Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we may well agree on the importance of the Barcelona Council, but there is obvious disagreement regarding the assessment of its outcome. The large and peaceful demonstrations calling for a more social Europe are abundant proof of that. The Presidency of the Council talks of Barcelona as a sequel to Lisbon. It claims to be striving for competitiveness through reforms affecting social protection and liberalisation. Both approaches challenge the European social model. Further, they fail to take into account that at Lisbon, a 3% sustained growth of GDP was considered necessary to achieve full employment by 2010. Currently, however, a 1.3% growth of GDP and a 0.2% growth in employment are predicted for 2002. Unemployment is, therefore, set to increase across the Community. It is not enough for the Presidency to state simply that the economic situation is in the first stages of global recovery after the steep decline in 2001. A more flexible labour market and moderate wage claims distribute the social product in a regressive manner. They also reduce job security and contribute to the emergence of pockets of exclusion and unemployment in society. A cut in unemployment benefit is proposed too, punishing the unemployed still further. In addition, there are plans to reduce employment costs, increase the retirement age and make early retirement less attractive. In my view, all these policies run counter to the objective of full employment to which the Union claims to aspire. Full employment calls for stable high-quality jobs, with full rights. An over-literal interpretation of the Stability Pact does not even spare public investment when it comes to setting excessive deficits. This would be a reasonable and sensible approach. It would allow the Union to regain an adequate flow of investment despite the current economic uncertainty, the inevitable demands of enlargement and the declared aim of increasing general commitment to research and development and innovation. The European Union must agree to prioritise growth and employment, promoting the genuine integration of the economies of the Member States. The Spanish Presidency attempted to bring about further liberalisation of the energy and transport markets. It has been obliged to moderate its aims following the Summit. Nonetheless, it does not seem appropriate for the European Union to go ahead with the liberalisation of these sectors without first considering the problems which arose during the first wave of deregulation. The Barcelona Council should have assessed the present state of public services and general interest services before adopting new measures. The mantra that liberalisation leads to higher quality services at a lower cost is propounded as a scientific truth. There are, however, many examples where precisely the opposite has proved the case. The supply of electricity in Spain and the British railway and health systems are but two of these. It is important for us to revive the sense of public service as we build Europe, and also to foster debate on the features and objectives of general interest services. We should be mindful that at Barcelona the need to continue working “with a view to consolidating and specifying the principles on services of general economic interest, which underlie Article 16 of the Treaty, in a proposal for a framework directive” was recognised. Of course, there have been a number of positive outcomes to Barcelona. I could mention the European Health Insurance Card, the go-ahead for Galileo, provided of course that it remains under civilian control, developments over Gibraltar, the declarations on the Middle East, inadequate though they are, and development aid. Nonetheless, there have been some worrying omissions in the field of foreign affairs. The European Council made no reference to two serious situations, namely the United States’ declared intention of resorting to nuclear weapons and the threat of an immediate attack on Iraq. How could the European Council have failed to charge the CFSP High Representative with making representations to the United States urging them to cease creating tension in the world and adjust their strategy in order to reduce the risk of nuclear build-up? In conclusion, I am bound to say that for the reasons I outlined, the Barcelona Council has failed to meet the expectations of my group.

Political group: GUE-NGL