Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to genuinely apply the principles of fraternity, solidarity and equality and to bring forward the European Constitution. The Taoiseach has taken up that task and I would suggest that the Irish Presidency – a country of poetry and literature – remember a phrase by a great European, a French citizen, who proposed a United States of Europe in the nineteenth century, Victor Hugo, who said: the future has many names. For the weak, unattainable. For the meek, unknown. But for the brave, opportunity. I believe that moment has come, because we must remember that, according to the Eurobarometer, enthusiasm for Europe is decreasing in almost all of our countries. Nevertheless, 78% of citizens are in favour of having a Constitution, including the British – 51%– which is interesting. I would therefore appeal to the Spring European Council to renew the Intergovernmental Conference or, better still, to take the bull by the horns and for the Heads of State or Government to sit down to resolve the outstanding issues. That is what they should do if they really understand what an historic moment we are at. With regard to the issues that are still contentious, we should work on the premiss that our Union’s power must not lie in blocking decisions but in reaching decisions by majority. In this regard, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to express the support of my group – and specifically my Party – in order to unblock the situation in my country, in order to replace the cat-fighting method with constructive debate. It is truly an important step; to use the double majority and a weighting which allows us to move forward and to function. Another important issue – above all fundamental to Parliament – is the scope of qualified majority voting and the balanced distribution of legislative power between Parliament and the Council, including budgetary power. There have been significant backward steps in the recent drafts of the Italian Presidency. And it is an issue of serious concern to us. I believe that Parliament should express its opinion clearly. We are not prepared for there to be a clear backward step because the Constitution is approved. Another important point dealt with in the informal meeting, as well as many others, which was held in Berlin amongst three countries is the creation of a person in charge of the economy in the Commission, a minister for coordination. Parliament had repeatedly argued that we needed responsible economic governance. We have a draft Constitution in which there is a Minister for Foreign Affairs but there is none for the economy. If we seriously want the Lisbon strategy to make progress, a strategy which creates employment and which also creates technological conditions for the future, we must give it a face. There is no reason why this cannot be subject to consideration and an amendment to the Constitution by the Intergovernmental Conference. With regard to the financial perspectives – which also continue to be a contentious issue – we support the Commission’s presentation of the proposal for the financial perspectives in accordance with its responsibilities and we cannot accept being haggled down, above all at a time of enlargement. Parliament could have said that it is in favour of 1.4% of GDP. We have accepted the Commission’s position, but we do not believe that haggling is a good sign for the future. Finally, Mr President, my group is clearly in agreement with taking account of the result of the European elections, on the basis that we all want to win them. In any event, however, there is a fundamental point: given the European political landscape, no party is going to have a hegemony and, if we apply parliamentary thinking when it comes to proposing the President of the Commission, we must be consistent. In a parliamentary system, the important thing is the capacity to create majorities, and that is done according to a programme. Therefore, Mr Poettering, it makes no sense to issue vetoes prematurely. We are also prepared to win the elections and we are then prepared to create a progressive and Europeanist coalition. We will now have to see how prepared you are to do the same. (Applause)

Political group: PSE