Thank you so much for the kind words that have just been addressed to me. I take them as a tribute to the country that I represent and as a gesture of friendship to Portugal.

I was particularly pleased to accept the invitation of the Slovak Foreign Policy Foundation to speak to you about the new political horizon of Europe arising from the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe as presented a few days ago in Thessalonica. It is certainly a very up-to-the-minute theme.

As a European citizen I am pleased to see that the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe drawn up by the Convention constitutes a decisive landmark in the future of an enlarged Europe.

Not only because I am one of the 63% European citizens who, according to the latest polls by Eurobarometer, support the idea of a European Constitution, but also because I believe that the current draft Treaty contains some fundamental progresses that I am sure will make it possible to change the course of European construction in the desired direction, that is, obtaining more and a better Europe.

Added to my satisfaction as a European, is the joy of the assured and determined Europeanist I have always been. In that capacity, I cannot refrain from hailing, in the text that is now available, the outcome of a risky gamble, that many thought would fail but which in the end was the right one, which was to entrust to a Convention the pioneering task of producing a Constitution for an enlarged Europe.

For my part, I have always supported this option and never ceased to believe that the work of the Convention would be decisive for the future of Europe. I am pleased to see therefore, that even despite the difficulties caused by a particularly worrying international situation, generating tension among the European partners, the Convention was able successfully to complete its demanding mission. I think it is only fitting, therefore, to pay tribute to all our representatives at the Convention, for the work they performed, for their feeling of public European duty and their renewed European commitment.

I believe we are witnessing a tangible turning point in the construction of Europe bringing it closer to its citizens. These were able, either through their legitimate representatives – parliaments or governments – or through the so-called civil society, to express their expectations about Europe and their vision of the future of the European Union.

In fact, the debate on Europe has never been so transparent, open, wide-ranging, generalised and on going as it is now.
And although the Eurobarometer polls show that the Europeans hardly know what the works of the Convention actually entailed, they nevertheless reveal that most people have very clear ideas about the Commission, the Council or the strengthening of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

There is no doubt that the advantage in having called an assembly with such a vast number of participants is also having a positive effect at the national level of each of our Member States, generating a strong consensus between the oppositions and parties in power, as all have taken part in drawing up the constitutional project, having supported it in general terms. From the point of view of the very necessary consolidation of the national consensuses of our 25 Member States concerning the future European Constitution (which in fact the parliaments of each country will be called on to approve), the decision to have a Convention has shown itself to be judicious and fully justified.

It seems to me, then, that with the current project of the Constitution we have managed to transform part of the challenges raised by the reunification of the European continent into an opportunity to strengthen the European Union itself.

In the first place, we have turned the issue of reforming Europe into a federating project of both the new and the old Members of the Union, giving everyone the opportunity to work together to define their common future. The reunification of the European continent has thus acquired a useful integrative dynamic which I believe is important to develop relations of mutual trust between the partners, to encourage dialogue, consensus and compromise, and to strengthen the feeling of belonging to a community of shared destiny and values, which in my view, has been one of the defining lines of European construction and one that must be preserved.

We have also created an intense movement of public opinion around European issues – Europe appears finally to have spread beyond the narrow confines of diplomatic negotiations and emerged as a political project that mobilises societies and citizens.

Moreover, we have given back to history its capacity for renewal, releasing the potential for creativity and innovation that this implies – I am of course thinking of the future European Constitution, a sui generis entity from a legal and even a political viewpoint, which began by encountering great resistance and doubts, but whose principle is now consensual.

Lastly, we were able to establish conditions in the future constitutional text to give the European project a renewed dynamic and open new horizons for co-operation, which will allow the Union to continue to deepen the current political integration process.

Mr. President,

This is my positive reaction to the works of the Convention, following an overall favourable preliminary assessment of the draft Treaty of the Constitution. It appears a legitimate one, both because of what we have learned from the history of European integration and the successive reforms introduced in the founding treaties, and because of the conviction that the unification of Europe around a European federative project is an opportunity for which globalisation gives us no sustainable alternatives.

Notwithstanding, I am keeping a critical eye on the institutional architecture and the model of operation proposed in the current draft as regards its adjustment to the principle of equality between States. In my view this principle represents a premise for its feasibility and a decisive factor of its political vitality.

Up to now, the system of rotating presidencies of the Council, the composition of the Commission and the use of national languages within the Union materialised the equality of treatment reserved to States, counterbalancing the elements of differentiation that are associated to the demographic factor in the Community architecture.

It is the case, for instance, of the criteria for calculating the qualified majorities within the Council, attributing parliamentary seats or the composition of the Commission.

The question now is to assess whether the model introduced in the draft of the Constitution includes a sufficiently solid and balanced system to prevent discrimination and inequalities.

It is well known that I have advocated (to no avail, of course) that only the creation of a Second Chamber (by adapting the current legislative Council, for instance) would fully guarantee equality. I think this is an essential point that must be carefully evaluated by the Intergovernmental Conference, at the risk of endangering the foundations of European construction.

