Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if we compare this morning’s speeches and the resolution on the review of the Lisbon Strategy, which we are about to put to the vote, with Mr Barroso’s speech of a few weeks ago, we cannot help feeling pleased that there is now broad agreement, at least in principle, on the fact that relaunching the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy depends on finding an essential new balance among the three dimensions of the strategy, that is to say its environmental, economic and social dimensions.

Nonetheless, we do not feel that that is enough, at least in its current form, for us to take part in the political compromise that is taking shape. We are obviously pleased that some of our proposals have been included in the joint resolution, but we believe there are still gaps in the text. It lacks a clear choice as to the instruments that we should have at our disposal to achieve our goals, and it lacks guarantees that the Commission – and Parliament as well – will be willing and able to stand up to those who do not believe in the need for European control of the economy and are pressing for renationalisation of the cohesion policies, a backward reform of the labour market and a further cut in the Union’s budget.

Because of the concern to reach a compromise, contradictory elements have been included in the resolution, leaving the message confused instead of more convincing. We have picked out a number of incongruities in the text. It is a fact that nobody likes paying taxes, but we do not share the aim of indiscriminately cutting taxes to a minimum, because that would only lead to greater social inequalities. Europe needs a tax reform that reduces labour costs and taxes other sectors. Jacques Delors said as much very many years ago, but nothing has been done since then and instead the subject has dropped out of the European debate.

Secondly, the resolution retains a remarkably moderate and even ambiguous stance on three extremely important topics, which are going to be the subject of some hard legislative wrangling over the coming months; they are the services directive, the REACH regulation and the software patents directive. The outcome of the wrangling will show whether the Lisbon Strategy is just a return to old Thatcherite formulas or the beginning of a genuine New Deal for Europe.

Mr President, Mr McCreevy, we think that the Bolkestein directive should be withdrawn so that we can start off again on the right foot, in other words with a directive on services of public interest.

Mr Verheugen, we believe that the REACH regulation in its current form is already just enough of a compromise between the undoubtedly important arguments of industry and the priorities of health and the environment. It is a compromise that the Commission and Parliament too should defend tooth and nail against the aggressive lobbying of the chemical industry, which does not understand that organising an efficient and credible control system is the best way to ensure its competitiveness.

Lastly, I think that coming out explicitly against the patentability of software means affirming that innovation ‘made in Europe’ is fostered through the freedom and dissemination of knowledge and not by protecting the large multinationals and their monopolies.

Mr President, a basic ambiguity hangs over this text in relation to the true added value of the Union compared with action taken by national governments. In our view, such added value derives from the ability to invest in instruments for growth, which cannot be reduced just to GDP percentages, and in sectors that are not strictly tangible, such as education and culture. That is done by making use of renewable resources and sustainable solutions and gradually abandoning sectors that use up and waste resources, such as major infrastructure works and intensive agriculture, and those that create major health and environmental risks, such as nuclear energy, GM organisms and harmful chemical products.

Mr President, we shall be on your side in making these choices when that is possible, but we shall be against you and on the side of the people of Europe when it is not.