continue in this vein , speak out loud and clear at biarritz and at nice , draw on the wise , sensible positions adopted by the european parliament on this matter , and this house will certainly not fail to lend you its full support . mr president , mr president-in-office of the council , mr president of the commission , the questions which mr napolitano asked the council and commission on behalf of the committee on constitutional affairs bear witness to a view of the charter , which , unfortunately , our group is unable to share . if the charter were to form part of the treaties , this would be at the expense of the authority of the council of europe and of the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms . in the long term , this is almost bound to lead to a competitive battle and conflict of interests between the european union and the council of europe . we would therefore be in favour of the member states discussing the european union 's accession to the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms as one of the subjects within the framework of the igc . as a group for a europe of democracies and diversities , we hope , however , that such a federal state will never see the light of day . mr president , personally i am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the union normal relations have been resumed , apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with . until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals . whether , incidentally , another convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a european constitution remains to be seen . as far as biarritz is concerned , i should like to point out that it is not far from there to nice , but neither - more importantly - is it very long now . the question of whether the member states will be able to agree on a new treaty in nice is still completely open . the attitude of the french presidency - that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one - is sensible in my opinion . however , people 's views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart . in addition , the french presidency is not escaping criticism from leading european diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations . but it is precisely the conduct of this french presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller member states take the impression with them from the negotiations on the intergovernmental conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large member states . the first has been the method selected , that of the convention , which took the form of a judicious blend involving the competent representatives at national and european level , even if there was an extra guest at the table , as commissioner vitorino underlined . the three musketeers were in fact four , but they have indeed enabled a method to be set in place that we should turn to in the future to move matters forward within the european union . the third benefit has been that of the good work done by parliament , something that any parliament would welcome . the quality of those who have spoken before me makes it unnecessary to linger on this point , but it is true that there is a real added value . the scope of the charter respects the principle of subsidiarity and it was no easy task to draw up a text that was balanced in legal terms , but still attractive and accessible to the citizens . the counterpart of this threefold benefit is a threefold responsibility . the first responsibility concerns our comments . i believe that we must look beyond the frustrations inherent in any consensus in order to praise this charter , rather than dwelling on what we would have liked to have seen and still envisage . the second responsibility is that of adopting the charter . i would like to think that parliament could , in november , adopt the charter of fundamental rights with all due formality because it is traditional for parliaments to act as the custodians of public freedoms , and the european parliament must seize the opportunity to demonstrate this . lastly , the third responsibility is to follow up on this charter , and we must show tenacity in this regard . we have voted , by a very large majority , for a resolution that calls for this charter to be incorporated into the treaties . i am aware that we already have a lot on our plate at nice , and i am not convinced that it would be wise to ask for actual incorporation as early as nice . what we can at least call for at nice is a very precise timetable for the eventual incorporation of this charter , even if , as legal experts have confirmed , it will have legal effect as soon as it is adopted by this house and by the heads of government , as there is nothing to stop the court of justice referring to it . the end result is therefore a text that will be of great value within europe , as many people have stressed . it is an asset for the people of europe . personally , i take pleasure in imagining that it could one day act as the preamble to a constitution yet to be written . lastly , with regard to the world outside europe , i believe that human rights are the true message to come out of europe . we now have a european handbook to send to our partners in their concentric circles - first to those who wish to join us and then to those with whom negotiations are being held . which enshrines the indivisibility of fundamental rights , overcoming the traditional distinctions between civil rights , economic and social rights and rights in new areas , and affirms the equality of men and women in all fields of human activity . however , today , the charter is essentially a symbol , the symbol of the passage from the europe of the single market to the political europe , from the europe of states to the europe of the citizens . made up of different peoples and nations which wish to retain their different traditions , languages and religions , the european union 's identity is based not on belonging to the same ethnic group , the same land or the same race , but on shared principles and shared fundamental human rights . this is the model of european civilisation which , after centuries of bloody conflict , has guaranteed us lasting peace between our peoples , and it is this peace and this social model which is our gift to the candidate countries , whom we do not ask to share our traditions or beliefs but to accept the same rules as we do in order to safeguard the freedom and dignity of every human being . the unprecedented method - as it has rightly been described - followed in drawing up the charter produced rapid results , thanks to the participation of the representatives of the peoples and their governments , the involvement and achievement of consensus among all the elements of civil society which wished to express their opinions , the transparency and collegial nature of the proceedings , the willingness to listen to different positions and the acceptance of sound compromises . the debilitating semi-secret or confidential negotiations which characterise the intergovernmental method do not produce the same results . now , this symbolic document is a milestone in the process of constitutionalising the european union - for , in my opinion , the union 's constitution will not come into being in a single document all in one go , but will be the result of the gradual consolidation of the common institutions and the definition of shared fundamental rules - and it must become practically enforceable law . thanks to the treaties , the union has become an area of freedom , security and justice . this cannot continue to exist without an obligation to respect clearly proclaimed fundamental rights . it is the responsibility of the states , who are guardians of the treaties , to establish this constraint by conferring legal status upon the charter in the most appropriate way . the charter is the soul of the union and it cannot remain suspended in limbo indefinitely : it must be incorporated into current legislation . the governments must take human rights seriously and enforce them firmly and effectively to the tangible benefit of the european citizens . only then will the citizens begin to look upon europe as their common home . mr president , the meeting in biarritz is the half-time point in the struggle for a new treaty . unfortunately , the match has so far been goalless and not very exciting . the people of europe are waiting impatiently for results . the candidate countries are waiting for positive signals showing that the way to membership of the union is , despite everything , becoming shorter . in the member states , we are all waiting for the council of ministers to show the political courage and will really to reform current cooperation . the french presidency therefore has a big responsibility for ensuring that genuine and tangible results are achieved in nice , and the new treaty must really create a european union for new member states . the institutional issues need to be solved and a clear mandate provided for continued work on a european constitution which is citizen-friendly and comprehensible . the charter must be incorporated into this constitution , and i hope that a signal to this effect will be given in biarritz . for us liberals , it is an obvious fact , and one that needs to be crystal-clear , that the present intergovernmental conference must be the last before new member states are admitted . unsolved issues about the future of the european project may not be used as justification for further postponing our historic task to unite europe . the eu will never be ready , but the candidate countries must participate actively in future discussions . the convention method is perhaps more suitable than these intergovernmental conferences we have had in the past . expectations prior to the meeting in biarritz are running high . we all long for signs of progress . it is time to score a few goals in order to maintain hope and to sustain interest in the match as a whole . mr president , i believe that body language can sometimes speak louder than words , but i do hope that mr moscovici 's distracted and condescending demeanour during this debate is not representative of the attitude of the council of which he is the president-in-office . i am sure that this is not the case , and i hope that those countries which have welcomed president prodi 's speech with relief and enthusiasm will be able to take steps in the run up to nice to ensure that it is a genuine success . i would just like to focus briefly on the appraisal of the convention method . it is quite true that it is an improvement on an intergovernmental conference , but - take note , ladies and gentlemen even the convention was forced to achieve consensus on every single word and , in the end , particularly during the concluding phase , it turned into a sort of intergovernmental conference ii : our praesidium had to negotiate with the member states instead of , or as well as , members of parliament . i therefore feel that , once again , the obligation to achieve unanimity on every single part of the charter as well as on the final result will prove extremely hampering when we come to evaluate the content of the charter itself . mr president , mr prodi has referred to the referendum in denmark . the outcome of which i believe reflects a malaise that extends far beyond that country . many european citizens are questioning the point reached by the union , its objectives and even the logic of integration . we say that there is a crisis of confidence with regard to the institutions . and i feel that this crisis is due in particular to the disparity between the expectations of society and the ability to live up to them . while growth continues apace, inequalities have become increasingly intolerable . the call for equitable distribution has become even louder, there are also great expectations as concerns cooperation , transparency and public debate . we must learn to listen more closely . despite the method adopted , which i welcome , the charter of fundamental rights , which should be the social foundation stone of the european union would not seem to match up either to the expectations or to the objectives set . despite the constructive changes made in the final draft produced by the convention , there is still great disparity between the contributions made by citizens ' associations , their hopes and the results actually achieved . i would even go so far as to say that this charter contains many ambiguities . following on from what my fellow member , mr wurtz , has said , i would like to stress the extent to which the vital reform of the institutions should address the issue of making the union more democratic . mr president , i have only one thing to say in response to the president of the commission 's speech : bravo ! we know that things are not going well and it is better to admit it openly . the negotiating side of things has hitherto proved disappointing and yielded negative results to our knowledge , on not one point in the total 75 cases of unanimous voting has total agreement been reached , and in italy , for the first time , a recent survey has shown that , in one of the largest regions , the north east , europe is falling out of favour . the truth is that europe resembles an aeroplane taking off : either it accelerates and keeps rising upwards or it falls to the ground . and so , president , you who bear the greater responsibility , firstly , you must make it clear immediately that , if nice is a failure , there will be an internal crisis which may well involve resignations from the commission , if necessary , and secondly , you must make it just as clear that enlargement is impossible without prior thorough reform . europe is in danger of being defeated by compromises , not crises . when such crises are triggered by opposing views they are healthy . mr president , like all top class cyclists , president prodi knows the right moment to break away from the pack . this is what he has done this morning in this speech which has given us all fresh hope . i would like to focus on two facts which produce opposing reactions : satisfaction at the convention and bitterness at the outcome of the referendum in denmark . these are two different results which , however , i feel are closely related and herald new times . almost 90 % of the population took part in the danish referendum , a level which bears unequivocal witness to the citizens ' interest in contributing to european decision-making . on the other hand , the result , which we fully respect , may be an indication that the citizens do not yet feel in tune with the european ideal . the problem may well be a general one . it must be admitted that , after 55 years of community life , there may well be a lack of feeling of belonging to anything other than a merely geographical europe . the internal borders of today and the single currency of tomorrow are certainly useful , necessary symbols which will affect citizens ' everyday lives in a practical way and contribute to reinforcing the european ideal , but they will not fulfil the citizens ' call for greater heed to be paid to their views and for greater representation of their interests and , above all , of their hopes for the future . as we know , the objectives set at the current intergovernmental conference do not meet this demand fully , although the reform of the weighting of votes and the extension of qualified majority voting are steps in this direction . for a long time now , we have been talking about a post-nice period during which institutions and operating procedures need to be reformed more effectively , also and especially with a view to enlargement . i and many others feel that the experiment of the convention should be repeated , and that the formula adopted should be refined as we go along , so that the hope recently expressed by president chirac that the reform processes will increasingly serve the purpose of bringing our institutions closer to the citizens will be fulfilled . the convention was a europe-wide success in terms of the formula adopted , the significant results achieved within the time allowed and the sense of accountability shown by all the participants . let us endeavour to promote this model to ensure a future in which our hopes for europe are realised . mr president , i too am proud of the text of the charter which is being submitted to the biarritz council . it is the first time that the indivisibility of fundamental rights has actually found expression ; something for which a case has been made in the international arena , since the human rights conference in vienna in 1993 . the presidency has failed to carry out the wishes of the vast majority of the convention , who wanted an unambiguous reference to the revised social charter of the council of europe to be included . i think this is unwise , but i assume that the european court will make up for this in its interpretation of social rights . as an ex-trade union negotiator , i am used to defending the outcome of negotiations . do not , therefore , expect me to come up with a whole list of points which are lacking or which have not been formulated as well as they could have been . this was the cologne mandate and this is also what the charter can do , whether it becomes binding or not . naturally , the charter must be incorporated into the treaty and it should form the basis of a european constitution in future . but some member states need slightly more time to get used to the idea . those at the back of the queue threaten to dictate the pace , but this is no reason to relegate the charter to the bin if it cannot be made binding right away . the charter should become a live instrument , both legally and politically . on a legal plane , i can think of forms of enforcement other than direct enforcement by the european court on an individual basis . for example , in the council of europe and the ilo , there is a wealth of experience in terms of reporting procedures , expert committees and the collective right of complaint of trade unions and ngos , and it is through these means that the charter can be monitored from a legal perspective . just as important is the fact that the charter can establish itself as a political project as a means of involving people in europe . the discussion which mr verheugen sparked with his statement on a referendum was a painful demonstration of how bad communication is between brussels and the citizens . similarly , the danish referendum can be taken as a motion of no-confidence . ngos and