Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if anyone is looking for a juicy bit of controversy between Parliament and the Commission or Parliament and the Council, or even a juicy bit of controversy between the major parties here, I have to disappoint them. We all want and continue to want to make enlargement a success and it is not a matter for party political sabre rattling, Mr Poettering. I therefore have no difficulty in signalling to Mr Brok and everyone else that my group will be voting in favour of the resolution tabled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, the enlargement reports and in fact all the country reports. There may be a difference of emphasis here or there, but over all both the resolution of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the country reports satisfy my group’s principles and criteria for the continuation of the enlargement process. We also agree with, and support, the Commission’s strategy as explained by Mr Verheugen today. We stick firmly to the principle of merit for the conclusion of negotiations with the candidate countries, and we also agree to your plan of saying that by 2004 ten candidate countries may have managed to conclude negotiations according to our criteria. It need not be 10, but it may be 10. We are prepared for that. We also agree with attention being shifted in future reports from the transposition of EU law to the application and enforcement of EU law. That is, in fact, one of the most important points that we must make clear and stick to until the accession treaties are concluded. But we understand the target date not just as a window of opportunity for the accession countries. We also see the target date of 2004 as a means of applying pressure on the Member States themselves not only to pay attention to how and to what extent the candidates are solving their problems but also to ensure that the Member States themselves do not create new problems for accession. And that is the rub if we have set our eyes on the year 2004 as the target date. Of course – and here I support what Mr Verheugen, Mr Brok and Mr Poettering have said – we shall talk about the risks, the burdens and the deficits of the present enlargement process. There are many points there. But if we want to win the people of Europe over to support what we are planning and what we have to do, we must not speak only about burdens and risks. We must also speak about what all of us in Europe stand to gain from enlargement. Then let us talk about how reform of the common agricultural policy is naturally about financing and about reform. That is correct. But let us also say that it is about strengthening consumer protection in Europe. Let us say that the security of the Union’s food supply will be preserved and must be further strengthened after enlargement. Let us say that enlargement presents no risk to environmental protection, on the contrary that in a few years’ time EU standards will apply in the whole of Europe and not just in the western part. That is an advantage for us, too, not just for the east Europeans. Let us make clear to the people in the EU that we can fight international crime and corruption better in the European Union than if the countries of eastern Europe are left outside, if the laws we have created to fight international crime also apply in eastern Europe. Let us talk about how enlargement will benefit us all because we will carry more political, economic and also ecological weight in the world, in a world that is becoming increasingly globalised. That in Europe together we will have more chance of meeting the challenges of globalisation than if we in Europe diverge into east and west or north and south. And economic and social cohesion, social solidarity in Europe will extend to Europe as a whole, and that is an advantage not only for the east, it is an advantage for us as well. Funding up until 2006 is secured. But that does not mean that enlargement will come at no cost. Most surely not. It has its price. But non-enlargement is expensive, too. It costs much more than enlargement. Its price is economic, social, ecological and political stability in Europe, above all else its price is trust. Failure to enlarge will deprive Europe of its future. Basically, we are on the point of taking a step comparable to the situation in 1989/1990 for the whole of Europe. What is at stake is not merely one or other transitional period, not that this or that project or programme or fund will work better or worse. Neither is it only about this or that advantage for one country or another. It is about something very simple: It is about the future of all Europeans. And there we are only at the start of the debate. After the failure of Nice we are also setting great hopes on the Belgian Presidency. This debate about the future of Europe must not be conducted only in the Member States, it must also be conducted in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and in Cyprus and Malta. (Applause)

Political group: PSE