Mr President, it seems to me that a document like this Commission communication, which carries the slogan ‘peace, freedom and solidarity’, is a good omen, and I believe that that slogan could be the slogan of the European Constitution. By the way, although I have read the text very quickly, I notice that the Commission is being a little timid and talks of a text of a constitutional nature. Let us talk of a Constitution. The skeleton presented by Parliament in the European Convention talks of a treaty which establishes a Constitution for Europe; let us talk happily about a Constitution, which is what it is going to be. I also believe, Mr Prodi, that what you have said here, what your communication seeks – efficiency, democracy and clarity – are good objectives. I believe that for these to be at the forefront of our considerations is a good thing. So is the idea of double legitimacy, although I believe we must give this some careful thought. The European Union is traditionally a union of States and of peoples, and I believe we must begin to talk about a union of States and citizens, because ‘peoples’ is a concept from the 1950s. In Maastricht we introduced the concept of European citizenship, and we must therefore begin to talk about European citizens as subjects of the European Union. Therefore, a union of States and citizens. My group’s spokesman, Mr Poettering, has defended something which this Parliament has always had as a first priority, and here we are in agreement with you, which is the defence of the Community method. If we were to make an analysis of the last fifty years of European construction, it seems to me that the most important thing is this Community method and we will therefore be with you. The Community method, however, also means something which I learned many years ago from a person who I admired, Émile Noel, which is institutional balance. Ours is a Community system, which is difficult to explain outside these four walls; and it is a system in which the balance between institutions surely does not correspond to the usual notion of the separation of powers which we know in our own Member States. I know that in the Convention – and this is a good thing – we are following the formula of George Washington, who said for Philadelphia that the Convention can debate everything and propose everything. Therefore, the debate is an open one. If you will allow me to use the expression, there is a ‘free bar’ in terms of considering constitutional models. But I believe that on this issue, and of course I must read what the Commission is proposing carefully, we must be prudent, because if we interfere with constitutional mechanisms, we may find that there are surprises in store. I believe we must consider whether it is in the Commission’s interest to be elected by the European Parliament and to be able to be dissolved by the Council. Because the important thing for the Commission is to be independent and autonomous, and I believe that to establish more links with other institutions could eventually make a Commission which should be independent into a partisan Commission. I therefore believe we should give this some consideration. In any event, Mr Prodi, I believe that this is a good document. You have done what you had to do and we are going to debate it in the Convention. On the other hand, let me tell you something which I did not like, which is the famous Penelope text which you mentioned earlier. My friend, Mr Barón, spoke about Penelope, the wife of Ulysses. There was a song made famous by Serrat in Spain which was also called Penelope, about a woman who is waiting on a platform for a train and ends up going mad. I believe that by bringing out this text at the same as your declaration, you have not done yourselves a political favour. Today everybody is talking about this Penelope project and nobody is talking about the good document you have presented.

Political group: PPE-DE