MR BRUTON introduced the debate on the treaty-changing Intergovernmental Conference by referring to the challenges which would have to be met at Amsterdam in June when the conference should be wrapped up.
These were the demands imposed by enlargement, the need for a stronger European political voice in the world, and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens.
He believed the draft outline for a new treaty produced by the Irish presidency was a good basis for the future work of the IGC - their purpose today was not to negotiate but to influence the coming discussion.
Mr Kok was the first of many to pay tribute to the presidency draft and its accessibility to citizens. It was the basis for the work for Amsterdam, and reflected the "upper end of realism". He emphasised the need to reform the workings of justice and home affairs co-operation, enhancing the fight against international crime and the need to strengthen the external presence of the Union.
Mr Guterres said he wished to emphasise security, the security of people in the face of crime, the security of jobs, and the collective security of the Union. If citizens see security in all these three dimensions improved then the ratification process for the new treaty can be won.
On institutional change, two key principles had to be respected - the equality of all member-states, and the primacy of effective decision-making.
Mr Kohl said he believed that to parallel the move to the single currency the Union needed to make a decisive step in terms of its internal security.
What sort of Europe without frontiers did they want? Not a violent, Mafia-ridden society prone to corruption.
The key questions of changing the institutions, the weighting of votes, extra majority voting, and the size of the Commission needed to be discussed urgently in the weeks ahead, he said.
Mr Prodi stressed Italian proposals on extending human rights provisions and called for Europol to be given an operational capacity. He urged the extension of majority voting to all areas except constitutional questions and supported the principle of "double majorities" in which a vote of the Council of Ministers would also have to reflect a majority of the Union's population.
Mr Santer said he saw a general willingness to advance on the justice and home affairs front and urged that the areas of visas, immigration, frontiers and asylum be brought under the Community method of the first pillar.
He said the Union had to have greater coherence in its external representation. He saw a new troika system emerging not as a spokesperson for the Union but as a real coordination mechanism.
He emphasised the crucial need for maximising the use of majority voting and the reform of the institutions.
Mr Aznar spoke of the need for ambition if the Union was to accept the challenge of enlargement. He strongly urged increased cooperation in justice and home affairs, welcoming particularly proposals in the pre summit Franco-German letter for ending the granting of political asylum to citizens of other member-states.
The Schengen Treaty on passport-free travel in Europe should be incorporated into the treaty, Mr Dehaene said.
"Bravo" to the work done by the Irish presidency, Mr Chirac said. There was a need for legislative harmonisation in the fight against crime, a "shared legal space".
On common foreign and security policy there was a need for more flexible decision-making and a strengthening of EU-WEU links.
Mr Persson said they were still missing a good text on the environment and the transparency of decision-making.
Mr Major said the outline draft was a good work. He wanted to touch on the issue that saw Britain on its own in what were seemingly a series of disputes with its partners. In reality, however, there was one underlying difference of view on the future of the Union.
Britain did not want to see the Union simply as a large free trade zone, but between that and a centralised Union, there were many possibilities. The UK had a middle view - it supported the development of common foreign and security policy, much in the Irish draft, and the idea of common external economic policy.
He supported the idea of flexible integration in the context of enlargement but the key issue was what sort of flexibility. The wrong sort could destroy the Union.
He supported defence collaboration with the WEU but it could not be subordinated to the Council.
Summing up the discussions, Mr Bruton said that debate had now reached a new phase. To go further required imagination and boldness. It was crucial to meet the Amsterdam deadline.
In its conclusions, the Council welcomed the Irish draft as a good basis for future work and reiterated its determination to bring the negotiations to a conclusion in Amsterdam.
It also reiterated the commitment to maintain its level of ambition and particularly emphasised enhanced co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs. Institutional questions would have to be faced in order to "improve the Union's ability to take decisions and to act".
Santer sets out guidelines for those seeking EU membership