Madam President, when I was travelling home by plane last week, I got hold of a Swedish business paper, Dagens Industri, which does not normally praise the Swedish government all that often. They set their seal of approval on the presidency, and a large headline read, ‘Passed with great credit’. I should like to say the same. The Swedish presidency had three important and major ambitions. There has been a great deal of talk about enlargement. There is no doubt that this issue was handled very well. What is now important in terms of the future – for us in Parliament, for Sweden and for other countries in the Council – is to maintain the pace so that we can meet the objectives we have set. When it comes to employment, the achievement was not perhaps so outstanding. The examples of deregulation were definitely not so outstanding, for many on the right were disappointed that these were insufficient. It was a question of passing on the baton in the important process concerning jobs and growth. A number of new objectives were set. For example, the subjects of family policy and the older labour force were addressed. Only a small part of the latter is currently present in the labour market, and that is something that needs to be changed for the future. When it comes to sustainable development, there are two possible perspectives. The first involves a comparison with the Commission’s document and, clearly, not everything from that perspective was achieved. The second perspective is in relation to the current situation. Clear, unambiguous improvements have been made, and the most important thing is that the environmental issues have been introduced into the Lisbon process. What is the problem today as far as these environmental issues are concerned? Well, the problem is that they are sidelined and that they always come last. They are now to be considered jointly with economic and social policy each year as part of an ongoing process. That, if anything, is a success. I also want to say something about global responsibility. The policies on transport, agriculture and fisheries were singled out. I would also mention transparency, consultation and the provision of information and, in particular, foreign and security policy. On this subject, I should like to say that it is heartening that Sweden has assumed such a large amount of responsibility in this area. It is also pleasing that the Swedish people have understood that we are not talking here about some form of militarisation but, on the contrary, about creating peace and stability in a future Europe and the areas bordering upon it. If Swedish opinion polls are to be believed, there is an incredible amount of support regarding this issue. Turning now to the debate about the future. Should there be a convention? Yes, but a convention is not enough. We must broaden the debate so that it extends beyond a convention and is conducted with civil society. If we are to conduct the debate with civil society, we must do what Prime Minister Persson said. We cannot begin with the institutional issues. Instead, we must begin with what it is we want the EU to be doing in five, ten or fifteen years’ time and with how we are to do those things. In that way, the institutional issues come last. Turning next to Ireland. We must respect Ireland, but we must also respect the other Member States. There are those who say that we should now call it a day. Should not the Swedish parliament or the other parliaments be allowed to discuss the Treaty of Nice? What kind of view of democracy is it that says that we should pack it in for the moment because the Irish people said no? Are not the other nations presumably also entitled to discuss the issue either in their parliaments or in the particular way they have chosen to? We shall then be able to see what the final result is in 2002, and it will be up to the Irish people to assess the situation at that time. Finally, a word about the riots. I fully and firmly support what Mr Barón Crespo said. We must draw a distinction between the small number of people who throw stones and those who wish to express a view about continued work within the EU. We must provide the stimulus for a debate with civil society, but we must be tough with those whose only argument is a stone in the hand.

Political group: PSE