Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I find it a crazy idea that it is now Mr Juncker’s fault that there is a Brexit. I thought it was more or less an internal catfight within the Conservative Party that was the reason for Brexit.

It is crazy how some people then blame this House here and say that it is the cause. But that said, I welcome the contribution from the Commission and I certainly welcome your introduction, Mr Juncker, because you made mention of the founding fathers: Altiero Spinelli, and I could add Paul-Henri Spaak, I could add Heinrich von Brentano, founding father of the German Grundgesetz, and I could add Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman. I could even add Winston Churchill, because from 1946 to 1951 – a part that was forgotten by Mr Boris Johnson in this biography of Winston Churchill – he was the leader of European integration and of the future European Union.

That said, it is important to recognise one thing here, which is that, before we go to Rome for the festivities, what we want today is something different from the Treaty of Rome, because the Treaty of Rome was a customs union. It was maybe the right answer in 1957 but, let us be honest, it is not the answer to the challenges we are facing today.

I think it is very important to talk about the founding fathers because they had more ambition than just the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty of Rome was a fall-back option, a fall-back solution, because they were not able – because of the ‘no’ vote in the French National Assembly – to make a defence union, to make a political union, and to make an economic union. It is wise to remember what they wanted after the Second World War, which was to create a Union that was capable and decisive.

But what is our problem today? You will find it in your five scenarios. You have given us five scenarios but what I remember from your introduction is that we can forget the first three. Let us talk about scenarios four and five, and I think that is the right decision to make, but, let us be honest: what is lacking in the European Union of today? Why are we not capable of stabilising our neighbourhood? It is because we do not have the capabilities to do so. Why are we not capable of finding a solution to the migration crisis and the refugee crisis? Because we have no capabilities to do so at European level.

Why are we not capable of cleaning up our banks, eight years after Lehman brothers? Eight years after, we are still facing problems with an unrealised banking union, with no recovery fund and so on. Why? Because we have no European capacities and capabilities.

And finally, why do we not have big European internet companies? If we talk about Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Samsung, they are all American or Asian. And why? Because we do not have a completed digital market in the European Union: no European capacities, for example for a European telecom authority or a digital authority, as you propose in your fourth scenario. That is the lesson.

We are still a loose confederation of nation states based on the unanimity rule, and if there is one country blocking – and you know this better than I do, Mr Juncker, having been a Member for a long time of the European Council – if only one member says ‘no’, then we apply the unanimity rule and we do not go forward.

Too little, too late – that is the consequence of the absence of the European capacities and European capabilities that we desperately need.

So we do not need to start asking whether it is four, five, or three, because we are already familiar with the different circles in the European Union. We have 50 exceptions in the European budget. There are 50 different circles in the European Union. The question now is how can we overcome that? How, for one, do we convince European leaders at national level to make the jump forward that we desperately need? That is the question, and therefore our proposal from Parliament, in our papers and in the reports that have been discussed and approved two weeks ago, is to start an interinstitutional reflection.

We alone cannot decide this. You alone, Mr Juncker, cannot decide from your side in the Commission. Even the Council cannot do that – and maybe they do not have the inspiration to do it. So our plea, Mr President of the Commission, is that you back our proposal for an interinstitutional reflection from day one, from now on, so that we are not only talking about Brexit here in this House, but we also open an offensive – a positive, optimistic reform of the Union in parallel with Brexit. And it is not only a negative story of one country leaving us, but also a story of 27 who know that their destiny in the future will be in unity, together, in the European Union.