Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, the Helsinki Summit on 10 and 11 December is highly significant for Europe in the 21st century in general and for the European Union in particular. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we wholeheartedly welcome the decision to start negotiations with Latvia and Lithuania and with Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta. I hope that it will become clear when we embark on discussions with the three Baltic states that the security of these three states is in good hands in the European Union. I have held discussions with representatives from these three countries over the past few days. They are most concerned at Russia’s behaviour in Chechnya and by opening negotiations with Latvia and Lithuania, rather than just Estonia, as we did at the beginning, we are sending out the right signal and the Baltic states will know that they belong to our Community and will soon enjoy the security which membership of the European Union brings. (Applause) We in the group take Turkey seriously and we make no secret of the fact. We always were, and continue to be, Turkey’s friend. We were the group in the European Parliament which pressed, before anyone else, for Customs Union. But, there is also a strong minority in our group which does not share the majority view. The majority of the group takes the view that, if Turkey becomes a member of the European Union, and we must be clear on this, then the European Union will take on a different political, economic and cultural quality. I know, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, that you have been highly committed in the past to monitoring and discussing the Kurdish problem and you know full well to what I refer. I would urge the other groups, if we are to subscribe to this compromise text as a European defence policy, to accept a motion for a long-overdue debate on the geographical enlargement of the European Union. We are waiting for the Council of Ministers to nail its colours to the mast and tell us exactly what the geographical enlargement of the European Union will look like. That will give us plenty to debate over coming weeks and months. Then there is the Intergovernmental Conference: Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I have every confidence that you will succeed in making it clear in Helsinki that we do not intend to confine ourselves to the three Amsterdam leftovers. Obviously, the extension of majority voting is crucial. But it is also crucial for the European Parliament to be given codecision powers on all matters decided by majority vote in the Council of Ministers. If we, as a European Union, want a place in the global economy and on the increasingly globalised political scene, then we must make up our minds to give the European Union a legal capacity so that representatives of the European Union can act on behalf of the European Union. At the moment the European Union is a non-starter. It cannot even buy a house. These are the facts and this is the root of the problem. There are numerous other issues too. What worries me is this, and I would ask you to take this very seriously in the Council of Ministers and in the Commission: the European Union can only be enlarged subject to certain conditions. I am a passionate advocate of enlargement because, having shaken off Communism, the countries of Central Europe have a right to join our community of values. However, and I am equally resolute on this point, if there is a danger that enlargement will lead to the break up or the dilution of the European Union in the sense that, in the end, we will merely be an economic and financial institution and not a political union, if this is the danger which enlargement holds, then we should say no to enlargement. What I mean is that we need to make reforms first. I can only urge the Council of Ministers to make every effort to give this Intergovernmental Conference a comprehensive mandate and to ensure that the European Parliament’s two representatives are allowed to attend the conference on equal terms. We are debating defence policy, an issue which we have supported here in Parliament for decades. We need European defence. But when we talk of European defence, we also mean practical measures. For example, I am most worried by the cuts in defence spending in my country. In other words, we will not achieve what we say we want to achieve and that really would be a pity. Talking about European defence and including European defence in the Treaties makes no sense if we put no flesh on the bones, which is why it is important to put flesh on the bones, to create the capacities, but without standing in opposition to our American partners and our allies in the USA. We do not want to oppose America, we want to stand on an equal footing and we want to act in partnership. If we take this approach, the western alliance also stands to gain. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE