Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, I believe that the President-in-Office identified one of the main issues here when he rightly pointed out in his address that it will be very difficult to finalise the adoption of the constitution at a later date if the process is delayed now, because our collective awareness will diminish as new players take the stage and because the political agenda develops in such a way that it is well-nigh impossible to resurrect a project after a year and a half. For this reason, I believe that the Irish presidency has been pursuing the right approach by probing for potential compromises in a host of bilateral talks. With Mr Hänsch, Mr Duff and others, we have visited a great many other capitals over the past few months and have been given the impression that everyone wants the treaty to be concluded. Only on one particular point did it prove impossible to reach an agreement. It seems to me, however, that views have begun to converge and that those who stand in the way of the agreement are now fewer in number. For this reason, and because it will become more difficult as time goes on, the Irish presidency should be encouraged to propose at the summit on 25 March that an extraordinary summit be convened even before the first of May so that an agreement can be reached. What we stand to lose if we cannot reach that agreement on the Constitutional Treaty is the chance to link enlargement with a more efficient European Union and to anchor the European Union to a bedrock of common values and transfer more power to the people, who would elect the President of the Commission through their vote in the European elections and, by virtue of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, enjoy a wide range of legal entitlements and safeguards. I also believe that we must not jeopardise the achievement of this aim by perpetuating the myth that there is a crucial difference between the large Member States and the small ones. In all my 24 years as a Member of this House, I have never once experienced a vote in the Council or the European Parliament in which the representatives of the large Member States lined up against those of the small Member States. Voting is based on interests – whether countries produce wine or not, and so on. That is how things are, and this myth must not stand in the way of decisions. The Heads of Government must clearly acknowledge their responsibility for ensuring that this myth does not obstruct progress and must not use it as a pretext for stalling. (Applause) That is why I wish to make this one point: with this draft constitution, we have a truly unique opportunity to bring the whole of our united Europe together on the basis of the equality of nations and governments. If this endeavour should fail, Europe will relapse into groups advancing at different speeds with all sorts of barriers between them – not overnight, but at a steady pace. Responsibility for taking this opportunity lies with the 25 Heads of State or Government, and they must accept it. Let me conclude by drawing a comparison with the present situation. In my country, the parliamentary assembly that met in St Paul’s Church in Frankfurt in 1848 adopted a democratic constitution that would have paved the way for a united democratic Germany, and that the King of Prussia declined to accept. We are all well aware of the consequences of his decision for my country and for Europe. Today’s monarchs are the Heads of State or Government. I hope that they will not make the same fateful error that the King of Prussia committed in 1848. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE