Mr President, by this stage in the debate it seems to me that three things must already be clear to us. Firstly, we know that the European industrial sector is currently experiencing a graver crisis than the one it went through as a result of the 1998 financial crisis. Secondly, we know that the crisis currently afflicting the world economy is far more serious than the one it underwent in 1993, after the Gulf War. This is because for the first time since 1929, the three largest economies are affected, namely the economies of the United States, Europe and Japan. Thirdly, except for Mr Abitbol we all know that nowadays the European economy is far better prepared to cope with such a crisis. As stated earlier, we now have a single currency to protect us from exchange rate crises. We also have a policy to protect us from exorbitant price rises. In addition, we have a Stability Pact to safeguard us against the munificence of public administrations. We do not know for certain but we suspect that this crisis is not demand led, like the post-war crisis. Nor is it a supply driven crisis like the one following the Yom Kippur war. Rather, it is a crisis of confidence. As such, what distinguishes our motion for a resolution from the one put forward by the left is not that they wish to grow while we do not. Obviously, we all want to grow. Nevertheless, some recipes will move us forward whilst others will put us into reverse. We believe that our recipes will move us forward. Allow me to explain the reasons why I think as I do. If this is a crisis of confidence, it would be a fundamental error to relax monetary policy and allow price rises. That would hole consumer confidence below the water line. Secondly, because revising the Stability Pact would amount to indicating that we wish to pass this burden on to future generations, and that is certainly not a confidence booster. Thirdly, if we relax the budgetary policy enshrined in the Stability Pact we shall prevent interest rates from being lowered, as the Americans are doing. A vessel is not assessed according to whether there is a storm around or not, but according to how it weathers a storm. In my view, it is now clear that we should change the way we navigate. The European Central Bank may be driven to reduce interest rates, but it must bear in mind that its ultimate aim is to maintain the dogma of price stability to maintain consumer confidence. It is likely that some governments who have done their homework will be able to allow the automatic stabilisers to operate. They will not need to compensate for fiscal reduction by increasing taxes or reducing expenditure. Unfortunately, governments who have failed to do their homework and behaved like prodigal sons will not find themselves in such a fortunate position. Thirdly, as the Commissioner has said, though previous speakers failed to mention it, it is time for Europe to move ahead and take a determined step forward to get the Lisbon process under way. This process aims to create a modern, innovative and competitive society. Regarding the Tobin tax, the Commissioner was far more convincing in the interview he granted the Vanguardia Digital, when he said it was a useless tool, than in his speech today. Today the Commissioner stated it was one more potential tool. Previously the Commissioner stated it was not possible. Now it begins to appear probable. I endorse what he said to the newspaper but not what he said in the House.

Political group: PPE-DE