Strasbourg, 23/05/2007 (Agence Europe) - Romano Prodi's speech on Tuesday to the European Parliament (EUROPE 9430) received strong applause by most MEPs, many of whom welcomed his European commitment and conviction, while others appreciated the Italian prime minister's frank speaking. Martin Schulz, head of the Socialist group, was the clearest: “My group agrees with everything you said. There is nothing to add” to this “encouraging” speech. If the head of the Italian government is entering negotiations on the future of the EU treaty with such clarity, Schulz believes “there is nothing to worry about”. The latter completely shares the point of view that a cheap compromise would “not be a compromise but a defeat”. The Treaty of Nice, which is currently in force, is insufficient and all “those who want to leave Europe in its current state want to destroy it”. Schulz affirmed that those that want to maintain the “success” of Europe have to “significantly modify its institutional foundations”. He also criticised the fact that the two countries that rejected the Constitutional Treaty are always talked about instead of the 18 countries that ratified it. Graham Watson, speaking on behalf of the ALDE group, also congratulated Romano Prodi who, “50 years after signing the Treaty of Rome, has put Italy back into its rightful place at the heart of Europe…We need more Europe, not less Europe, this is the key to competitiveness, security and the dawn of a fairer world. Thank you, Mr Prodi for having remained true to your vision”. Speaking for the Greens/EFA, Monica Frassoni described the speech of Mr Prodi as, “welcome, because committed and convincing speeches are in short supply”. She regretted that it was always the voices against Europe that were heard the most. She expressed hope that Italy would effectively not accept a “compromise on the cheap” and then declared that “blackmail from those who do everything to put a brake on solving the constitutional crisis can no longer be accepted in silence”. She then insisted on two points in the Constitutional Treaty that had to be saved, namely, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and an amendment to the revision clause, because she believes that they can no longer go forward with the unanimous voting method. Joseph Daul, the head of the EPP-ED group, said that after a long period of uncertainty, the institutional relaunch, the priority of the German presidency, was now being outlined. He pointed out that going quickly and allowing Europe to advance was what the French president Nicolas Sarkozy was committed to. “This dynamic provided by a member state that had said 'no' to the draft treaty is now supported by other member states of the Union and should be used for the benefit of going forward”. Mr Daul said that “action and flexibility” will be needed if an agreement on the new treaty is to be reached by the end of the year. He called on leaders to “focus on the essential”: double majority voting, extension of qualified majority voting, the subsidiarity principle, distribution of competencies between the EU and member states, stable presidency, common representation on the international scene, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Christiana Muscardini (UEN) underlined the urgency of approving a new treaty and noted that the efforts made by Angela Merkel, as well as Nicolas Sarkozy's declaration, “gave hope again”. Francis Wurtz, president of the GUE/NGL groups said that as well as the important issues raised by Romano Prodi, it was important to respond to other more important questions from citizens, notably the consequences of liberalism and the “tax war” between member states. Nigel Farage (IND/DEM) asked that everyone respect the French and Dutch referendums and that they stop behaving like a “bulldozer” in an attempt to save a “dead” constitution. Jean-Marie Le Pen (ITS) regretted that the “constitution, despite being massively rejected by two countries' peoples in 2005, will be put back on track in contempt of democracy”. He said that citizens had “rejected this institutional part that is now being foisted on us on the quiet, namely, the foreign affairs minister, who, if he had existed, would have got us all involved in the Iraq war”. (hb)