Mr President, Mr President—in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say firstly that I am conceding half of my speaking time to Mr Napolitano, Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I still do not understand, after many years, what criteria are used for allocating speaking time in this Parliament, and I believe that Mr Napolitano, as Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, deserved time outside of that allocated to the political groups, but this has not been the case. I would ask you to communicate this to the President of Parliament. Secondly, I would like to express the support of the Group of the for the Tsatsos–Gil-Robles report. My colleagues will analyse in detail the aspects which we consider fundamental, with greater authority than my own. What I would like to point out at this stage is that, having heard the Commissioner and being aware of the Commission’s document – which I believe fulfils its responsibility, as guardian of the Treaties, to make proposals, and which is important in terms of institutional balance – I believe there is great correlation between what is said in this report, as an assessment of the aspects which are not properly resolved, and what the Commission says. We will have to look for a way to maintain this balance, which we are all claiming to be so fundamental within the institutional triangle. I would like to make a more specific reference to the future reform of the Constitution. Commissioner Barnier has insisted that, symbolically, we must all vote on the same day. With the outstanding issues – which are the subject of an evolutionary clause, the ‘rendez-vous’ clause – it is true to say that it does make sense to seek solutions which allow us to resolve the problems we have. I hope that the Italian Presidency can do so. Having said this, Mr President, and having heard the President—in-Office of the Council, I am going to propose an in voce amendment to the Tsatsos–Gil-Robles text. With the best of intentions, the President—in-Office of the Council has told us that the Italian Presidency wishes to comply with what it promised in this Parliament, but it has also told us, very diplomatically, that in Riva del Garda it did not achieve that. I believe we must state the facts clearly. What would not be acceptable, having had the Convention, would be to hear the words ‘Time for bed, children, now we are going to discuss serious matters’. That cannot be the case. It is not acceptable from the point of view not just of transparency, but of democratic responsibility. Therefore, having also seen what was discussed in Riva del Garda – because the document we have seen does not correspond to what the Italian Presidency is saying here: that we are going to be observers on the same level as such respectable countries as Romania, Bulgaria or Turkey is not a way to give the European Parliament a very worthy position – I would propose that, in paragraph 37, the wording be changed and, rather than saying ‘Strongly welcomes the Italian Presidency's assurance’, it should say ‘Expresses its concern and discontent with the lack of compliance by the Council with the assurances expressed by the Italian Presidency to Parliament’. This corresponds to reality at this moment. The Italian Presidency has good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What we need to do is to ensure that our representation is worthy and corresponds to reality. I will end, Mr President, by making a proposal to the Italian Presidency, so that it can communicate it to the Council. The majority of foreign affairs ministers were members of the Convention. We are inviting the members of national parliaments who were members of the Convention to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I believe this invitation should be extended to the ministers and the Council, so that these issues may be debated in public, which is what European pubic opinion is demanding. (Applause)

Political group: PSE