Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the French President has introduced the French Presidency’s substantial programme to us today and it would be impossible for me to cover even a fraction of the points in four minutes. But what I would say is that, as I see it, there are three aspects which the French Presidency is going to successfully take forward. Firstly, it will raise the profile of the 11, or soon to be 12, Members of the euro-zone. This will entail providing our single currency with political support, and I have every sympathy for the French Council Presidency’s desire to raise the profile of this political support for the euro whilst fully upholding the independence of the European Central Bank. What is more, if we were to coordinate budgetary policy and harmonise taxation policy more effectively, it would help to stabilise the single currency. But I would add that if we were to strengthen the euro-zone in this way, then this would be a topical example, and also one of the most important examples, as it were, of reinforced cooperation within the context of the Treaty. That is absolutely fine. But then I would also want to see France acting with true pioneering spirit, although in matters pertaining to the implementation of the directive on the internal market, France belongs to the rearguard. After all, we have some catching up to do there, particularly where the implementation of Community legislation in France is concerned. France, along with Greece, Portugal and Luxembourg are in the rearguard on this count, and not the vanguard. I would be only too pleased for it to be otherwise. My second point concerns reinforced cooperation in the construction of a European Union of security and defence. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that the European Union must have all the means and instruments at its disposal that it needs to pursue a truly common foreign and security policy worthy of the name, which also means strengthening our military capability and establishing the political and military structures we need for a common foreign and security policy. Of course my third point concerns the agreement reached by the 15 Member States in Nice on reforming the institutions and the decision-making processes within the European Union. I have two fundamental comments to make in this connection. Our aim, from which we must not be deflected, must be to preserve the unity of the institutions. The European Union does not need new institutions, it needs institutions that operate better and are able to make decisions more effectively than is the case at present. That is one aspect, and the second is this: although it may be true that as a European Parliament we could have wished for a broader agenda, it is more important to make substantial progress in the points that are on the agenda now. The future size of the Commission is important in this respect, but it is not central. The new weighting of votes in the Council is also important for striking a new balance between large and small, North and South and rich and poor within the Union, but that is not crucial either. The spotlight is on the extension of majority voting. I would hope, assuming France and Germany have already moved closer together – which I welcome with open arms of course that these two countries will stick together over the issue of extending majority voting in the Council, and set an example, so as to progress beyond the status quo, because so far, the 15 have been able to reach agreement on just two areas. President-in-Office of the Council, majority decisions in the Council imply co-decision rights for the European Parliament. There must be an inextricable link between the extension of majority decisions and the grant of co-decision rights to the European Parliament over the European Union’s entire legislative programme.

Political group: PSE