Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, on behalf of the Group of the , I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Finnish Presidency on the success of their debut. It has been a fine debut, because you have been able, at this historic and symbolic moment, at the dawn of the new millennium, to draw up a creative approach for the European Union in the light of the challenges it is facing. I believe that Prime Minister Lipponen and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs Halonen, who is absent today due to other work commitments, have truly worked effectively and seriously. Our fundamental criticism of the Finnish Presidency and the Summit is that, clearly, and in the eyes of our citizens, their substance has been more impressive than appearances would suggest. I think this concern should be expressed through our comments and criticisms here in the European Parliament. Why? Because, with regard to enlargement, an open and political principle has been displayed by offering all countries the possibility of acceding, of competing with us, with a desire to emulate us and of participating in our adventure. It is also clear that a significant and genuine step forward has been taken in relation to Turkey. I have to say, on behalf of my group – where we have debated the issue at length – that our positive attitude towards Turkey is unanimous. And now, at a time when this step has been taken – and we must remember that relations with Turkey did not start yesterday, but in 1963 –, we hope that Turkey will also respond in a positive manner, both with regard to its internal process of democratisation as well as its relations, not only with the Community, but essentially with the country which has taken the most important step and which I think should be congratulated: Greece and its government. Next, with regard to the Intergovernmental Conference, which is the preliminary step we have to take in preparing our shared Community for enlargement, I believe that we are moving forward significantly, but I am extremely aware that the Council systematically tries to undervalue what it does. There is always talk about the leftovers of Amsterdam; leftovers are normally thrown in the bin. These are very important decisions. Confirming the principle of majority voting as a general rule in the Community, as the basis for the political functioning of the Union (which is very important for the Parliament insofar as we can make codecisions), being granted legal personality, which includes, in the Conference, decisions which the Council has taken, such as, for example, drawing up a Charter of Fundamental Rights... What is the point of all this if it is not included in the Treaties? A significant step has been taken with regard to security and defence policy, and in this sense I would like to underline the fact that the Community spirit is winning us all over. Who would have said a year ago that Finland would be the country which would preside over the European Union at a time when it was taking such a decisive step in terms of security and defence identity? I believe this shows that, together, we are doing things and taking positive steps. Curiously though, we do not explain them and we do not sell them. And nor do we accept an important task in this Parliament which is, in the name of transparency and through clarification, to try to create Treaties which are comprehensible to the citizens. I would remind you that this appears in the Treaty of Amsterdam, but has not been mentioned since. This opportunity, which is so important, has never been taken. I must also say that the Summit statement with regard to the European Parliament’s participation may well be positive to an extent, but we do not like to be described as parliamentary observers. We want to have ‘representatives’ of this Parliament, because that is the role of our institution. (Applause) And remembering what happened at the Seattle Summit, I believe that we have to make a considerable effort to explain to the citizens what we are doing. Otherwise, we run the risk of producing unwanted reactions. A final word, Madam President, regarding an issue which concerns my group very much. It seems to us absolutely essential that we are able to move forward in relation to capital-gains tax. The European process cannot be seen as a process in which there is less and less capital gains tax and more and more tax on wages. If we continue along these lines, we may find that those in work will react against the European process, especially within a framework of financial globalisation which lacks rules. Therefore, Madam President, I believe that the Finnish Presidency has taken an enormous step forward. What is now required is a sustained, hard, arduous and persistent effort to keep things moving forward. But, above all, we have to carry out the task of explaining the process to our citizens, and I believe that that is our principal mission.

Political group: PSE