I do not really want to prolong the debate, but I do not feel that my motion is trying to put the government into a corner or anything.
At the moment, time is a major factor. We have seen that, and we are still seeing it. They will soon be making their decisions over there. I do not know the exact time lines in the European Parliament, but those who know how it works know that it is not possible to say that the bill will be tabled on a given date, and so on. Unfortunately, it does not work like that.
The word “increase“ is intended to recognize the present situation. So I invite my colleagues to reject the amendment and to pass the motion as it stands. First, the motion recognizes that time is not on our side at the moment. Second, we have to send the message that we want to have a information campaign for the European public.
We already discussed this matter; we tabled a report in 2007. We were thinking about conducting a campaign for the general public even then. We know that senators and members of Parliament are influenced by public opinion. If we do not reach the population, we are going to fail.
The proposal as worded tries to deal with the matter appropriately. That is why I ask my colleagues not to see things in that way. Otherwise, the effect will be to ignore the context that is forcing us to act quickly.