Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council will take place at a time when Germany, Italy and Portugal are going through a recession and when France is poised to follow them. In addition to these countries, the entire euro zone is experiencing an economic downturn and, in many ways, a downturn in social protection too. There is now such a wide gulf between the supposed benefits of the completion of the internal market and the introduction of the euro and the everyday realities of our fellow citizens that we are entitled to call for a genuine public and pluralist evaluation of the guidelines that have been followed and of the instruments with which the Union has implemented these guidelines. It goes without saying that the course of action I have recommended bears no relation at all to the anti-European demagoguery of some senior political leaders – starting with those of my own country, Mr Watson – who use such talk to cover themselves in the eyes of their electors. These leaders accuse Brussels in order to make people forget that their own Head of State personally negotiated the Treaties and signed the Stability Pact. They only complain about the harshness of the procedures in force when they themselves are faced with a powerful and entirely legitimate resistance movement made up of workers in their own countries. Above all, they do not call into question the very mindset of the stability pact and even less that of the Phare institution whose pact is ultimately just its bodyguard: the European Central Bank. Its mandate and its statutes make those of the Central Bank appear to be the most liberal and untouchable in the world. This is precisely why I believe the evaluation that I have just mentioned to be so necessary. It is true that when economies are so interdependent, there must be common rules and these must be observed. What rules, though, and to achieve what objectives? This is the crux of the matter. What have we gained from this approach of attracting capital in rivalry with the United States, at the cost of a permanent and almost obsessive quest to bring wage costs down and to check social spending? What have we gained from this cult of price stability, at a time when our economies are suffering, not as a result of inflation but of deflation? Do you realise what each of these fine steps forward praised by Commissioner Solbes mean for people’s lives? In France, today, they are nothing more than a good mark, given for freezing public spending until 2007 and even reducing it – and this covers the budgets for young people, education, work, accommodation, transport, research – and for halving current health spending. This is an unacceptable prospect for the French people, and for the citizens of Germany, Italy, Portugal or anywhere else and I believe it is frankly irresponsible to have forced the future Member States beforehand to undergo shock therapy – which actually consists of shocks without any therapy – in the name of an acquis communautaire or accepted body of Community legislation which, incidentally, is by no means accepted by millions of Europeans. It is true that there is a deep need for social transformation and, therefore, for change in European policies. It would be marvellous if the European Council did not create a deadlock over this clear state of crisis and instead gave us its diagnosis and solutions, followed by a real debate with our fellow citizens. One alternative approach is for us to address monetary policy and hence the role and workings of the European Central Bank. The priority of monetary policy and of the ECB must, we believe, be to promote human capacities and consequently, first of all, making employment and training more secure for everyone. Their task would then be to make our countries much less dependent on the financial markets. Politics must control the market and not the other way around. Consequently, the idea of a selective credit policy, which would be extremely favourable to the investments that support our new political priorities but a real deterrent to those who do not support them, would come up against a genuine confrontation of opinions. This, in any event, is the type of debate that needs to be held to enable Europe’s citizens to state their feelings about the draft Constitution in full knowledge of the facts. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL