Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Verheugen was entirely right to say that we are in the final phase of an irreversible process. Enlargement can be delayed no longer, and to seek to delay it is to contemplate making a grave error and taking an unhistorical step. Nobody in this House, I believe, wants to hold enlargement up. In this irreversible process, though, demands are made of both sides. We have discussed the candidates, and the tasks that the candidate countries must carry out. Many true things have been said about this, but we must take a critical look at ourselves and ask ourselves where we stand in this final phase. Even on the eve of its enlargement, does not the European Union itself still show deficits, and are there not tasks that it has not completed? On that point, I want to address two aspects of the debate over the past eighteen months, and a period of time that lies ahead of us. Following Nice, we were told by everyone in the then Presidency of the Council and by the Commission, that Nice made the EU capable of enlargement; indeed, there were even Members of this House who said so equally emphatically. In Parliament, the overwhelming majority of Members took the view that this was not the case. Parliament took the initiative in introducing what was then termed the post-Nice process, which has, thank God, culminated in the convocation of a Convention, which is henceforth charged with eliminating the deficits, particularly of an institutional nature, that we still have as enlargement progresses. Nice saw the adoption of an agreement that did not go far enough, especially in the areas simplifying decision-making mechanisms, reform of the Council, and reform of the Commission's structures and democratisation. Much more is it the case that what was adopted at Nice was a mechanism for reaching majority decisions, one that complicated matters more than it simplified them. If we proceed with enlargement on the basis of such structures, it will be incapable of being delayed – on which point, Mr Verheugen, you are right – and will, furthermore, be necessary and historically right. It would, though, lead to a dangerous paralysis in the European Union and, furthermore, such a paralysis that there would an even greater threat of people turning away from the European Union. There is therefore a link between the Convention's task and enlargement. It is the Convention, in fact, that must make the European Union capable of enlargement. You referred to the need for Parliament to give its support in this. Parliament is indeed an important partner, and that in two respects. We are an important partner because we, in this House, will see to it that the democratic reforms needed at the heart of the European Union are actually carried out before the new Member States join, in other words before the European elections. We will equally see to it that we will, being part of the budgetary authority, join in dealing with the financial requirements, and do so to a creditable extent. As Commissioner Verheugen rightly said, the upper limits are clear, but there continue to be within them serious problems in need of a solution. These problems are, incidentally, not only of the sort that arise from enlargement and the financial arrangements associated with it; they result also from the decisions by which, within the framework of the foreign and security policy, additional financial functions are transferred to the European Union, functions that must also be funded from the Budget and will result in staff being redeployed. This means that Parliament, over the next two years, has to make it abundantly clear that we are the Council's and the Commission's partner in enlargement policy. Being a partner, we give support, but we will also critically monitor what the Commission and the Council will do about democracy, reform and the funding of the enlargement process. (Applause)

Political group: PSE