Mr President, since we are in the run-up to the Treaty of Nice and since we have had the pleasure of reading a number of valuable speeches by Mr Joschka Fischer and President Chirac, it may be a novel idea for Germany and France to share the Union’s presidency for a year. But under one proviso: that a fundamental breakthrough be reached in the field of European cooperation in line with all these fine speeches we have had the pleasure to hear and read. This is not only meant as a pleasant intro, because what I want to establish above all is that the French-German axis should not only generate philosophies for the future but should also solve the institutional problems of today and tomorrow. Whatever happens in Nice, decisions need to be taken on decision making. As we see it, all European legislation, which does not affect the constitutions of the Member States, should be decided on by qualified majority, with codecision from Parliament. In addition, decisions need to be taken on vote weighting and as we see it, it should be the size of the population in the Member States, as is the case in this House, that is the deciding factor. Decisions need to be taken regarding the number of Commissioners – in our opinion, this should be one per Member State – and on the number of MEPs – we said a long time ago, 700 is more than enough. Also, decisions need to be taken on the Court of Justice and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I completely echo Mr Gil-Robles’ views that this should be included in the Treaties and that cooperation should be stepped up. As far as the latter is concerned, it is vital that we tackle the Union’s structure. Both Mr Joschka Fischer and President Chirac are right in this. I am not averse to a federal structure for the European Union. It could even be termed confederation, as President Chirac said earlier today. It is high time that we had a European constitution which is organised in the way that the university of Florence recently proposed. It is high time Mr Prodi had the authority and rights which a European government should in fact have. It is also high time we had a bicameral system, but not of the kind proposed by Mr Joschka Fischer, with a European Parliament, as we have now, and a second parliament comprising representatives of the parliaments of the respective Member States. It would be far better to convert the European Council of Ministers to a kind of Federal Council. Interestingly, this is a term which Mr Chirac used in his response to the questions. Surely this is the most natural way to provide Europe with a bicameral system consisting of a parliament and senate. All we need to do is to turn the European Council into a senate. Finally, such a constitution should very clearly and precisely define Europe’s and the Member States’ respective remits. As far as I am concerned, the European package as a whole could quite easily be fleshed out a little bit and the powers of the European Member States could be increased once again, as long as it is clear what is European and what is national, and as long as we find our way out of the diffuse intergovernmental and Community structure in which we find ourselves at present. It would be ideal if the decision was taken in Nice to devise a project of this kind in two to three years’ time. I hope that the words of Mr Joschka Fischer and those of Mr Chirac will not remain words but will be turned into action. I should appreciate a reaction from both honourable gentlemen who stayed behind during lunch.

Political group: PPE-DE