trade unions are ready for this , as has become evident from the enormous commitment they have shown to the process so far . let us hold on to this commitment and build on it . last week , the benelux governments proposed in an igc memorandum that next year , under the belgian presidency , a plan for giving direction to europe 's will have to be laid down which addresses these points , such as the anchoring of the charter , but also the discussion on reforming institutions and authorities , which mr prodi was referring to . i think it is a realistic timetable to propose a project for the future of europe under that presidency , and the charter will have a role to play in this . mr president , mr president of the commission , mr president-in-office of the council , ladies and gentlemen , this is an important passage in the history of europe , in the history of the world as well as of the union . the drawing-up and approval of the charter of fundamental rights , together with an intergovernmental conference which may lead to decisive changes and enlargement are historic events which may leave their mark on the start of this new century . there is , however , the possibility that the full potential of this decisive episode will not be realised if the charter is not made legally effective , if the intergovernmental conference does not carry out the reforms and if , as a consequence , enlargement becomes liable to hold back political integration . therefore , this last prospect should certainly not be restricted by pre-set limits but rather , while remaining within the bounds of an accepted legal and institutional framework , enable the member states who are ready to do so to set off along the path of deeper political integration , leaving the way open for the others to join them when they consider the time is right . we must allow everyone to follow his own political project in the union , in a harmony of differences which , after all , has already proved to be a winning solution in the history of the european union . mr president , like many in the house i very much welcomed what mr prodi said to us this morning , both about the architecture of the union and its institutions and about the charter of rights . i am one of those who believe that adopting the charter , even in a declaratory mode , will be a welcome step forward because it will certainly lead in due course to a charter that is fully legally binding . i should like to draw the attention of the house and the commission to the question which will arise this friday when we are discussing the rights of the lettori , the foreign language lecturers in italian universities . here we have a situation where rights possessed by citizens of the union have been denied for twelve years and more . it is no good agreeing a charter of rights at the highest level if individual citizens who are wronged by a state have no effective remedy . we insist , therefore , that as well as the commitment to the charter we have heard from the commission today , it also commits itself to protecting the rights of individual citizens . mr president , the proposed charter of fundamental rights does not mean that citizens ' rights are to be reinforced . it adds nothing over and above what is at present implied in the eu 's , the member states ' and the council of europe 's policy in this area . this is also clear from article 50 of the treaty . seen from a left perspective , there is a lot missing from the text of the charter . the charter can therefore only be seen as an attempt to transfer responsibility for citizens ' rights from the institutions in which they at present reside to the european union . we believe there are better alternatives , namely for the eu to sign and , in that way , be subject to the council of europe 's convention in this area . this would also reinforce pan-european cooperation in this sphere instead of weakening it , as there is a danger of the eu charter doing . mr president , the result of the danish referendum ought to be understood free from false interpretations . the danish ' no ' vote is not isolationist or nationalistic in character . it is not a sign that a majority of danes are saying ' no ' to european cooperation or that the danes are not carefully informed about the ins and outs and development plans of the european union . a majority of danes have said ' no ' , as they did in 1992 and 1993 , to more european integration , ' no ' to surrendering more sovereignty and ' no ' to the tools which serve these purposes , that is to say the euro , majority decision-making and a european constitution . allow me to stress that the ' no ' votes were delivered by voters right across the political spectrum . even half of the ruling social democratic party 's voters said ' no ' . it should not be imagined that the european project , of which we have heard the president of the commission , mr prodi give such a clear description , could have convinced the danes and persuaded them to vote ' yes ' . the danish government and the parties in favour of the euro have done everything in their power to explain away the integration and surrender of sovereignty that are under way . in order to pacify a people who have been independent for a thousand years , it was declared that ' the union is as dead as a doornail ' . if the danish government had spoken as clearly as mr prodi and mr poettering did in this chamber today , there would have been many more people who voted ' no ' . however , what the summit can do is to prepare the groundwork for nice , and this is why this debate is certainly useful to get across our parliamentary message . with regard to biarritz , i desperately hope that the amsterdam leftovers can be resolved very quickly . concerning the number of commissioners , we believe that one commissioner for each member state is enough , and parliament needs no more than 700 meps . furthermore , and this brings me to the most important point , all eu legislation must be subject to qualified majority decision-making combined with - and this is a compelling point - parliament 's right of codecision , because i have heard rumours here and there that these two do not automatically coincide .