Mr President, the document that we are discussing appears to be more like an election manifesto than a parliamentary mechanism. Furthermore, the fact that this was drawn up and signed by minorities known for being anti-Europeanist quite clearly exposes this intention. This is confirmation that, in making Parliament’s work more frenzied, the run-up to the elections is inspiring initiatives such as the one that we are dealing with this evening. The Eurostat affair is once again being discussed by some of our fellow Members to bring general discredit to the European institutions and, in particular, to the Commission and its President. My fellow Members who signed this document know that the Eurostat affair has been – and still is being – continuously and thoroughly tracked by this Parliament and will be the subject of an umpteenth resolution in this sitting too. The bad faith concerning this affair is clear to see when nothing is said about the specific measures adopted by the Commission and, more generally, about the reforms implemented in order to achieve the good governance that we want to inspire all the European Union’s institutions, a process followed step by step by this Parliament and by its Committee on Budgetary Control too, and mentioned here by Commissioner Reding. Of course, it is easy to stir up scandal about particular issues in order to try to grab the attention of the public, which is often ill informed about politics and the European institutions. It is more difficult to give Europe a political dimension, starting with adopting a real constitution. Having said that, as a representative of the Group of the , it is a matter of pride to me that no one in my group signed this motion. The support of the British Conservatives once again clearly shows the untenable association of this group with the European People’s Party tradition, so well represented by Mrs Grossetête and also by Mrs Avilés Perea. Among the signatories, I then notice many Members from the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, in which the representatives of the Italian Alleanza Nazionale stand out in particular. It seems to me that this position contrasts somewhat with the role that the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, Mr Fini, played in the work of the Convention. This is perhaps why Mrs Muscardini wisely withdrew her signature. If the Members of her delegation were to follow her example, moreover, that would even cast doubt on the safety of the 66 signatures announced by the President this evening, without even mentioning the so-called ‘technical signatures’, which should not turn into votes in favour either. There is, however, another key to interpreting the true intentions lurking behind those who tabled this motion, and it is the one given by the Vice-President of Italy’s Senate, Mr Calderoli, chief representative of the Lega Nord. He claimed that, in actual fact, the signatories are secret supporters of Mr Prodi. Indeed, this Parliament’s trust in the President of the Commission would be strengthened and his prestige increased as a result of this motion, which will certainly be rejected. If this is true, though, what is to be said then about Mr Speroni, a member of the same party as Mr Calderoli? Is he aware of being converted into one of the most fervent supporters of the European Commission? If things are really like this and we look at the motion of censure in this light, then I believe that all of the group of signatories have something to think about.

Political group: PSE