Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to start by telling the Commission how timely and appropriate the communication on the Wider Europe and on relations with its new neighbours to the east and south is, not least in that it makes it possible to structure the debate to exclude improvisation or extemporisation, which have the effect of raising easily-raised or vain hopes in a situation which is extremely complex and in a state of constant flux. Indeed, there could not be a worse moment to raise false hopes regarding new dimensions of enlargement than that when we have to successfully carry the integration of ten countries through to a conclusion and to assess the effectiveness of the reforms decided on by the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference. This, however, does not mean that the Union must become inward-looking. Thus, the Commission is right to produce a wider integration strategy involving countries and geographical areas located to the east and south of the enlarged Union at the very time when the accession treaties for the ten new Member States are being signed. It is, however, right, as the Commission communication states, to avoid making a misleading parallel between neighbour countries and countries which will never become part of the European Union, and, at the same time, to avoid accession to the European institutions being the only instrument which can be proposed for a closer cooperation policy addressing common problems and interests. In other words, we need to ensure that the strategy and enlargement are relatively independent of each other. For precisely this reason, in the initial debate which took place in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, the need emerged to provide a single framework for a broad strategy which is also practical enough to propose policies for today, not for an unspecified time in the future which we are unable to foresee at this present moment but for which we can and must pave the way. In this regard, the initial ideas which have emerged during the debate are along these lines. To complete the geopolitical framework, considering the countries of the Caucasus too. To look, including in the context of the Mediterranean, beyond the countries of the current partnership. Not to exclude from this strategy, Commissioner, countries which are already about to join the Union, not in order to cause confusion but because these countries too will need to be able to interact with the areas on their borders. If borders are considered to be more than just physical borders, it is extremely important that, between now and when they join the Union, the Balkans, for example, are able to interact in a Mediterranean context. This does not mean that we are to iron out or fail to preserve the differences between the instruments, from the preaccession agreements to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: quite the opposite, we must strengthen them through the proposal the Commission puts forward on the cross-border dimension. The strength of this strategy lies precisely in the fact that common objectives are established for a geographical area which, because of its history, culture and adjacency to the Union, can be described as a pan-European and Mediterranean region – the arc stretching from Russia to Morocco – as President Prodi maintains. What can the countries of such a diverse area have in common? I want to say to the Commission and the Council that we insist on one thing: politics, first and foremost. We want to share, first and foremost, values, democracy, the rule of law and freedom and to develop new as well as existing instruments and policies in this framework. I therefore believe that Parliament can – and will – contribute to this framework, for we are delighted with the spirit of openness already displayed in the speeches of the President-in-Office of the Council and the Commission.

Political group: PSE