Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank the President-in-Office for coming to Parliament for the second time and giving such a clear and concise presentation. We have seen how good he is with the ball, because the Europe of sport is also a Europe that we have to build together. I congratulate him on this agreement. I emphasise that there is a new element in our relationship, which is that you have the opportunity to put the relations between Parliament and the Council on a new footing. We are still at the level of the Single Act; we have the codecision procedure and we have the common foreign and security policy and we hope to be able to reach an agreement with you for there to be a balanced relationship in the legislative field between the Council and Parliament. With regard to your report, we see it as a positive step that we are still on the Lisbon road; it is a long road, which you make as you go along, as the poet Antonio Machado said. For us it is absolutely crucial that there should be a balance between job creation, competitiveness and social cohesion. You have added a very timely element: that we Europeans need to reflect on our ageing population, develop an immigration policy, and think about pensions. I believe this is the framework within which we have to work together, and I should especially like to thank the Swedish Presidency for always placing such importance on social cohesion, because I think this expresses a fundamental value for Europeans. There are a few pending issues: with regard to sustainable development you can count on our full support; on the liberalisation of the capital market, which we believe is necessary, you have supported the Lamfalussy report and have proposed a route which does not include Parliament having the chance of democratically controlling the standards being developed. Despite that, I believe we are on the right road. In connection with the liberalisation of services and electricity and gas, the Socialist Group thinks that apart from its inherent worth it brings up a key issue: the power relations in society and the economy. We must take the citizens into account and the obligation to provide services of general interest. We do not want to see public monopolies being replaced by private monopolies. We criticise the United States a lot because President Bush has unilaterally denounced the Kyoto Protocol, but we never ask ourselves why he has done so. If you look at how the American electoral campaign was financed you will understand why the President of the United States has given in to the interests of the big oil companies: because he received massive donations from them. This problem faces us too, now that we are debating the status of the political parties. It is what is called ‘soft money’ and ‘hard money’. Funding must have limits, and a basic principle of democracy is that there should not be any accumulation of power. For us it is essential that there should not be unlimited economic powers. As for our external relations, we are very concerned, not only because the United States has unilaterally denounced the Kyoto Protocol, but also because we notice a growing unilateral outlook in the United States in relation to issues that affect the international community. This is happening in the Middle East and the Balkans, and I believe it is important that, in this fundamental transatlantic relationship that we Europeans have, we should indicate to our partner that we do not share this view of the shape of international relations. We should do so at the start of the American Presidency in order to achieve a balanced, positive relationship. Lastly, allow me to speak of the future of Europe. The Swedish Presidency has the responsibility of organising a democratic and transparent debate on the future of Europe in the best Swedish tradition. You have launched the virtual debate on the web page; we did so a week earlier, but we are on the same lines as you. Yet a debate is something more than just a web page. A serious, open debate has to be held with civil society, with the social and political forces, but we also have to know how we want to decide and organise the future of Europe. There is a proposal here that both the Commission and Parliament agree upon, which is to organise a debate in three stages, using a working method inspired by the convention, to culminate in a short, decisive conference. The Swedish Presidency should consider, support and improve this proposal at the Gothenburg European Council.

Political group: PSE