Hopes and concerns about Europe coalesce around a number of issues, whose successful resolution (or lack thereof) will depend to a significant extent on political choices. I would list three issues:

Can Europe overcome the tension between enlargement and internal cohesion?

How can Europe overcome the present state of economic stagnation?

Can Europe act as a strategic entity in international politics?

The fear that enlargement would be a break to further integration has spurred the Union to great institutional efforts which hopefully will lead to the signature of the Constitutional Treaty during the Irish presidency. This would be the culmination of a decade long effort, of which Amsterdam and Nice were way stations. Enlargement after all has not been incompatible with reform.

Nevertheless, there are those who do not hide their unease and speak of differentiation and pioneer groups as the only solution for the future. I do not oppose differentiation — provided groups are open to all — but regard it not as a solution but as a lesser evil. Differentiation already exists in the Union. It is the price to be paid for the Union not to break apart, not the panacea that will carry it forward.

Europe cannot be in a constant process of institutional flux. Institutional reform consumes a lot of political energy. Not enough is left to address pressing policy problems in other areas, especially economic and security problems. With the approval of the Constitution, I hope for a period of institutional stability.

Even if the Constitution is signed, ratification of the new Treaty will not be easy and may bring us some surprises. This however has less to do with the enlargement than with a feeling of disenchantment with the European project that is becoming more pervasive. One of my major concerns, in fact, is the growing distance that the public feels regarding European institutions.

The European Union exists to serve its citizens. When we enlarge the European Union we are enlarging the frontiers of peace, freedom, stabilility, democracy and prosperity. We are bringing more security to others and adding to our security as well. Furthermore, given the stringent criteria applied to prospective members, we must be glad when new countries qualify, especially countries of great significance like Turkey.

This is why I think it would be unfair for Turkey and damaging for the European Union not to set a date for the opening of accession negotiations with that country.

I also hope that enlargement will stimulate economic growth across Europe. This leads me to the second issue: how can we stimulate the European economy.

No one questions the need for common fiscal rules in a monetary area and for fiscal responsibility. Nevertheless, it is open to question whether present rules — embodied in the Stability Pact — are appropriate. Stability has turned into stagnation. What we need now is a much greater focus on growth, which requires a better co-ordination of economic policy and, at least, a more flexible interpretation of the Stability Pact.

From the economic point of view, the European Union has achieved a size which allows it to act with strategic autonomy in economic policy — as an entity that affects conditions in the world market instead of being at their mercy. The question is whether the European Union can act with sufficient unity to take advantage of its size and weight in order to foster the well being of its citizens and to promote its goals in foreign policy.