Mr President, as made clear in the speeches both by the Presidency and by those party spokespeople who have spoken, Seville will be the last summit of the Spanish Presidency and, although this is not the time to draw up the final balance sheet, this is the time to take a brief look at how it has performed its duties and to see whether we are likely to pass or even to get a good mark. It could be said that these five months have been characterised by an excessive fuss about most of the issues set as priorities for the Presidency’s term in office. There has been a great deal of fuss about enlargement, about immigration, about Mediterranean policy, about fisheries policy and the reform of agricultural policy, about external policy, about transatlantic relations, etc. It cannot be denied, Mr President, that we have talked about everything: sustainable development, the spirit of Lisbon, the institutionalisation of the Union, the outermost regions... but if we look at the progress that has been made on any of the issues I have just mentioned – we will reach the conclusion that a major imbalance has been created between what is said and what is done. As they say, Mr President, there has been much ado about nothing. I know that on some issues – perhaps on many of them – the Presidency has alibis, but the fact is that we are approaching the end of the Presidency with a more complicated agenda than when we started and with more confusion. On the issue of immigration and asylum, for example, for more than a month, we have been repeating, ad nauseam, the conclusions of the Tampere Council; commitments that the Council has been unable to fulfil due to a lack of political will. Nothing new is being said. Everything has already been said and agreed upon but there has been such a fanfare of trumpets that you would think we had come up with something new for the Seville Summit. With regard to employment policy, all I can fairly say is that Barcelona threw the spirit of Lisbon off course. No account was taken of the fact that Lisbon’s strategic objective was not only to create a more prosperous and competitive economic area; the other objectives were full employment and greater social cohesion, and this is where a step backwards has been taken. What can we say about the major challenge laid down by the Swedish Presidency: sustainable development? This is a representative example of what has not been achieved. The resolution of the Barcelona Summit mentioned sustainability 103 times. Are there any higher offers? The Valencia Summit was a success in that it took place. I know that the climate in the Middle East was not the most favourable, but we were not even able to press ahead with one of the few tangible priorities of the Spanish Presidency, the Euro-Mediterranean Bank. With regard to transatlantic relations, it has already been said – Mr Poettering said this himself – that we have never had so many ongoing disputes with the USA, such as, for example, the trade and industry issues, the failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the divergent positions on the Middle East, the belligerent position of the USA towards the International Criminal Court, which makes them feel that they can threaten us with intervening if a member of the American military is put on trial in the Netherlands. It looks as if the States no longer respect us on the world stage. I shall conclude, Mr President, with a comment on the institutional reforms: the world has become a very complicated place, globalisation requires increasingly strong global institutions and policies that are increasingly close to the citizens, but the Spanish Presidency – and it genuinely pains me to say this – has been characterised by contradictory and misguided responses to these challenges and in this area: more renationalisation, less European government; and this will not help us to solve any of the problems facing Europe. Cutting back on the powers of our common institutions is a defensive reaction that can only lead to failure. This is, Mr President, the most sordid form of nationalism, and 'More Europe' means less nationalism, both of the old style and of the new. To conclude, it could be said that, to date, we are quite dissatisfied, but that we would like nothing more than to change our minds and, in the days remaining, in the final stretch, for you to surprise us and for more light to appear and for some shadows to vanish. As I said to President Aznar on 16 January in this very Parliament, I should like nothing more than to be able to congratulate you when it is all over.

Political group: PSE