ireland, in eight days time, there is a referendum on the Treaty of Nice, unique among the 15 Member States. In the run-up there has been a very active anti-campaign on three broad themes: Anti to say that it is not necessary to say 'yes' to Nice for enlargement; anti to say that the reforms with regard to qualified majority and the role of smaller states go too far; and anti regarding the so-called militarisation of the EU. Normally I do not engage in national politics, but today it is for a European reason that I want to state clearly for the record of the House that to vote 'yes' to Nice in Ireland is to vote to remove the last formal obstacle to a significant enlargement. In good conscience, I ask people to vote yes and I myself, in good conscience, shall vote yes. It is a 'yes' to make sure that we meet the political conditions agreed in Helsinki that we in the EU should be ready, no later than the end of 2002, for this historic journey towards enlargement. A 'yes' vote is a vote to reunite Europe. I urge my fellow citizens in Ireland to take that into account. There are plenty of criticisms to make of Nice with regard to qualified majority and the role of smaller states, but for people who are fair-minded and rational, none of the criticisms should be that it went too far. The problem with Nice is how much more was left to be done. Anyone who argues the opposite is playing to the gallery of populism, rather than dealing with substance and fact. Finally, on the argument about militarisation: as a Irishman it makes me sick in the pit of my stomach to listen to lectures from Mr Adams and other people in Sinn Féin who today still maintain an armed ceasefire in Northern Ireland, who refuse to decommission weapons, and who, prior to their entry into a peace process, sullied the name of Irishmen through a campaign of murder and terror for three decades. It is a travesty for these people to describe the one great peace movement of Europe, which is the European integration process, as heading towards militarisation. These people are themselves still incomplete democrats. We should not accept lectures from them on this topic. General Morillon, here this afternoon, served at Srebrenica and other places with dignity, despite having a very difficult and effectively impossible UN mandate. We know that NATO and the US would not act and did not act. We, the EU, could not act. If not NATO there was nothing. We have a moral and ethical duty to ensure we are prepared for such missions in future with the likes of the Rapid Reaction Force. This represents responsibility and maturity in Europe, not militarisation. Again people in Ireland should not listen to those who preach about militarism, for this is a false premise. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR