Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are approaching the debate on the forthcoming European Council in Brussels with a certain amount of optimism. The President-in-Office of the Council, the Danish Prime Minister, Mr Rasmusen, when he was kind enough to invite us to the Conference of Presidents in Copenhagen, spoke of the three stages of the Danish Presidency. We knew that the Irish referendum and the elections in various Member States (Sweden, France and Germany) would have to be overcome, and now the second stage is beginning. We need to clear up a few grey areas in Brussels and reach agreements in order, as Commissioner Verheugen has said, to be able to prepare for the Copenhagen Summit in time. That is very important. First of all, I shall address the question that I believe to be the most decisive: we must not only be able to talk about negotiations and money, which is always important, but we must also be able to provide a political impetus and vision for this entire process. Before a wedding, the pre-nuptial agreement can be significant. In Hollywood, some film stars sign pre-nuptial agreements over 100 pages long. It is also important to know which house the couple will live in, and that is the job of the Convention. Our main problem in the European Union, rather than in the candidate countries, however, is managing to muster political enthusiasm and historic vision. This is the responsibility of the Commission, the Council, and also our responsibility here in Parliament. I consider this to be the most decisive factor, and I would say that this is the weakest point at the moment. We have talked about the budget, which is a summary of our policies. In my personal experience, in the process of the integration of my country – and also of Portugal – into the European Union, budgetary issues were extremely important and defined the current framework, the 1988 Brussels Summit, the MacSharry reform and the Edinburgh Summit. I believe we must start with the fact that it is good to have financial perspectives – I was the rapporteur for Parliament when the first financial perspectives were proposed – but these must not be restrictive. They must be interpreted according to a fundamental political principle: that the budget is adopted annually. My group believes that we cannot wait until 2006, because there are important questions that need to be resolved. The first, as President Prodi has said, is that the candidate countries are not net contributors. This aspect is absolutely fundamental, not only in presentation, but also as a display of solidarity. Secondly, we need to talk about 80% of the budget. The Commission has put forward a proposal, which my group considers to be of interest and which we should debate, which does not refer to changing the ceiling of the common agricultural policy, but of making this a possibility in future, and, in particular, of introducing criteria of sustainable development and solidarity, which this policy is lacking. It is therefore our responsibility to address these problems now, without waiting until 2006. The same is true of the Structural Funds, which are a sign of economic and social cohesion, not total cohesion, but an important tool for the modernisation of these countries, as they have been for others such as Ireland – the country of origin of the President – Spain – my own country – Portugal, etc. We must make the effort to consider how we can achieve better agreements that enable us to protect our interests and, at the same time, extend them to the candidate countries. That is something that cannot be put off until 2006. We need to address it today, and it is important for agreements to be reached between France and Germany at the Brussels Summit, naturally – it is not good for one country to isolate itself from the rest of the Community – but also between all the current partners. This is also an extremely important signal. Lastly, Mr President, in this case we must also talk to the candidate countries knowing that we are on the threshold of a decision that involves a shared destiny in the future. And we must also make a joint effort in Parliament to be able to adhere to a complex timetable which is an obstacle course we must overcome with a common political will. (Applause)

Political group: PSE