Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, on 3 September last, in this very place, Mr Giscard d'Estaing presented us with the draft constitution for Europe. I was extremely critical of the text at the time, since I and my group saw it as constitutionalising the liberal model by perpetuating the most contentious part of the Maastricht Treaty both in its direction and as regards the institutions. The project is now frozen for several months. Some might think that gives us some satisfaction, but for my part that is far from being the case. First because the course of liberal Europe is not affected by this failure. It will continue for one simple reason: it is unfortunately not the subject that divided the 25 governments. Everyone, from Mr Berlusconi to the Polish Prime Minister, has been keen to underline that there was consensus on virtually every point of the draft constitution apart from the method of calculating the qualified majority in the Council. All the problems so forcefully raised in the growing public debate on the draft constitution, in the recent European Social Forum for example, are therefore still on the table. That is nothing to be pleased about. Then we had the distressing spectacle of ambition for power and dreams of power, with no comparison being made of the options for the Union’s policies, objectives and values, seemingly echoing that stupid watchword ‘Nice or death’, a complete denial of the politics and spirit of responsibility. This Europe long in tooth and short on ideas, alien to people’s expectations and insensitive to the frustrations welling up everywhere, is a princely gift to populists and demagogues of all kinds. This failed prelude to an enlarged Europe is likely to have a devastating effect on all who have real ambition for Europe – an alternative ambition to the present treaties, but a strong ambition nevertheless. Finally, this impasse is giving new life to the outdated old ideas of the hard core. Only too glad of an opportunity to pull out, the richest countries are threatening to cut back the funds intended for the least developed. By doing away with the notion of solidarity between Member States, such a development would be the death-knell of any community, allowing the dream of the most liberal to come true, the free trade area. We cannot accept such a view. It is a caricature of the idea of closer cooperation between nations, some of whom want to see a more advanced social model and some a more independent and more offensive international policy prevail without waiting for an impossible unanimity of 25. But for that to happen there would have to be a real European political project within the European Council. But the truth is, there is no project, except perhaps for that very ambiguous one of European defence, made worse by the Union’s new strategic doctrine that makes your blood run cold simply by reading it. There is the rub. The way this European Council has gone and the results it has produced ought to convince the doubters on one point: because of the major changes it will require to the present institutions and directions, a project that our fellow citizens can identify with and feel part of will not, will never come about spontaneously from a conclave of Heads of State and Government. A convention will not be enough either. The challenge must now be taken up by the citizens who aspire to it and the parties with which they identify. In my view, it is this level of ambition, more than ever, that will have to shape the next stage in European policy. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL