In a speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 4 April, German President Johannes Rau called for a European constitution that would be the basis of a federal Europe. Rau's speech was significant despite his largely ceremonial role as it had received prior approval from the German government.

Madam President, Members of the European Parliament,

I would like to sincerely thank you, Madam President, for inviting me to express my thoughts on the future shape of Europe to this House today.

Europe is becoming ever more concrete, ever more tangible for its citizens because it is having an ever greater impact on their lives. In 271 days, citizens in twelve European countries will have a single currency in their pockets. We can travel freely in Europe, from the North Cape to Gibraltar. But do we also feel European?

I agree with that great European journalist, the Italian Luigi Barzini, who once said that despite the indisputable great diversity and differences, we are basically all of the same kind.

We have a rich stock of common traditions. Winston Churchill pointed this out in his famous Zürich speech in September 1946. He believed that our common European heritage was made up of the Christian faith and Christian ethics, of culture, the arts, philosophy and science from antiquity to modern times.

We all know very topical examples which demonstrate that there are common European interests. Does not globalization, if nothing has done so beforehand, force us Europeans to realize that

the diversity of our cultural wealth must not become the victim of uniformization?

the challenge to our values posed by fundamentalists and ethnic cleansing in Europe requires a joint response from us?

the market must not be given free rein but, rather, must be kept in check in both social and ecological terms?

Today we are witnessing the great attraction of the European Union for many countries. This is certainly for quite practical reasons and it is true that the European Union is a boon to all its members. But it is more than a mere marriage of convenience. Europe represents a certain ideal of human existence, of people living together. That is why we endeavour time and again to strike a balance between freedom of the individual and his responsibility within society and the community.

Not even the greatest visionaries of the fifties could ever have imagined how concrete Euro­pean integration would become or how many spheres it would cover. The successes of our joint action should strengthen our resolve to strive to achieve new objectives.

However, we must be self-critical and admit that although there is widespread agreement, many citizens are sceptical or even suspicious, they mistrust or indeed reject the European integration project. What matters, in my opinion, is that doubts and criticism are not so much directed against concrete steps and their impact. The vast majority are aware

how much it means to live together in peace after centuries of hostility,

how much we have succeeded in increasing our prosperity together,

how many advantages the single market offers to our companies,

how much better we can research within the framework of European cooperation,

that being able to settle or set up in business in other European countries without any great difficulties represents progress,

that an increasing number of training and professional qualifications are recognized Europe-wide.

What concerns people in Europe is how the not very transparent integration process is organized and how little influence they seem to have on it. Many citizens are rightly asking:

who is actually driving the locomotive of the European integration train?

what are the rules on speed?

what are the traffic regulations?

which course will be set and where?

which carriages will be coupled up or uncoupled?

and what is our destination?

These are not academic questions. They are questions which are being asked in all European countries by the sovereign, that is to say by the people. There can be no doubt that no-one but the sovereign of each of our European democracies, the people, can decide on all of these issues.

I sometimes hear it being said that a democratic process in the traditional sense is not possible in Europe because there is no single European nation. Certainly, today there is no European nation and no European public comparable to those in the individual member states of the European Union. However, that should not prevent us from strengthening the principles of democracy at European level.

Democracy, rightly understood, simply means that people who want to act together to achieve a certain goal, create common rules and procedures for this. This is not inconsistent with the fact that in other respects these people have very different interests and want to see these dif­ferences preserved.

That is our aim in Europe: we want to pursue certain objectives and interests together and, at the same time, preserve the diversity of the European countries and nations which forms the basis and enriching uniqueness of the European Union. Nothing will, nor should, change here in future.

We must therefore answer the following questions:

How can we organize the European Union in such a way that citizens can find their way around it better?

What must we do to ensure that decisions made by the European Union have a broader legitimacy at European level?

How, finally, should the organizational framework look?

I am firmly convinced that the answer can only be: we need a European constitution.

The European constitution is not the "final touch" of the European structure, it must become its foundation. The European constitution should prescribe that Europe will not become a cen­tralized superstate but, rather, that we are building a federation of nation-states.

I am aware that some people in Europe are suspicious of the terms "constitution" and "federa­tion". But is this not often merely a dispute about terms? I am confident that it will be easier to reach agreement on the substance of what is meant than on these terms. Then, however, we must discuss this substance rather than argue about terms. The European constitution must be the result of a broad discussion in all countries of the European Union.

There are sceptical and critical voices in this debate; there are many important objections which I take seriously even if I personally have a different opinion. I would like to examine a few of them today and I would also like to explain to you how I think a European constitution should look and how we should proceed.

According to one argument against a constitution which is frequently put forward, every ad­ditional step in the integration process is a further step towards a European "superstate" and towards the abolition of nation-states.

But those, like me, who support a federation of nation-states, want quite the opposite!

If we transform the EU into a federation of nation-states, then we will enhance the democratic legitimacy for joint action while, at the same time, safeguarding the competences of the na­tion-states which they want to and indeed should maintain. New areas of responsibility can only be transferred to Europe if all members of the federation agree to it in a transparent and democratically controlled procedure.

Preserving what has been achieved so far, preventing what is not wanted and remaining open to new ideas - that is the basic idea behind a constitution for a federation of nation-states.

That is what I would like to talk about.

No-one wants to do away with the nation-states and their sovereignty. On the contrary, we will need them and their distinctness for a good while yet, as guardians of diversity in Europe.

One argument sometimes presented in a concealed manner and sometimes openly is that a federation of nation-states would actually be a Europe "à la Federal Republic of Germany"!

