Madam President, I want to begin by thanking the Swedish presidency for showing great respect for the European Parliament and a desire to engage in dialogue with us. Its presence, both here in the Chamber and in the committees, has been very notable and much appreciated. Dialogue, transparency and participation are the prerequisites of a functioning democracy. In Göteborg, there was an attempt at dialogue between politicians, demonstrators and a variety of organisations. Unfortunately, it was only a well-intentioned attempt for, in reality, the Heads of State and Government were behind the barriers, and there were no opportunities for civil society and citizens to follow the negotiations concerning the future of all of us. From the closed rooms of this summit culture was born a frustration and impotence also expressed by peaceful demonstrators trying to get their message through to the Heads of State and Government. Unfortunately, a small clique of agents provocateurs also caused violence and disturbances. The stones they threw were, of course, directed not only against the police but against the whole of democratic society and against all those of us who really tried to get a message across. That may well be felt to be very regrettable. It is also unacceptable that the police should have used live ammunition against the agents provocateurs. An investigation has now been set up to look into how that could be possible in Sweden today. I am also disappointed at the way in which EU leaders appear to react to the frustration felt at developments in the EU. I also think that no account at all has been taken of the result of the Irish referendum. Instead, an attempt is being made to turn this into an Irish problem, while it is in actual fact, of course, a problem for the whole of the EU. A majority of the European Parliament too appears now to be making the same mistake, since the Council’s proposal that an open forum should be set up has been rejected and since no substance has been given to the idea of recommending that the next Intergovernmental Conference should be a convention. I really do not understand this reluctance to open up the EU and to enter into a dialogue with people and with civil society. What does the Swedish presidency intend to do in the future to get its colleagues on board and make them understand that this is crucial? Where the three ‘E’s were concerned, it was probably on the issue of enlargement that some real fighting spirit was shown and that something was successfully achieved. I cannot emphasise enough how pleased I am that there is now a fixed timetable for the accession procedure. However, I do not know how much energy was put into the issue of sustainable development. In any case, the results were poor in comparison with what might have been expected, for it was a good proposal that the Commission had tabled. I do not know if it has to do with incredible reluctance on the part of the EU’s Heads of State and Government to understand what sustainable development really entails. How is time now to be found for acquiring grassroots support for a plan and a political process prior to the Rio+10 Conference in South Africa when no practical undertakings have been set out concerning what is to happen to the climate objectives after 2010, how the depletion of fish stocks is to be prevented and how it might be possible to change our current, devastating agricultural policy? EU leaders must assume a global responsibility too. That is something I believe is demanded by the rest of the world and by the people of Europe (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE