Mr President, I will just focus on the issues relating to the Intergovernmental Conference, although, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you were very restrained on this subject too, as, moreover, were the Council’s conclusions of 16 October, which devoted a mere eight and a half lines to it. Yesterday, however, Mr Frattini and I were able to discuss the matter in depth in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs’ meeting open to the national parliaments, and I want to mention concerns and critical points expressed at that meeting, which have been echoed just now by Mr Méndez de Vigo. I would like to make one thing absolutely clear. There is no prejudice towards the Italian Presidency whatsoever in Parliament. Quite the opposite: we know we are indebted to Italy for the major contributions it has made to European integration at crucial times as a founder country. The Italian Presidency’s problem is now how to live up to this reputation, following on in the highest tradition of Italian Europeanism. Why are we concerned? Because a significant number of governments have shown a tendency to challenge some of the most important innovations of the draft Convention. How should we respond to this tendency? That is the question. The way the Ministerial Meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference started alarmed us. We know what happened, even though you have not mentioned it, Mr Berlusconi. The debate started with the new development introduced by the Convention’s draft regarding the operation of the Union’s legislative process, which is no longer to be dispersed among the many different configurations of the Council of Ministers, but with legislative powers being concentrated in a single General and Legislative Affairs Council instead. In the questionnaire-based consultation which took place before the debate between Foreign Affairs Ministers, a large number of the governments said ‘no’, although we do not know what their reasons were. However, the representatives of all the governments which are now opposed to the idea had accepted this innovation as part of the final overall compromise of the Convention. The issue of the Legislative Council is not insignificant. I do not have the time to explain why now, but we are alarmed by what happened regarding the issue of the Legislative Council at the Ministerial Meeting of the IGC. The issue cannot and must not be considered closed. If it were to be considered closed, we would not be facing an unacceptable compromise but total surrender. Moreover, just as, with their unequivocal refusals, many governments have put a stopper on the introduction of the Legislative Council, they could do the same thing on other, equally or even more important, key points of the draft Convention. This way of doing things is unacceptable. The Presidency must only take into consideration calls for amendments for which there is clear, long-term justification. It is the Presidency’s task to display the necessary ability for persuasion and drive, confident in the knowledge, Mr Berlusconi, that it represents not only Italy’s position but all the positions and groupings which contributed to the conclusion agreed upon by the Convention. These groupings include the parliaments – we must never forget that: the European Parliament and 28 national parliaments, in other words the direct representatives, legitimised by the vote of the citizens, the peoples of the Union. The broad consensus and the goodwill displayed by the Heads of State or Government at the inaugural meeting of the IGC in Rome cannot be relied on if the respective Foreign Ministers start to pull to pieces or chop up the Convention’s draft immediately afterwards. Beware of rhetoric! As you said last time – and it had to be said – the European interest must prevail over national interests, but the danger – which is clear to see – is that it is not even the protection of fundamental national interests that will prevail but the upholding of minor positions of interest. Therefore, Mr Berlusconi, we fear that the analogy taken from Hemingway cited in this House by Mr Altiero Spinelli when his draft was being adopted and he was less than certain as to its fate, an analogy used again in recent days by Mr Amato, will become reality. He said that the big fish we think we have caught with the draft Convention is in danger of being reduced to its backbone, for the sharks have taken away the meat. We must do everything possible to stop this happening.

Political group: PSE