Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have learnt one thing from this debate between the group chairmen, the Council Presidency and the Commission: everyone agrees that there is one single priority for the coming six months, and that is enlargement, enlargement, enlargement. At the same time I have observed something that I do not think we have ever seen before: complete agreement between the majority of this House, the Commission and the Council Presidency on the procedure and timetable. We really should work through this together, because this is the only way that we will be capable of completing this historic task. I am also grateful for the fact that it has been made clear, as we have stated in Parliament's resolution, that no new conditions must be attached to enlargement, and that it has been made clear that we need a reform of agricultural policy, but that this is not a new condition either. And if the mistakes of Agenda 2000 are now to be rectified, then this should not be to the detriment of the accession countries; those who negotiated Agenda 2000 must accept their political responsibility rather than off-loading it onto the electorate or the accession candidates. It continues to be necessary to make it very clear that the principle of differentiation still applies. Even now, with ten countries that will probably be able to make the final leap, they should also be aware that even so, at the end of the day, each individual country will have to be assessed on whether it meets the conditions. This means that as yet none of them can be absolutely certain. That is also why a number of things will have to be checked, for example with a country like Poland there will have to be a discussion about whether the central bank will have to remain independent or not. These are important issues and they will have to be examined in a context such as this; for this reason no country should feel too sure of itself. Mr President, I should like to encourage you to pursue the Kaliningrad issue. But I should also like to make it very clear that for historical and pragmatic reasons the solution to the Kaliningrad issue cannot lie in creating corridors. For the reasons I have mentioned, I do not believe that we can expect either the Lithuanians or the Poles to welcome the creation of a corridor through their country, and because of this we have to show some willingness to compromise when applying the Schengen criteria, but of course here we also need to guarantee the credibility of our secure external border in a Europe that guarantees freedom of movement. It seems clear to me, however, that this is also a great opportunity to build bridges to Russia. In the autumn of this year we will have to hold difficult discussions with Turkey, a country that is, for strategic reasons, extremely important for us. We must make every effort to ensure that, because of these strategic reasons, Turkey remains part of our Europe, but if the price for compromises on the use of NATO facilities for the CESDP and on Cypriot membership is inconsistent compliance with the Copenhagen criteria then this is unacceptable. (Applause) I do not believe that this price can be paid because it would call into question the credibility of the entire enlargement process for the future. I know – because I cannot think of an answer at the moment either – that it is going to be a hugely difficult task for the Council Presidency and the Commission to overcome this problem. Nevertheless, I believe that we will take this opportunity, that we will make a success of it and that above all we will make it clear that the unification of Europe is not about settling the accounts of the past, but that the unification of Europe is a way of ensuring that the past, which was so dreadful, never comes back, and that this is about giving this continent a fresh start. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE