Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, one image strikes us as we leave Nice behind. There are basically two Europes: one that works and one that asks itself questions. The one that works is the one that has after all, it seems to me, spent the six months getting the work done in six essential areas, under the leadership of the French Presidency. Let us just note for the record the Social Agenda and the European company; strengthening Euroland and the tax package; the conference on commitment capability and the progress of Defence Europe; safety, whether in food or at sea; young people’s mobility and the recognition of the specific features of sport or the Media plus programme; and the important statement on services of general interest. Yes, practical Europe continues to make progress, but what struck our fellow citizens at Nice was that the Europe asking itself where it is going and what it wants sometimes looks all at sea. There is one piece of good news, certainly. Europe is now ready, thirteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, to welcome the Central and Eastern European countries knocking at our door. But as we said in this Parliament, a narrow agenda means the issues on the table have to be dealt with. It does not offer a way out. At Maastricht, we had the euro to dream about. At Amsterdam, we had the area of freedom, security and justice, and the employment chapter. But at Nice, there was nothing but the crude sharing out of power and then we saw national egoism on parade. There will be no Nice leftovers, but was there a European spirit at Nice? We are not sure there was. We all know there is a collective responsibility for this sad balance sheet, be it that of the ‘small countries’ or the ‘big countries’, be it that of the founding countries or those joining later. Nice will make enlargement possible, but without a plan, without a soul, without ambition, without vision. We can say what we like about the state of mind of our fellow citizens, but the responsibility is ours and they expect us to deliver this European project, this European dream. I have a few comments to make, and the first is on the Charter. The Heads of State and Government sometimes give the impression that they almost took themselves by surprise at the Cologne European Council when they initiated a process whose results, in the end, would frighten them. How can we accept the fact that this Charter, which carries our dreams, hopes and ambitions, should in the end be proclaimed on the sly and that, at the end of the day, the only thing proposed for 2004 is an examination of the status of the Charter? There is no longer even any mention of its possible incorporation and, in the final analysis, the only institution to emerge from this exercise strengthened is the Court of Justice, which will be able to incorporate this Charter into Community legislation, even before the Heads of State and Government. Then there is the issue of chief concern to this Parliament, qualified majority voting. How could we not express our disappointment? The scope of qualified majority is narrower than expected. On the essential issues of tax and social affairs, there is no progress. Things are more difficult because instead of just one criterion, there are three criteria to be fulfilled. Things are more complicated because there are these appeal clauses in the new Treaty, making the process even more incomprehensible to our fellow citizens. From Parliament’s viewpoint, alongside qualified majority there is still the issue of codecision. For us, that is essential. It is sometimes caricatured as not being democratic, as taking too long, but democracy takes time, and time is necessary for debates. We call for that debate to be launched. Sometimes, it has seemed as if, at the end of the day, in the conference, at Nice, the European Parliament was serving as an adjustment variable. But yes, Mr Bayrou, let us admit that we also bear the responsibility for that. We were not capable of expressing how we wanted Parliament organised. On method, I think the Nice perspectives, from that point of view, are very interesting. The Heads of State and Government have just recognised at Nice what we were saying after Amsterdam: the Intergovernmental Conference method is no longer successful for Europe. So we welcome the prospect of a new method and we trust that, with the hope offered by the possibility of enhanced cooperation, Europe will continue to advance and will be capable of drafting a constitution for tomorrow which restores our fellow citizens’ confidence in this tremendous project that is the European adventure.

Political group: PSE