On the other hand, as regards the changes introduced in the institutional system, I believe there is some imprecision and indefinition in the balance between the Council and the Commission, which must be fine-tuned and clarified at the next Intergovernmental Conference.

Lastly, it is important to highlight and keep an eye on the understandable heterogeneity of the visions that the various partners have of the European integration process and which, in fact, is reflected in the text of the current draft Constitution.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that now is the moment to achieve greater harmony concerning the principles and values pursued by the Union. Although Europe was built on the basis of creative pragmatism, the current “explosion” in the number of Member States will require a continued strengthening of the degree of convergence concerning the purposes of the Union to counteract the natural increase of the centrifugal forces induced by enlargement. In other words, I fear that too many fast leaps forward, the possible proliferation of strengthened co-operation and the persistence of an in-depth ambiguity about the objectives of the European project may jeopardise its coherence and global unity, weaken its deepening and in the last instance, lead to its dilution.

I therefore believe that we must stick to our original course and take great care not to mortgage the future of the Union as an egalitarian political project that federates the peoples and States of the European continent, giving Europe a strong presence in the world. It seems to me that the room available for manoeuvre lies more in how we implement the future constitutional precepts and on the human plane – the people selected to perform the future European missions – rather than at the level of the founding text that, in my view, corresponds to a difficult denominator common to the 25 Member States.

Consequently, it is now up to the Intergovernmental Conference to consolidate this text, honing its least successful aspects, more clearly defining other points that require more work and rethinking some of the more controversial provisions. As far as I am concerned I do not believe that it is politically desirable to reopen negotiations that will most likely eliminate the discussion that has already taken place within the Convention, without fundamentally modifying the overall balance achieved.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The challenge of the current enlargement of the Union is immeasurable and the deepening effort to be carried out under the future Constitution will also represent a unique effort. These are two battlefronts that will only work if fought together to enable Europe to reaffirm itself as a project for the future.

I believe that the current draft Constitution provides an adequate framework within which to fulfil four targets I believe are essential to sustain the European project: consolidate the European security space; preserve the Union’s territorial, social and economic cohesion as well as safeguard the European social model and strengthen Europe’s role in the world. It is these two issues that I have decided to discuss in more detail, given their importance for the future of the European continent.

Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion of the Union and the Model of Market Social Economy

The first positive point to be underlined is that the current draft Treaty of the Constitution presents more clearly the balance that must exist between economic and social objectives, so much so that we can no longer characterise the European Union merely as an economic space, without referring to its social objectives. An example of this, for instance, is that on the one hand one of the objectives of the Union mentioned in Article I-3 now expressly mentions "a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress", and on the other hand, the inclusion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the constitutional text gives these rules – and rightly so – a legal force that they hitherto did not have.

Another relatively innovative aspects is the one that gives the European Union the competence to "co-ordinate the economic and employment policies", the future Treaty stipulating that the European Union may not only adopt "measures to ensure co-ordination of the employment policies" (Article I-14 paragraph 4) but also "initiatives designed to guarantee co-ordination of the social policies of the Member States" (paragraph 5 of the same article).

These and other provisions are, in my opinion, important, as their aim is to preserve the European social model for the current and future members of the European Union. I personally consider this a hugely important point as it has a direct impact on the life of citizens and gives the European political project a human face.

Nevertheless, it should be underlined that from the point of view of the economic and social policy it would be wrong to grant powers and responsibilities to the European Union without giving it the means to achieve and fulfil them, particularly as responsibilities for employment and social inclusion belong basically to the Member States, many of which have very few resources and are subject to well-known budget restrictions.

To paraphrase Jacques Delors, an economic and social Europe is based on "competition that stimulates, co-operation that strengthens and on solidarity that unites", and European solidarity has been based on structural policies that have greatly contributed to a more balanced economic development throughout the Community space. For this to continue like this, however, as it obviously must, and bearing in mind the enlargement of the European Union, the Community budget must be equal to this challenge.

It is well known that the net contributors of the European Union will oppose any increases in their contributions to the Community budget, so that on the one hand they must be reminded that economic and social cohesion is the offset for opening the less developed economics to the demands of the single market, and on the other hand, that their contributions are mainly an investment in these economies, leading to a good return provided by the market.

The negotiations of the forthcoming Community Support Framework for 2007-2012 will not be easy, bearing in mind the foreseeable lack of funds given the needs of a greater number of Member States and the fact that its approval must still be unanimous. Another way to help the needier countries – which in present circumstances would also help revive the European economy – would be to make the necessary investments in infrastructures financed for the most part by Community institutions such as the European Investment Bank, along the lines suggested by Italy.

I recall that ten years ago the then president, Jacques Delors, also submitted an ambitious plan for Growth, Competitiveness and Employment which was to be financed by bonds issued by the European Union, an idea that came up against the opposition of some Member States, and was abandoned.

Following the creation of the single currency in twelve Member States of the European Union, the idea of issuing bonds by the European Investment Bank or by the European Union itself appears more viable. On the one hand, because as far as those countries are concerned there is no risk of destabilisation with exchange rate speculation as there was in the past and, on the other, because within the Euro zone all payments are now done in euros, and also because pursuit of said programmes within any Member State of the European Union also benefits the economies of the remainder owing to the expansion of income and trade.

