Mr President, in discussing the broad economic policy guidelines I am particularly mindful of my own country's run-in with the Commission in recent months, a situation handled badly in my opinion by both the Commission and our own Minister for Finance. As we face a referendum on Nice on 7 June next, popular opinion in Ireland is one of amazement at the response to the economic miracle that has been performed. It has allowed one of the poorest, underdeveloped and most peripheral regions of the EU to catch up and surpass many of the strong economies and, to quote, 'realise our economic and social potential and ensure the welfare of our people' as our Taoiseach said at the time we were voting on whether to join the then EEC or not in 1972. It is not what the Commission did but how it did it that I question: decisions behind closed doors, badly communicated and with no parliamentary input. Please let us learn from that. I know and appreciate why Commissioner Solbes was concerned about what was considered an inflationary budget and at 5.6% this remains a serious concern. But the bald choice was between maintaining our social partnership and some semblance of wage stability through tax cuts at a time of exchequer plenty; and wage stability is the most important part of the Irish stability programme. In a word, in a country that is in a catch-up position, the classic economic model, a one-size-fits-all economic model, is a bad fit. Economic forecasting is not an exact science. Nor is it within sole EU control. We are part of a global economy. It is subject also to the forces of nature, to animal and plant diseases. Witness the havoc BSE and foot and mouth disease have caused, even in Ireland where we have had only one case of foot and mouth disease. The successful efforts to ring-fence the disease are forecasted to take over 2% of our growth this year. In the matter of economic forecasting I am increasingly concerned about the behaviour of the ECB which appears to be reduced to reading the tea-leaves in the bottom of the cup. Is the ECB part of the problem or the solution? I fully support the recent reduction in interest rates to support growth, but questions have to be raised about the way the ECB decides policy and communicates it to the financial markets. In the context of statements from senior officials in recent weeks, the ECB has left itself open to accusations that it bowed to pressure from the US, or worse panicked, in the face of contradictory economic models. The way the recent reduction, only the second since the ECB was established in 1998, was handled, has seriously damaged its credibility. Not for the first time I find myself questioning the competence of senior officials of the ECB, even when I agree with what they are doing. Too much megaphone diplomacy, too little consideration or understanding of the impact on the markets of what they say. Too much post hoc justification of the fact and about-turns in policy. We expect and demand better. Perhaps the recommendation procedure should be directed towards them, Commissioner, or are they subject to any checks and balances? Perhaps we need after all to revisit the debate on vaccination for foot in mouth policy.

Political group: PPE-DE