Mr President, I too am proud of the text of the Charter which is being submitted to the Biarritz Council. It is the first time that the indivisibility of fundamental rights has actually found expression; something for which a case has been made in the international arena, since the human rights conference in Vienna in 1993. I have argued strongly in favour of including social, economic and cultural rights alongside the traditional fundamental rights. This came to fruition. I do have two minor criticisms I would like to make. The Presidency has failed to carry out the wishes of the vast majority of the Convention, who wanted an unambiguous reference to the revised social Charter of the Council of Europe to be included. I think this is unwise, but I assume that the European Court will make up for this in its interpretation of social rights. Last-minute changes have been made to the text of the article on collective action and the right to strike. I will not go into detail. Commissioner Vitorino knows exactly what I am referring to. I expect that he will include corrections and clarifications in the memorandum. As an ex-trade union negotiator, I am used to defending the outcome of negotiations. Do not, therefore, expect me to come up with a whole list of points which are lacking or which have not been formulated as well as they could have been. I believe that we have a sound Charter before us. Its aim is to marry the entire breadth of European policy with the standards and principles of the constitutional state and of the social welfare state. This was the Cologne mandate and this is also what the Charter can do, whether it becomes binding or not. Naturally, the Charter must be incorporated into the Treaty and it should form the basis of a European constitution in future. But some Member States need slightly more time to get used to the idea. Those at the back of the queue threaten to dictate the pace, but this is no reason to relegate the Charter to the bin if it cannot be made binding right away. On the contrary, I believe we need to throw our entire weight behind the next step. So, I would suggest to Mr Moscovici not to ease off. The Charter should become a live instrument, both legally and politically. On a legal plane, I can think of forms of enforcement other than direct enforcement by the European Court on an individual basis. For example, in the Council of Europe and the ILO, there is a wealth of experience in terms of reporting procedures, expert committees and the collective right of complaint of trade unions and NGOs, and it is through these means that the Charter can be monitored from a legal perspective. Just as important is the fact that the Charter can establish itself as a political project as a means of involving people in Europe. The discussion which Mr Verheugen sparked with his statement on a referendum was a painful demonstration of how bad communication is between Brussels and the citizens. Similarly, the Danish referendum can be taken as a motion of no-confidence. I would like to promote the Charter as a Charter for setting a wide social debate in motion about what kind of a Europe we want. Mrs Pintassilgo and her Committee of Wise Men suggested this back in 1996. NGOs and trade unions are ready for this, as has become evident from the enormous commitment they have shown to the process so far. Let us hold on to this commitment and build on it. Last week, the Benelux governments proposed in an IGC memorandum that next year, under the Belgian Presidency, a plan for giving direction to Europe’s will have to be laid down which addresses these points, such as the anchoring of the Charter, but also the discussion on reforming institutions and authorities, which Mr Prodi was referring to. I think it is a realistic timetable to propose a project for the future of Europe under that Presidency, and the Charter will have a role to play in this.

Political group: PSE