Mr President, the Laeken European Council has dragged us from the dreadful quagmire which Nice had led us into. Not only from the point of view of the concrete results achieved, but also from the psychological and morale points of view. Of course, there were frankly discouraging moments at Laeken. I am convinced that neither Mr Chirac nor Mr Berlusconi have learnt a thing from the experience of Nice. Furthermore, they were not the only ones who were prepared to risk the solidarity of Community cohesion for the sake of agencies, several of which have neither a legal basis nor any real purpose. And what a striking contrast we have seen between the stimulating content of the Laeken declaration and the haggling over agencies. But in reality the European Union is still vacillating between these two poles: on the one hand, the lack of progress resulting from the thinking and the interests of the national States, and on the other the zeal and enthusiasm arising from the desire to complete the construction of the European Union. The challenge represented by the Laeken declaration, and which must be taken up by the Convention, is precisely to tip the balance in favour of strengthening democracy, efficiency and cohesion on a European level. The questions posed are good, and it is very good not to have any taboos. It is a good thing that the Constitution was discussed in the Laeken declaration. But it is the responses which count and we have not yet won. Personally, I see at least two elements of concern during these days following Laeken. The first concerns the Convention. It is not only through corporatism that I profoundly regret that the balance between the national and European dimensions is being broken and that for 28 governments there are just 16 European parliamentarians. I do not believe that we will be able to distinguish between the Convention and the IGC unless we manage to change national thinking. Secondly, the membership of the praesidium. Why continue with this system whereby only former Heads of State and Government, normally men, and some older than others, can dictate the destiny of Europe? (Applause) I would have preferred a parliamentary way of thinking, and we would have preferred the Convention to have chosen its own President, or – better still – its own woman President. The second element of concern is represented by the episodes of street violence and expulsions, which, though in a different way to Nice or Genoa, also took place in and around Laeken. I am not sure whether, if there had been more consistent demonstrations in terms of the demonstrators, we would really have prevented serious problems. The European Parliament has the task of ensuring, in a coherent and untiring fashion, that the strengthening of cooperation in the fields of terrorism and crime does not lead to a weakening of the rights of citizens. It has to be said that the message and practice stemming from Laeken are contradictory. However, the future will tell whether the seed sown at Laeken will bear fruit. For the moment, we must thank the Belgian Presidency for its work and hope that subsequent presidencies will show the same commitment and coherence.

Political group: Verts-ALE