Mr President, Commissioner, some of us did, in fact, go to Porto Alegre. What we saw there was thousands of citizens, trade-unionists, representatives of non-governmental organisations and women’s movements debating and advancing analyses and proposals to change globalisation, its rules and its institutions. From that point of view, Porto Alegre III is no longer simply the anti-Davos demonstration that Porto Alegre I was. These are citizens disputing and rejecting the inevitability of a globalisation devoted to increasing the wealth of the wealthiest, to leaving the poorest on the touchline and destroying the environment. They reject globalisation with institutions and rules that are strong and inflexible when it comes to defending the economic and commercial interests of the powerful and their businesses but weak when it comes to defending social rights, upholding the Kyoto protocol or combating tax havens. This is therefore a highly legitimate protest even in terms of the principles and values of the European Union. Above all, it is an attempt to impose globalised solidarity, or responsible globalisation. In this regard, Commissioner, I do not believe we can say that the choice is between growth and justice, in which case it is, of course, easy for you to say that the Commission does not pit the two against each other. I believe the choice is rather between growth of profit alone and justice, on the one hand, the growth of speculative bubbles, the ‘Enron’ economy and, on the other, more redistributive growth that takes account of social inclusion: an economy at the service of mankind. It is a choice between the commodification of all activities, natural resources and genes and, on the other hand, the ideal of access for all people to the world’s public goods, to water, health, medicinal products, energy, education and public services. These concerns expressed at Porto Alegre, to which we should add cancelling the debt, reforming the international institutions and peaceful conflict resolution are effectively, in principle, concerns that the European Union has at heart for promotion on the international stage. We must therefore consider this movement as supporting us in our endeavours because, just as we cannot change a society at country level without the support of social movements, so we cannot transform globalisation without the support of this global civil society. It represents great hope because it is not based on people only considering themselves, their own nation, their own ethnic group or their own religious group, but, on the contrary, the establishment of new rules on a global scale. It therefore represents hope. We still need to be equal to the questions raised by this movement in relation to the European Union. I shall cite three examples. Firstly, Europe often prides itself on providing the most public aid for development (55% globally). That is true but, at the same time, our agricultural subsidies are ruining agriculture in the southern countries and, in particular, small farmers. What are we going to do to change this, to promote food security and self-sufficiency? Secondly, the arrival of Mr Lula da Silva in power in Brazil has inspired great hope but the IMF is imposing on him an annual budgetary excess of 3.75%. What are we going to do to loosen the IMF’s vice-like grip on Mr Lula? We are part of the IMF. Furthermore, we have more votes there than the US. Thirdly, as regards public services, there is much protest against the privatisation imposed by the IMF in the developing countries. Today, through the WTO and GATS, these countries are sorry to see that we, the European Union, are asking them to liberalise water, postal services and even energy. Commissioner, are you, in order to respond to this global civil society and the hopes of the southern countries, going to change the demands of the European Union so that, in Cancun, we might say that Europe is genuinely on the side of those who want a different kind of globalisation?

Political group: PSE