Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I would like to welcome this debate which is finally taking place in the European Parliament, and the presence of Minister Anna Lindh. It is she who can interpret for us the statement in Annex IV, which has become statement 23, which we do not believe was simply the result of fatigue and frustration during the early hours of Monday, but which is a modification, a development, and not merely repentance, but a political change towards greater democracy. The President-in-Office has said that the debate began on 7 March. I have taken good note of what she said and furthermore I would like to thank her publicly – because I raised the question at the previous plenary session – for the fact that Parliament has finally been incorporated into the statement of 7 March, something which did not happen initially, and that you have amended the letter that you sent us which had rather too much of a tone of the secretariat of the Council, including annexes. You have produced a shorter letter so that we can understand one other better. You have launched a website. If I may be so bold, my Group had already raised the issue on 1 March. Then you began the debate in the European School and I must point out that you were really playing on home ground, because the children are sons and daughters of European officials and they are well-versed. The night before you put very pertinent questions to the parents. I think that it would be worth going to Kiruna or the Canary Islands to speak to the ordinary folk. In this instance, I think you were playing with an advantage. To turn to the heart of the matter, I must say that my Group, as we stated in plenary, agrees with President Prodi’s proposal for a structured debate in three phases, because this is neither an academic debate, a chat over a cup of coffee, nor a talk show. This debate must yield results. The important issue for my Group is to know how you see the organisation of the debate, because since I agree with and respect Sweden’s essential role and tradition of openness and transparency, you will agree with me, Madam President, that the shock may be even greater if, after holding a very broad debate, open to civil society, we then take decisions behind closed doors. What is unacceptable today will be even more so in the future. It is very important, therefore, to know how you view the structuring by phases, especially because we are in representative democratic systems, and how you view the second phase, in which the various representatives of civil society, which are basically the European Parliament, the Parliaments of the Member States, the Council, the governments and the Commission, can truly make our contribution. The NGOs, various forums, colleges and universities must also participate. This is an absolutely decisive question. We propose an open and transparent method which involves all the participants. That is what gave us a successful convention and we believe that it is absolutely essential that the Swedish Presidency, without waiting for Laeken, makes some proposals on method, because in Laeken content will be discussed and you have an historic opportunity to lay a first stone, to launch this debate, giving it order and structure. To this end, you can count on our support. And although, in the end, we have corrected the statement of 7 March, I must say that it did not have the most auspicious start. We hope that the Swedish Presidency, with the greatest respect for its democratic and open tradition, is capable of understanding the message, which I believe Parliament and the Commission agree on, and that this process may begin, in order to ensure that a debate is held and that decisions are taken on the future of Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PSE