Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, to my mind, it cannot be said often or loud enough that what the Council has adopted in the way of an agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference is completely unacceptable politically and I would add that I consider it to be nothing short of disgraceful. After all, we find ourselves in a situation of historic importance, that is to say, we are negotiating or are on the point of taking up negotiations with 12 States, and together we have reached a stage at which closer European integration may be a reality in the not too distant future. How, though, is the Union to be enlarged if we do not do the job properly now, i.e. before enlargement takes place? That is why we as a group are in favour of the Intergovernmental Conference. We consider it to be indispensable and urgently needed and hope that it actually comes up with the goods that will enable us to carry out enlargement of the European Union in the not too distant future. My group, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, noted with satisfaction that the Council Presidency is far from happy with the current state of affairs. You can therefore rest assured that the Confederal Group of the is committed to seeing that the Union gets on with the tasks in hand. What we are talking about is nothing more and nothing less than the future of Europe, and, in particular, a Europe that the citizens truly regard as being theirs, because they are instrumental in shaping it and because the cares and concerns, the problems and issues they face on a daily basis are also taken seriously by politicians. The politics of closed doors and private discussions; all that must be consigned to the past once and for all. That is why we need transparency. I believe it falls to you, as President-in-Office of the Council, to see to it that the train does not keep rolling on as before, leaving the people behind on the platforms as if they were ignorant as to the content of the treaties. We believe it is imperative not just to make every available effort to provide the citizens with comprehensive information on how the Intergovernmental Conference is going, and its outcome, rather they must be directly involved in the overall reform process to a far greater extent. We also take the view that the political decision-makers must at long last change the habit of a life-time and ask the citizens in referenda, once the Intergovernmental Conference is over, whether or not they go along with the way in which Europe is to continue to develop in the future. In this way, Europe would truly belong to the citizens and the Union would acquire an entirely new quality of democratic legitimacy. There is another central issue relating to democracy that I would like to make clear reference to. As a member of the convention that has now taken up its work on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I wish to make the following point clear: neither my group nor I are content with making a solemn announcement about the Charter. After all, what will the citizens say if we make a solemn announcement about rights to them but they are unable to take legal action in respect of these rights as individuals? No, to my mind this would only serve to deepen the credibility crisis facing the Union. The poor turnout at the European elections really should have been warning enough for everyone. What we need are visible rights for each and every citizen; the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be made legally binding for all the citizens of the Union. Together we should work towards this goal in the interests of the citizens, and what I expect to come out of the Intergovernmental Conference is that the relevant Cologne decision will be revised here at the end of the year. Of course, we are also talking about effectiveness of decisions and functioning institutions in a Union of 27 plus Member States. We will not achieve this just by undertaking a mini reform, as the Council has resolved to do, and that is why all institutions must come under scrutiny. We need bold change and, at the same time, we must take care to give the greatest possible attention to equal rights for the major and small States. This is something I would stress, particularly with my being an MEP for one of the major Member States. I would like to thank the Commission for the proposals they have put forward and I am certain that comprehensive discussions with the citizens will ensue here in the European Parliament, on all the issues you have raised. There is one final issue I would like to raise. Parliament’s opinion expressly demands amendments to the Treaty in the area of economic policy. It is indeed the case that globalisation of national economies, but above all the introduction of the euro and the associated stability pact have led to a situation where we need to do more than analyse decision-making processes. What we need most of all is to have the courage to undertake a critical examination of the Union’s policies to date. It is all about creating a socially just Europe. A socially just Europe is still highly topical, for what we need to do as a matter of priority is place the fight against mass unemployment and poverty firmly at the centre of the Union’s policies. Hence, to my mind, that includes having the courage to amend Article 4 of the EC Treaty, which defines the Union in traditional neoliberal style as an open market economy with free competition. The same applies to Article 105, in my view, for the European Central Bank must at last be given the political task as enshrined in the Treaty, of using its monetary policy to promote sustained growth and employment.

Political group: GUE-NGL