Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in the field of defence policy we have reasons to be satisfied: we have a catalogue of capabilities, a military committee, a Defence Staff and we are seeking complementarity with NATO. There are also grounds, however, to believe that much remains to be done. In this respect, I believe the United States is enjoying an unprecedented political and military hegemony. If we consider that today the United States represents about 4% of the world’s population – and I say this with admiration – and are capable of producing 30% of goods and services; that China, with five times the area and with a much larger population is only capable of producing 3%; if we consider that Russia’s production levels have fallen below those of Switzerland and if we remember the military budget figures given here, we can see clearly that all this is highly disproportionate. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, representatives of the Commission, I would like to ask a question which refers rather more to the future. I would like to know whether, if this Convention, which is working on the future of Europe, eventually creates a constitutional treaty, what place would defence policy have in that treaty and, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, whether it would be political fiction to imagine a security and defence policy – as Commissioner Patten said a moment ago – incorporated into the first pillar, which went further than conflict prevention and crisis management and could lead to Europe having more influence on the international stage in line with its economic, financial and industrial power. The President-in-Office of the Council has referred to the fight against terrorism and it is clear that when freedom was attacked with the barbarity of 11 September it was perfectly demonstrated that in today’s globalised landscape concepts of security, defence, diplomacy, trade, culture and religion are all interrelated and that this should be translated into a common awareness that, since the phenomenon of terrorism affects all of us equally, there must be a response that comes from all of us equally. I therefore believe that it is essential that we accept the views expressed here on the normal elements of the Rule of Law in the fight against terrorism and the need to coordinate the information instruments we have as well as the instruments for fighting the threat of the NBC warfare. A final word, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, with regard to the observations which have been made here and which have been brilliantly laid out by Mr Patten, because, when we move from the demands of humanism to figures, it is rather as if we were moving on from the Beatitudes to the accounts books. I believe we must realise that, if we want a defence policy, we have to pay for it and that it is important to reconcile, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the desire of public opinion for the European Union to be present on the international stage with the need not to take on too much expenditure, which is apparently not very popular amongst our public opinion. It is therefore important – and I will end here, Mr President – not to confuse the adjective with the noun and the peripheral with the fundamental.

Political group: PPE-DE