Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, Speaking points: Commission opinion for the IGC (Press conference), Brussels, 17^th September 2003.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Over the past few months I have come before you on a number of occasions to express the views of the Commission on the future of Europe. I have consistently pushed for an ambitious high-quality text that can meet the challenges that lie ahead.

The draft Constitutional Treaty prepared by the Convention provides an excellent basis for the final negotiations. This is good for Europe, it is good for our nations and peoples, and it is good for the EU institutions.

The Union's Constitution is a hugely important document. It will govern the way our Union functions for years to come. So it is crucial we get it right now.

90 per cent of the work is done. It is now time to concentrate on the issues that still need to be improved.

The content of the Opinion we adopted today is to a large extent known to you -- and so are the issues where we argue for more discussion.

In the past few weeks -- and especially at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers at Riva del Garda -- it has become evident that most Member States want a real Intergovernmental Conference. They have a genuine, legitimate interest in having their say in the finalisation of the Constitution.

The paper we are bringing out today is not just our contribution to the IGC; it also draws on all the experience and resources of the Commission. We are at the service of the Member States to help them -- and the Presidency -- to find solutions and bridge the differences in viewpoints.

We will also do our best to see that this Conference ends by the time limit set. So we have limited our proposals to a minimum and to those issues where we know a large number of Member States share our views.

What we are proposing today is important -- not because the Commission or I say so, but because Europe, our Member States, businesses and people generally need these changes.

After all, the Commission does not exist for the Commission's sake but for the common good.

That is the main aim of the Opinion: to offer solutions and where solutions cannot be found, to put forward a basis on which we can address them in future.

Our contribution should be read and understood against this background. And this is what we propose:

First, unanimity still applies to an overly large number of decisions.

I have heard many argue that we are not realistic when we push for more majority voting. I acknowledge that there is no consensus for a sweeping extension of majority voting, no matter how important this would be for our nations' future.

But on certain well-targeted, detailed issues, progress simply has to be achieved unless we want people and businesses to suffer because of our inability to take decisions.

These are real issues affecting the real world, where the cost of a failure to push ahead with European integration in this area will be a real problem for many if not all of us.

Let me be very clear on this. If unanimity remains the rule in combating fraud and tax evasion, the Commission has nothing to lose -- but companies and taxpayers might have a great deal.

If unanimity is a requirement for measures to fight against bioterrorism or SARS-like epidemics, ordinary people -- not the Commission -- will be the first to suffer.

If we cannot combat discrimination effectively, it is not because the Commission does not know how, but because we are hamstrung by the unanimity rule.

Since this issue appears to divide the Member States, we are proposing practical, workable ways for achieving this without jeopardising anyone's sovereign rights.

Secondly, the on-going debate on the state of public finances proves that the Union needs a true system of economic governance.

We already have a common currency. Now we need to draw the full benefit from this.

The Commission has constantly argued for greater economic-policy coordination. This is vital for growth in the Union. The draft Constitution needs to be improved further here -- and we are proposing how to do that.

Thirdly, a large majority of Member States have rejected the model for the Commission proposed by the Convention and regard it as too complicated, too confused and ultimately unworkable.

Again, this not about the Commission as such, but about the capacity of this institution to function properly in the common interest of all Member States. If you abandon the equality of all its Members, you destroy the basis for collective responsibility.

There is no reason to assume a Commission of 25 or more members would necessarily be inefficient. Many national governments have more ministers than that. It all depends on how they are organised.

In our Opinion we are outlining a workable model for a Commission of 25 or more members in the form of a proper legal text. All Commissioners would retain full voting rights, and they would be organised into groups of Commissioners.

These proposals draw on practical experience built up over decades. I am convinced these proposals will strengthen the Commission's collective responsibility, safeguard its human face in the eyes of the public and enhance its efficiency as an executive by improving and streamlining decision-making.

Lastly, whatever we achieve in the forthcoming negotiations, the Constitutional Treaty will not and cannot be perfect.

When Athens' lawgiver Solon was asked if he had given his native city the best constitution, he said: “No -- the one best suited to it.”

Ours also needs to be the Constitution best suited to our needs -- a workable text that can be adapted to suit the Union as it grows and develops.

If we want the European Constitution to be a lasting, respected demonstration of our unity, it has to contain provision for amendments as the world around us changes.

Under the proposed system, any amendment to the Constitution's 465 articles and various protocols would require the unanimous agreement of all governments and then ratification in all Member States. What is more, the IGC will most likely lack the time to update and simplify Part III.

Here too we are proposing a solution to this problem. The European Council should be able to amend Part III of the Constitution by a five-sixths majority, following approval by the European Parliament and a favourable opinion from the Commission.