Mr President, President Prodi, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, we are embarking today on a debate whose preparation in recent weeks has already been accompanied by a great deal of shadow-boxing, and I am pleased that the proposals are finally on the table so we can talk about them. I am not so lacking in self-confidence that I feel any need to be bound solely by what others are suggesting. Nor do I feel any need to be bound solely by the Commission’s proposals, just as I see little reason to take the individual statements from the Council or parts of the Council as a benchmark for myself. Instead, as Members of this Parliament, which is one of the institutions to vote on this financial perspective, we will address these issues over the coming weeks and months, and indeed over the coming years – that is how long such difficult discussions can take. In doing so, it is not acceptable for one side to say: ‘We have an idea and we want a vast amount of cash to implement it’. That cannot be the right approach. However, the other side also cannot say: ‘Look, you have a bit of cash in Europe, see how far you get with that’. Both of these approaches are wrong. Here is what we have to do. We must face up to the challenges that we are already discussing jointly, and then work through them point by point. Let me say this: all of us – including those who have been regaling us with grand words today – will have to be flexible on a number of issues. We will have to discuss what we want to do in the field of research and development. At our last session, we agreed that 3% of gross domestic product should be spent on this policy area in Europe. This 3% cannot be accommodated in the budget, for then the 1.24% or 1.0% or whatever would not be worth the paper it is written on. We therefore need to talk about budget combinations. We must discuss what should be done at national level in the Member States in future, and we must discuss what we can best do jointly at European level. We need to do this in all the areas before us. That includes foreign policy, for example, where the European Development Fund is currently outside the budget; we will integrate it. We will also have to discuss what proportion of international conflict prevention we want to fund from the European budget and what the Member States will cover in future. We have adopted a figure of 0.7% of GDP as a guide here. As regards justice and home affairs, we will have to discuss whether we want to maintain Europol and Eurojust as small units, as at present, or whether we are aiming for further development here. Another question is how much of the fight against organised crime should be funded at European level and what should be funded at local level. All these issues will have to be discussed. We will also have to talk about what comes under each budget heading and which proportion is paid from which budget. I am very flexible here, and I am approaching this debate with an open mind. I believe this is essential, for otherwise – especially given the war-cries now resounding through the corridors – it will be impossible to create the right atmosphere for a substantive joint debate. I think we have found some good things in the proposals you have presented. We will be looking at them. We will of course be discussing with you why the proposed duration of the financial perspective is seven years. It is important to highlight the fact that this may result in a Parliament such as this one – as Mr Elles has said – being excluded completely from the debate about the funding of the European Union’s future. A seven-year period could produce that situation. We will need to talk about the growth rates that you have taken as a basis for your financial calculations. I think I saw at one point that you are assuming economic growth of 4.5% per annum. If we achieve that growth rate over the next seven years in Europe, we will have no problem with any aspect of funding. We therefore need to discuss which statistics you are taking as a basis for your overall figures. We will have to discuss the structure you are proposing, and whether it is transparent, efficient and flexible. Our interest in reforming agricultural policy also means that we want to invest in the development of rural regions within the framework of general agricultural policy. Is this possible, based on your proposals? Or will we have new hurdles to overcome yet again in a new financial perspective – hurdles which cannot be overcome? We need some measure of flexibility because as several other speakers have said, challenges will arise over a seven-year period which we cannot predict today. I am firmly convinced that we, in this House, should engage in this discussion with self-confidence. We have our own ideas and we will set out our vision of the Europe we want to achieve. We will talk about the resources to be deployed for this purpose. I look forward to our discussions with you. I also look forward to the discussions with the Council. Both of you will have to deal with a self-confident but serious and solid Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE