Ms Viviane Reding:

This Parliament is not the only one in Europe in which I am confronted with the fear that Europe is governed more and more in an intergovernmental way by the big member states. This fear can develop when the country is bombarded through the media with what is happening. For instance, I still remember the beach walk between President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel in Deauville. One could ask whether they took decisions at that time.

Did they? Not one of their proposals was put into practice but all the media at the time said that Sarkozy and Merkel were deciding where Europe would go. That is a problem, and members, as politicians, know about the perceived reality. The media showed two leaders walking together and taking decisions. The media did not show that none of those decisions was put into practice. A great deal is done because of this perception, and this perception is dangerous. I should not have spoken as a Luxembourger. As a Commissioner I am no longer a Luxembourger. I am not speaking about Luxembourgish policy. I speak about the importance of small nations in this European Union.

In terms of what the Council is doing, when we reinforce democratic control by parliaments, and by the members as a national parliament, it is for not allowing decision making by big countries against the other countries. We have to reinforce democratic control in Europe if we do not want that to happen. We have to ensure the decisions are not taken on an intergovernmental level but on a European Union level because the European Union always gives a certain power of co-decision to the smaller nations. What is dangerous is if this Europe drifts towards intergovernmental decision making.

Deputy Durkan spoke about a lack of unity of purpose. In a large European Union such as we have now with 27 member states, with their different historic and economic development backgrounds, we do not always have the same purpose in terms of what a Government can do, and what this Government can do, and its position in the European Union. It was much easier to agree on aims when we were a smaller European Union. That is more difficult today, and because of the political, cultural and historical diversity sitting in the Council and also in the European Parliament, control mechanisms have to be reinforced. That is the only way out. The control mechanisms are at the end of a process, but the process has to be democratic.

In this Parliament, and in the European Parliament also, the minorities have the possibility to express themselves, even those who do not agree with building a common Europe, but the small countries have the possibility also to find allies to show the way. The future of Europe report is a welcome discussion document. It contains many points with which I agree. There are others with which I have difficulties but that is exactly what we should speak about. Where are we heading? What do we want to share in our common future? What do we not want to share and leave instead at the national or even the regional level? That is what we need to discuss.

I believe that our goal is to have one currency for all member states, but then comes the moment - I have put this in my five point plan for which I was nearly torn to pieces, so to speak, in the members' neighbouring country, which it knows so well - when the question must be asked whether we want to participate in that. There should be no more cherry-picking but we must decide whether that is our common future and whether we want to be in or out. We have had this discussion previously and I hope we can have this discussion in the future.

I do not want to interfere with this country's specific relationship with its neighbour and how it will take its decisions, for instance, in the field of justice where, increasingly, we do important work together without dismantling the national justice systems but which is in the interest of our citizens. Does this country want to participate or not? That is a decision it has to take; no one else can take it. It must also clarify how it wants to exercise its relationships with its neighbours. I will leave that to the wisdom of the Irish people and their elected representatives.

Dismantling the social system is something I hear often. What about the solidarity that was shown to this country by the European system in past decades? For instance, in recent years, the Structural Fund and regional funds pumped €751 million into this country. That is European solidarity. Much can be said about Europe, that it is not perfect here or there, but not to be a solidarity model would be against any reality on the ground.

What did we do in recent months, for instance, when we saw that the banks were in trouble, not only in this country but also in many other countries? They are no longer lending to the real economy, although we believe the main purpose of a bank is to lend to the real economy. The European Investment Bank came in and put money on the table to ensure that money could be given to the small and medium-sized businesses, SMEs, which are the backbone of our industrial development. While it is not possible for the time being to have an agreement on euro bonds, the Commission came out with project bonds to the value of several billion euro for electricity, transport and broadband infrastructure which we put on the table to proceed in a concrete way. That is what we should do. We should not have ideological fights but see in a realistic way what we can do to solve the problem and make Europe a safe place for those Europeans who want to share a common future. We will not force anyone to be in Europe or to share the common future.

On the "F" word, I was told I must not speak about a federation in Ireland. I will speak about a federation because for me, with all I believe in politics and the way societies work, a federation could be a solution. What is a federation? A federation does certain things together and leaves other things to the national responsibility. We have several federations in Europe. Germany is a federation, with power of the lender. Switzerland is a federation. The United States is a federation.

Why should that be bad? Let us at least think about how we can proceed and about what name we will give to what we do. That can be discussed also. I would like to have a political union and I would have no problem calling it a federation. This is on the table to be discussed. This time, it is to be discussed with our citizens. I am ready to go out to do so. As I told members, tomorrow I will be in the south of Spain to discuss the matter with some mayors and the presidents of the regions of all European countries because I believe everybody, including those elected at local and national levels and not only those who are elected at European level, must accept responsibility.