Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to say to Mrs Maij-Weggen that it seems to me to be totally counter-productive, as a Member of the Convention and a Member of the European Parliament, to maintain rivalries between small and large states. It also seems to me, in any case, that Greece is a large European country. I would also like to say that I welcome the decision taken at Thessaloniki on the five Balkan States. I believe that this was a most historic day in the creation of this greater Europe, the source of democracy, peace and stability, towards which we are all working. With regard to the Convention, I should like, Mr President, to say two things to you. The first is that it seems to me that there is an unidentified objective in this draft constitution, and that is the fourth part. You are giving us a mandate to make technical improvements to the third part, and you can count on us to do that. As for the fourth part, though, where has it disappeared to? The Convention has not really discussed it, and I am afraid that there is a broad consensus within the IGC that nothing should be said about it. In the final analysis, it seems that there is a conspiracy of silence, so as to ensure that nothing is said about what is at the heart of a constitution, namely the question of how the text can be revised and whether it authorises regional unions. When and how shall we be discussing these issues? In any case, it seems to me that, according to the Laeken mandate, these issues also fall within the competence of the Convention. I hope that, at least as far as the rest is concerned, the Intergovernmental Conference will be able to be short and decisive. As for the operating method of the Intergovernmental Conference, it seems to me that, at Thessaloniki, the rough outline was established, but there remain four absolutely vital points which the Heads of State or Government must take into account. First of all, they cannot treat this IGC just like any other IGC, like those of Amsterdam and Nice, for example. Before the new IGC takes place, things will have happened, in particular the fact that there will be twenty-five of you. Therefore the situation is not the same. The second important point is that you have been asked to examine a text which has not been prepared by a group of experts or a group of wise men, but which has been drafted by 105 Members of the Convention, without any options. That is a long way from being a good basis on which to work. The third point concerns Parliament’s involvement. We will not accept the sort of treatment we received at Amsterdam and Nice. It was all right, but today we need something more, and something better, and, what is more, that is in the interests of the Intergovernmental Conference itself. I do not deny the intergovernmental nature of this Conference, but as regards the task to which you have committed yourselves, prepared as it has been, the Conference cannot imagine that, all of a sudden, history will come to a halt and we shall go back to the previous process, like we used to do when there was no Convention. This is why the nature of Parliament’s involvement is so important. I have one last point, about the way in which the IGC will be working. I am sure, Mr President, that I will have your agreement on this point. Lack of transparency, silence and the strategy of evasion cannot be the way in which the IGC operates. In order to work and to make progress in the right direction, you need the support of Parliament, and you will need a debate, of which there will be an official record, not just the evasive statements organised by journalists. Consequently, Mr President, I would ask you when and how all these elements will be explained in detail, because they are elements which are vital to the working method of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: PSE