The record levels of abstention at the European elections in June, particularly in working-class residential districts, showed that Europe is still remote from its citizens. It is not sufficiently transparent in the way it is run. It is oriented too much towards the concerns of the market and big business and not enough towards the concerns of the population, particularly those who have to endure lack of job security, unemployment and poverty. The hearings of the Commissioners-designate made it possible to offer an initial response on the reform of the running of the Commission and the strengthening of links with Parliament. But it is on the basis of the policies implemented that Europe will be judged and that the confidence of the citizens must be regained. What are the prospects for social Europe? What protection mechanisms when confronted with economic forces increasingly dominated by the financial world? What new employment policy? What major collective projects to prepare the way for the future and to sustain growth? What will Europe’s environment and its concept of sustainable development be like? And, going on from that, what approach to negotiations with the WTO in order to defend the uniqueness of the European social model and to promote a new type of co-operation between the countries of North and South? On these questions, the statement by President Prodi did not provide the expected responses. The guidelines presented are still far removed from the priorities which were at the centre of the campaign by Socialists, in France and also in many other countries. We have no doubts as to the character, the honesty and the competence of the Commissioners-designate. From this point of view, the personal attacks, with no real justification, by a party of the right and of the extreme Right upon a Socialist leader are unacceptable. The vote of no confidence which they are calling for must be rejected. I shall vote in favour of the appointment. But this approval of the membership of the Commission, which must be capable of getting down to work, is not tantamount to a vote of confidence in a political programme which has not yet been presented, which must be debated with Parliament at the earliest opportunity, and which must take into account the aspirations and expectations of the citizens of Europe. Eriksson, Frahm, Herman Schmid and Sjöstedt , – (SV) It is not on the basis of individual Commissioners’ ability to carry out their official tasks that a position for or against the European Commission is to be adopted. For example, the Commissioners from Scandinavia, Mr Nielson and Ms Wallström, came out well from the hearings. If we had been able to vote for individual Commissioners, we should have given them our support, but the EU’s treaty does not permit this. The attitude we adopt towards the Commission depends mainly upon three questions: Democratic procedure Here, we cannot accept the threats which have come from Mr Prodi as President of the Commission. His threats include that of withdrawing the whole of the Commission if Parliament does not approve the whole College. He has also, through telephone conversations with the leader of the Conservatives/ , Mr Poettering, reached an agreement to the effect that no unduly indiscreet and controversial questions should be asked at the hearings. In this way, the French candidate Pascal Lamy, for example, got off all too lightly. As head of Delors’ cabinet, Lamy was responsible for ensuring that the Commission developed its own security department to the point that it became a “state within a state”, as is also maintained in the report by the Experts’ Committee. He was also responsible for the security services’ choosing to recruit leading personnel from right-wing extremist backgrounds. The political content This can best be discovered from Mr Prodi’s various speeches, through which his neo-liberal ideas shine clearly. The labour market is to be deregulated and social insurances and taxes should be harmonised. It is remarkable that the governments within the EU, which are to a large extent dominated by Social Democrats, have been able to agree upon a President of the Commission who so obviously does not represent the values of the labour movement. The idea that the EU should be developed as a military power is another of Mr Prodi’s hobbyhorses. It has not been possible in the course of the hearings to discern any understanding of the Swedish policy of non-alignment or of Danish exemption from military co-operation. What has also prevailed during the hearings of the Commissioners-designate is remarkable unity as to the need to abolish the right of veto almost across the board. The direction is clear: that of a European state, a federation. Future aims On 14 September, Mr Prodi spoke in the European Parliament about the need to introduce glasnost, but he said nothing about introducing a measure whereby employees of the Commission would be free to provide information. He was also rather vague when it came to concrete reforms. He did not want to comment on the report by the experts’ group but asked if he could return to it on a later occasion. Mr Prodi wants a strengthened Commission which will take on an ever-increasing number of tasks. The intention, moreover, is that it should unconditionally retain its stagnant monopoly on initiatives concerning legislation. Taken together, these are the reasons why we have chosen to vote “no” to the Commission.

Political group: PSE