Madam President, I should like, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, to begin by recording our thanks to the Portuguese presidency and our appreciation of its willingness to engage constantly with this Parliament, with its committees and with its groups. We deeply appreciate that. It has helped us to develop and evolve a considerable appreciation of the enormous work which this presidency has put into the task. I wish also to record our view that, subject to consolidating the path set out at Lisbon, at Feira and subsequent Council meetings, European summits and various Council meetings and in this House, we believe that Lisbon marks a major change, a milestone, in terms of the evolution of socio-economic policy reform in Europe. It will stand the test of time as a testament to the work of this presidency. You have remarked, Mr President-in-Office, that enlargement is the historic challenge. We in my group very much believe that. We believe that one of the measures of the consciousness of the depth of that historic challenge will be found in the reformist appetite of the states in the IGC. I say on behalf of my group – and this is not the responsibility of a hard-working Portuguese presidency, but a failure of a collective will – that we regret the failure to date to make more progress on some of the basic issues. I cite qualified majority voting as an example. I would insist, as other speakers have, on this Parliament's view that we also need to link changes in voting procedure to changes in legislative procedure. The codecision question is not simply a question of giving more power to this House. It is the question of recognising, as we step towards improving the efficiency of the institutions, especially decision-making in the Council, that it needs checks and balances, to add not just efficiency but also representative democracy. It is an appeal, therefore, for the quality of European democracy and not simply an appeal for the interests of Members of this House. We are prepared to engage in the debate on closer cooperation and welcome the way it has been put to us by a number of important political personalities outside this House. But there are some caveats: we hope that speculation on long-term reform will not be the enemy of necessary radical reform in the immediate period ahead. We believe that the Monnet method has served the Union rather well. We would certainly wish to reflect on any attempt to radically change it. We believe it is important not to signal to existing Member States or to candidate states that any of us would contemplate a Europe of first- and second-class citizens in terms of statehood and membership. I should like to briefly mention the question of Austria. My group would appreciate it if the Council at Feira would try to make an evaluation of the quality of relations between the Fourteen and Austria. It is important that as Fifteen we find the accommodating political climate to make the necessary progress in the months ahead. We are not prescriptive in the manner of achieving this. I add one footnote, but an important point of principle. President Klestil came to this House and I had the opportunity to talk with him briefly during his visit. I asked him to send to me a copy of the list that is available of persons and agencies in civil society in Austria who have become isolated from various educational, social or cultural events in Europe. That is intolerable. Regardless of intergovernmental diplomacy, it is intolerable that we should isolate the common citizens of a state. Lest this should get out of hand, my appeal would be for a calm assessment of the matter, to make an evaluation and find a way forward. If there is any way that we in Parliament and my group can assist, we are ready to try to do so.

Political group: ELDR