This last aspect also shows how important it is to strengthen co-ordination of economic policies not only among members of the Euro group but of all the European Union, as there are measures that may not be viable or advisable for one Member State but may be quite useful for the entire Community. In this regard, I believe that the present constitutional draft contains some progress, as it improves the co-ordination procedures along the lines of the proposals of the Lisbon Strategy, and in acknowledging that the Eurogroup has a role that will enable it to endorse added responsibilities.

Mr. President,

For my part, I would like to reaffirm the importance of the European social model as part of the legacy of our civilisation and as an essential element of European integration. I also believe that we should recognise that so far our attempts to confront the social question and the problem of solidarity have been very limited. I am of course aware that this is an area in which weighty national interests that do not always coincide have a role to play and where the particularities of each Member State are important. Nevertheless, I am one of those who considers that it is vital to create synergies within the Union to enable us together to handle matters of common interest, to find the happy balance between economic development and social development, and seek greater coherence between the objectives of the monetary policy, economic performance and the principles of social justice. In my view this path will enable us to strengthen the exercise of European citizenship.

Common Foreign and Security Policy

In my opinion, in this field, the draft Treaty establishing the Constitution opens up useful prospects for deepening the European Union, providing it with instruments that will enable it in the future to affirm itself on the world stage.

In fact, under the terms of the current text, the Union shall have "the competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy (article I-11 paragraph 4). This is a first positive step. The second lies in instituting the figure of the "Union Minister for Foreign Affairs", under the Council of Ministers, but being also one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission, who shall be responsible for conducting the Union’s common foreign and security policy, including a common defence policy. The third step regards the new provisions relating to the progressive framing of a common defence policy of the Union, which foresee the possibility either of reinforced co-operation in this field or the creation of a European Agency for armament and research and with military capabilities.

I consider this new legal and functional framework of the common foreign and security policy will allow Member States to comply with a strong claim that European citizens clearly expressed at the time of the Iraqi crisis, which was that the European Union should develop its own foreign policy and take its place on the world stage as an autonomous and credible actor.

It is also obvious to me, however, that it is not enough to have foreign policy institutional mechanisms to make it possible for a European political identity to be affirmed on the world scene. It is no doubt a necessary condition, but certainly insufficient. To achieve this double condition, coherent political objectives must be defined, there must be a strategic concept of the Union and the political will to enact it. Herein, in fact, lies one of the greatest difficulties we are facing in relation to which there are obvious differences between Member States.

However, if we wish Europe to acquire a political weight equal to its economic weight we shall have to overcome this shortsighted vision of the international order and of foreign policy, based on merely national interests and on a concept of national sovereignty that in part at least has been cancelled out by globalisation.

As the first trade and second economic power, with 25% of the world’s wealth, Europe has in addition been one of the main international sources of finance – 80% of public aid to Russia, for instance, was provided by European taxpayers, as was virtually all the Middle East Peace Process. Not only has Europe not collected its political dividends from this situation it has failed to make a mark as a credible actor on the world stage.

It is an unsustainable nonsense, as I already mentioned, which the Europeans denounced with the demonstrations throughout Europe on 15 February. We should consider the theory recently propounded by J. Habermas and J. Derrida, according to which these demonstrations mark the birth of a new European public opinion that manifestly advocates the affirmation of the political autonomy of the European Union.

The basic difficulty in affirming a European political identity on the world stage lies in its implications regarding transatlantic relations, from the double aspect of foreign affairs and defence. The objective of European defence cannot be an end in itself but merely an instrument at the service of the affirmation of the European Union’s political autonomy. Within this framework, developing a European defence policy means rethinking relations with the Atlantic Alliance by strengthening the European pillar and building a relationship of complementarity, co-operation and mutual trust.

Notwithstanding, none of this is sustainable if we do not have a more determined political will based on a strategic concept for the Union and on clearly defined common objectives. Neither will we be able to move away from our current weakness in terms of military intervention if the Union does not have a defence industry, the autonomous capacity to mobilise forces and its own intelligence service.

I wish to believe, however, that in this regard an Armament Agency as foreseen in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution, will place us on the right track, resorting if necessary to the possibility that is now being considered of enhanced co-operation. Whilst not an ideal procedure, it is probably the only catalyst for a more effective European foreign and security policy which in time will be common to all Member States, on condition that we avoid exclusivist temptations and previously define objective criteria that can be shared by all.

My friends,

Whilst the progress made in achieving the international affirmation of a European identity may appear slow or tentative, we must not forget that the European Union is a recent, open and evolving project and that the geostrategic reconfiguration of the post Cold War world accelerated history and created a radically new situation. It has led to reunification of the European continent, with common values and ideals of peace, democracy, freedom, the rule of law, equal opportunities, solidarity and social well being, and quality of life.

It will, I am convinced, gradually lead to the consolidation of Europe’s weight in the world, extending the projection of its voice defending the universalist values of peace, pluralism, justice, respect for human rights and sustainable development.