Madam President, my group was one of those which wanted to have a document allowing an exchange of views on the Commission’s strategic objectives within the group before this debate, instead of being reduced to an on-the-spot reaction in plenary. The main merit of the text of this communication is therefore the fact that it exists. We are also pleased to see certain statements and intentions which it contains and which Mr Prodi has just underlined and, in some cases, usefully clarified. The current globalisation process is – and I quote – ‘exclusive rather than inclusive and has widened the inequalities’. The European Union’s objective must therefore be to help define new ground rules within the Union and in international relations. Clearly, many citizens are ‘disenchanted and anxious’ about the lack of real and lasting solutions to basic problems, such as unemployment and social exclusion, which affect our very existence. This must be one of our absolute priorities. We do need to rethink many aspects of current Community policy if the important and difficult project of enlargement is to be a success. We also need ‘distinctive strategic partnerships’ with our neighbours to the south and east in order to achieve stability and peace. There are plenty of areas for serious discussion. We will carefully study the planned White Papers and will participate constructively in the work begun or promised. It is in this spirit that I have three criticisms to make. These must be taken into account if we are truly to shape the new Europe, as proclaimed ambitiously by the title of the Commission document and Mr Prodi’s speech and do so in reality not rhetoric. The first and most serious criticism concerns the Commission’s propensity for rather grandiloquent self-satisfaction with regard to the European Union and for a cursory and even condescending view of our partners. The perfect illustration of this crippling flaw lies in the opening sentence of the Commission communication. This talks of the European Union as ‘living proof that peace, stability, freedom and prosperity can be brought to a continent’ and as a model showing the world the way forward. It concludes that ‘our neighbours have the chance to join this prosperity, and we have a golden opportunity to enable them to do so’. A more balanced and more rigorous diagnosis would be welcome in my view. Similarly, the idea that the euro has fostered a consensus on wage moderation is not really borne out by the repeated nervous orders issued by the European Central Bank to the trade unions which are deemed to be too demanding. My second criticism follows on from the first. This extreme difficulty in seeing the contradictions of the current situation and, where necessary, confronting these is seriously limiting the will, duly confirmed by Mr Prodi, to grant public demands. For example, at least in the countries which I know well, I doubt that the intention, repeated three or four times in the Commission document, to reform ‘Europe’s social protection, health care and pension systems ...in a climate of more cautious public spending’ will meet the needs of those whose confidence we apparently want to win back. My third criticism stems from the first two. The weakness of the analysis and the obstacles to the necessary changes have resulted in a project whose scope is severely limited by an overabundance of generalisations, a rather indecisive approach and therefore a lack of impetus. But all is not lost. This is a starting point and we have five years to succeed, provided that the political will exists and is expressed with sufficient force and clarity. My group is fully intent on helping with this work.

Political group: GUE-NGL