Mr President, when you announced yesterday that it is a coalition of British Tories and Greek Communists who have tabled a no-confidence motion against the Commission, I was reminded of the remark of Karl Marx that when history repeats itself it does so first as tragedy and secondly as farce. When the Santer Commission fell 5 years ago, most of us Socialists allowed ourselves to be pushed up against a wall by, to some extent, defending the indefensible. We have learnt from this. Having, at the time, been one of the minority who voted in favour of the vote of no-confidence, I am now all the more convinced in speaking on behalf of my own group against the farce of a no-confidence vote, the only purpose of which would be to serve those newspapers of which it can be said that we do not know whether they are written for illiterates or by them. (Laughter) To make one thing clear, that assessment is transnational, it applies to several countries and not just to one. It is legitimate, even in this Parliament, to be against European integration and therefore against the Community institutions. The question, however, is whether the systematic discrediting of the EU institutions should be allowed to become a means whereby political debate is carried out. This question is not to be put to the Tories or to the , because they have a record of doing this, and will carry on doing so. The question, rather, is whether those who are in favour of political integration in this House are going to leave these people without resistance. I am in favour of resisting. We are also defending ourselves against the abuse of Budget control for clearly political purposes. Even you, Mr Heaton-Harris, in the Committee on Budgetary Control, have frequently made it clear that the reasons that led to the colla of the Santer Commission do not apply in this case, whatever criticism may be levelled at the present Commission. In contrast to the Santer Commission, the current Commission, despite all the mistakes, has not attempted to conceal information systematically from Parliament. That is the decisive point. Mr Bösch and Mr Casaca were two Socialists involved in a leading role in the preparation of the events surrounding Eurostat. Using the Eurostat case as an electoral instrument is the best way to distract the incipient reform process and we do not wish to do this. The bizarre nature of this circus act is now making two things clear, and they should be made public in this session. The signatories of the motion for a vote of no confidence include a Member of this House who personally urged me several months ago to ensure that the Eurostat story was buried. In his own words, his reasons were that the closer the elections come, the madder MEPs get. He has now signed the motion. When this morning – and here I am addressing Mr Bonde – we sat down in a circle in order to discuss the overall approach to the subject of Eurostat, you kindly asked whether it would not be possible to make it superfluous by including in the resolution on Eurostat a couple of sharp paragraphs on the subject of political responsibility, because you did not know whether the no-confidence motion would work out all right. Mr Bonde, we are not proposing to get you out of the mess in which you have buried yourself. The majority of this Parliament will not give you a helping hand; you must manage it yourself. In May, when the new Commissioners arrive, you are welcome to propose that all ten be promptly sent back home, and then you will be exposed as fools before the European public for having abused this instrument of the no-confidence motion for purely party political purposes.

Political group: PSE