Madam President, my group welcomes this debate because it is a defining moment. This is the first time in the history of the modern European project that we stand at the threshold of seeing the mainstreaming of a party of the extreme right. That is deeply disturbing. The FPÖ contends that if one reads their literature and their programme, there is much in it that one could share. That may be, but let me place on the record today a long and difficult experience which we Liberal Democrats had with the Austrian FPÖ in our Liberal International family. As early as 1986, we had cause to believe that Mr Jörg Haider was not a man whose principles or attitudes were consistent with decency and modern liberalism. In November of 1991, after a long internal debate in Liberal International and many visits to Vienna to discuss issues, we suspended the FPÖ from membership and in July 1993 we expelled them. (Applause) We expelled them then and we continue to reject what Mr Haider stands for now. Let me share what we learned in that long experience. There were many in our ranks who said “read the text”. There were many more in our ranks who said “read the subtext”, “ look at the context ”. Words in politics can be incendiary, can be inflammatory, or can be conciliatory. We found that Mr Jörg Haider, as a wordsmith, has been a voice for racism and for xenophobia. He is a man who plays on fear and who has exploited vulnerability. That is why this debate is important – to put down a marker that when you mainstream extremism, something profound is happening in Europe today. (Applause) I hasten to add that our quarrel is not with the Austrian people. We respect the rights of the Austrian people to their own democratic process. We defend the rights and constitutional prerogatives of the Austrian people, but we here in the European Parliament have the duty to recall our fundamental values as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty – the values of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. Every right-thinking person in this House believes that these are universal and indivisible without regard to colour, class or creed. We must promote and defend those rights, all the while saying to the people of Austria: our quarrel is not with you. I wish to say with regard to the initiative of the Portuguese Presidency that we support the spirit and the political intention behind it. It may not be an ideal initiative in terms of its structure but we accept Mr President-in-Office, that it is rooted in idealism and for that reason we are inclined to support it. I share with President Prodi a preference for the Community method and we must look at Article 6 and Article 7 of the Treaty. Article 7 talks about the possibility of suspension in the event of serious or persistent breaches of our fundamental values. We must find a way as institutions to benchmark and give meaning to this so that it has a reality and a substance. Then we can work together by the Community method to root out this cancer within our midst. I want to say Madame President some words to Mr Schüssel. Mr Schüssel is a man with an honourable record in European politics. He now intends to ride into government on the back of a political tiger. Mr Schüssel – you are assuming a very serious, personal, national and European responsibility. That responsibility, which you Mr Schüssel now take on, is to respect the letter and the spirit of the European Treaties. Finally, Madame President, this is a debate which touches on the heart of our democratic values and institutions and calls to mind that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. On this continent, of all places, with the experience of hateful racism that we have suffered from in the past and at such great cost, we have to insist that today’s debate is not about interference with the sovereign rights of a State. It is a dogged insistence by the democratically elected part of the institutions of this Union that we will not as Europeans countenance turning the clock back. (Loud applause)

Political group: ELDR