Mr President, in politics, dogmas are overcome by the will of the majority and in this case I believe my fellow Members, whose speeches I heartily welcome, have made their will very clear. Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, the latest 2002 barometer published by the Commission indicates that six months after 11 September more than two out of three European citizens considered that the fight against terrorism was a matter that should be addressed at European Union level rather than at national level. Eighteen months later, however, do the European Union and the Member States still deserve this trust? That is the context in which today’s debate should be considered. We are meeting to debate the progress made by the European Union in the tough fight against terrorism and its future strategy. Following the intensive work and efforts carried out, the time has come to stop and think: what have we achieved? Where have we failed? And consequently, what are the next steps we should take? Certainly an enormous amount of work has been carried out. We should think about the adoption of the action plan in the fight against terrorism, the approval in record time of a common definition and penalties, and the arrest and surrender warrant, in addition to the establishment – as has already been said here – of Eurojust and the revitalisation of Europol. Nevertheless, we must be honest, not only with ourselves, but also with our citizens. Faced with the reality and current state of the terrorist threat, many European measures are still only theoretical. The 11 September attacks brought to light all the obstacles to the full creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. In the event of another crisis situation, do you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the citizens of Europe, and, to a greater extent, the victims of terrorism and their families, would be satisfied if we explained that the lack of effectiveness of the reaction of the European Union is due to its very architecture comprising pillars, the difficulty of adopting decisions unanimously, the attitudes of certain Member States, the refusal to exchange data with Europol? I sincerely doubt it. September 11 made us realise that the European Union is not fully adapted to the new world context. I am going to highlight three fundamental aspects. The first is that terrorism aims to destabilise the Rule of Law. Our task must therefore be to reinforce the content and legitimacy of European legislation. Today there is only one way of doing this: approving the work of the Convention on the future of the European Union to communitarise every aspect of the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice and subject them to the same rules of democratic and jurisdictional control. The aim of terrorism is to foster conflict between citizens of the same community. We must take into account the fact that terrorism is not just the person who plants a bomb or fires a gun, but that it also involves an infrastructure, financial means, legal advice, information on possible objectives and places to take shelter. The repulsion felt by society itself towards all those who use crime and threats is therefore a fundamental aspect of the fight against terrorism. Lastly, terrorism takes advantage of the opening-up of our societies to cause as much harm as possible. The terrorists take advantage of the eradication of physical borders and the remaining legal and police borders between the Member States, and it is therefore vital to progress in the creation of this space to prevent it from being abused through the courts. In the committee I have the honour of chairing, we shall continue to give the same attention to the results of the application of the action plan against terrorism and the future strategy of the Union. We also reserve the right to inform Parliament should we see that the Union’s commitment against terrorism is weakened or if the disputes between authorities or governments endanger the safety of European citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE