Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner Barnier, many MEPs in this House are critical of the Treaty of Nice. I and my group, too, are deeply worried about the future of the European Union, because many of the questions affecting people’s everyday concerns and needs have still not been resolved or are addressed only half-heartedly. Nice has weakened the Community. Nice was a step backwards in terms of integration. There is no trace of a strengthened democracy, more transparency, more freedom of action and ability to take decisions! As the report says, the Treaty has rightly removed the obstacles to enlargement in the most formal way possible. From this point of view, I should like to thank my two colleagues, Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro, for their commitment to their work as rapporteurs because their report reflects the predominantly critical view of the Treaty taken by this House. The Nice Council revealed that the governments are in the end fighting only to preserve their national rights of veto. The Union itself is facing the greatest challenge in its history, but instead of energetically tackling the pressing problems, the governments dissipated their energies behind closed doors. In my opinion, the time after Nice must therefore be used to rescue the Union from Nice. I want to take up a few points here that I consider important. It is absolutely essential that the number of seats for the Czech Republic and Hungary in the European Parliament is corrected immediately. There can be no discrimination against these two countries in their parliamentary representation in this House. Post-Nice must tackle an ambitious, really far-reaching reform, a reform that must achieve two things. Firstly, the progress made towards integration must not be reversed, and I should like at this point emphatically to stress that I do not share the German federal government’s position on the renationalisation of agricultural policy and of the Structural Funds in particular because it amounts to calling into question one of the Union’s central pillars, the principle of economic and social cohesion and solidarity between Member States. Secondly, we need a reform that will actually make the Union viable for the future. A constitutional process must therefore be initiated the outcome of which will be the formation of a united Europe by the will of its citizens. This naturally involves a Europe-wide, broad and open public debate, that is essential, but I should also like to stress that Nice has shown that the Intergovernmental Conference method is out of date. It is no longer the appropriate way of carrying Europe substantially forwards. We need a method, the convention method that many here have already mentioned. Important and essential as decisions about the future institutional structure of Europe are, we must not forget to question the contents of European policy. Europe’s future cannot remain confined to the market and common currency. I welcome the fact that French Prime Minister Jospin put the objectives of Union policy at the centre of his latest speech and did not, like Germany’s Chancellor Schröder and Foreign Minister Fischer, largely confine himself to questions of EU institutional reform. The debate over the content of European Union policy is in fact at present more urgent than the discussion about its final institutional shape and I welcome the fact, Madam President-in-Office, that you also raised the matter today. Justice, solidarity and social policy must be central values and tasks of the Community. Jospin’s proposals for a closer coordination of economic policies and the formation of an EU economic government as well as for setting up an EU economic fund to assist EU Member States in times of crisis are therefore extremely topical. Social dumping must no longer be commonplace in the European Union, harmonisation of corporate taxation is in fact urgent.

Political group: GUE-NGL