However, anyone who takes a closer look will see that this idea of a federation has met with approval for quite different reasons: the systems of government of our European countries have grown historically or, in other words, they are different democratic responses of equal value to certain developments in history. And it is precisely because Europe is not moving towards a single centralized state, nor should it, that we must find a basic political principle which is in keeping with this desire, preserves our different traditions and which takes into account the situation in Europe today. This basic political principle is the federation.

A federation is characterized by the fact that every member state makes its own sovereign decisions on its constitution and system of government. I do not want Europe to decide on the Federal Republic of Germany's system of government any more than I want to prescribe to others how they organize their own countries. I would never dream, for example, of propa­gating a federal solution for the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic or the Kingdom of Spain or some day for the Republic of Hungary which they do not want! We therefore need a constitution for the very reason that we do not want to become a single centralized state.

What function does a constitution have for a polity? A "grammar book of freedom" and, par­ticularly here in Europe, a "grammar book of solidarity". With it the sovereign, the people, determines to which values it is committed, in which spheres and to whom it delegates power and how it wants to organize and limit this power. And finally, a constitution determines who is responsible for what. These are the elements which should be included in a constitution for a European federation of nation-states.

It should comprise three parts:

The first part should be based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the European summit in Nice. It is to have a binding power on the actions of European in­stitutions and the member states where they implement European law. The catalogues of fundamental rights of the member states and the European Convention on Human Rights are not affected by this.

The second part of a European constitution must divide competences between the member states on the one hand and the European Union on the other with the neces­sary clarity. It would thus largely determine the relationship between the member states and the federation.

We should endeavour to anchor the principle of subsidiarity on a broader basis: only those matters should be decided at European level which the member states cannot better deal with themselves. That must be our guiding principle!

Everything not expressly referred to in the constitution as a European competence should therefore remain a national competence. In order to counter the fear of creeping centralization in Europe, I believe we should consider a further step: expressly defining the competences which are reserved for the member states. I would like to name two examples: it must be pos­sible for member states to go their own way within the framework of a European social policy when it comes to providing for pensioners or within the framework of environmental policy when it comes to promoting renewable energies. Of course, I know that even an ideal delimi­nation of competences will not spare us conflicts in future.

I agree with Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and many other Europeans that we should not prescribe what the EU should never be allowed to do. The constitution must provide that competences may be regulated differently if the federation members make a unanimous decision to do so.

In addition to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the delimitation of competences, a third part of the constitution should lay down Europe's future institutional frame­work.

I spoke of the concerns of many citizens who have experienced or have the feeling that they have too little influence on how quickly, in what direction and to which destination the Euro­pean integration train is travelling. They believe that democratic rights are being violated. We must therefore place the question of Europe's democratic legitimacy at the centre of this dis­cussion.

I believe that the Parliament and the Council of Ministers should be developed into a genuine bicameral parliament.

The Council of Ministers should become a chamber of states in which each state, represented by its government, would cast its vote. This chamber would preserve the nation-states' sovereignty.

You, the Members of the European Parliament, should become a citizen's chamber. The two chambers should make decisions on an equal basis in all spheres in which legislation is made.

Much of the criticism about Europe is directed at the Commission: sometimes the criticism is justified, but often the Commission is merely made a scapegoat. I know the tendency of al­most all national governments to denounce decisions they have made themselves at European level as the product of European regulatory frenzy if there is any opposition in their own countries. I am sure that you are aware of this.

However, that does not change the justified criticism that, in view of the important role it plays, the Commission's work lacks democratic legitimacy. We must change this. You know that there are two models for this:

the election of the President of the Commission directly by the people,

or the election of the President of the Commission by the two chambers of Parliament.

I prefer the parliamentary model in which the Commission has the support of a parliamentary majority. However, regardless of which course we decide to take for the constitution: a stronger parliament with two chambers and a Commission which has greater democratic legitimacy can provide the European idea with crucial new impetus:

The citizens of Europe will be more interested in what happens in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg and they will also identify more closely with it even if they do not agree with individual decisions.

I am convinced that a stronger parliament would also help to ensure that the parties are not only European in name but conduct themselves as such.

Reform of the European institutions would also help to ensure the development of a broader European public. We need that. Even now there are issues which concern people all over Europe: just think of the Euro, its internal stability and its external value, just think of peace in neighbouring regions, of the desire for healthy food or of the rules according to which football players may transfer to another club within Europe.

In the constitution debate we must ensure that the Commission continues to defend Commu­nity interests. This anchor of the European integration process, the Commission's right to ini­tiate legislation, must remain. The debates of the last few months have shown that the inter­governmental method has reached its limits. And we still have a Europe of 15!

We all know that in politics it is not only the right objectives which matter but also how best to achieve them. How, then, should the road to a European constitution look, the "Process for the Future of Europe ", as it is so aptly called?

The debate on Europe's future should be conducted on a wider basis than in a traditional intergovernmental conference.

Many people were sceptical when the Convention on the preparation of the Charter of Fun­damental Rights of the European Union was set up in 1999. You will probably agree with me that seldom in the last few years has a European body done such good work as this Conven­tion. I regard this as exemplary.

We should therefore debate Europe's future in a broad forum in which, in addition to government representatives, the members of national parliaments and, of course, of the European Parliament, must play an important role. This forum should prepare the necessary decisions as far as possible.

We should take a lot of care and make every effort to ensure that the debate on Europe's fu­ture is not only conducted in expert circles. We must include all interested citizens. I agree with my Italian colleague, President Azeglio Ciampi, and many others, that we must also in­clude the citizens of the candidate states. The future European constitution will also be their constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen, make use of your rights as freely elected Members of Parliament. Grasp the opportunities you have to advance Europe. You have more influence than many believe. Help to make Europe more relevant to the everyday lives of citizens in our countries. You have achieved much already. Continue along this path. You have my support.