At the time that the Greek parliament is debating the future of the country, the comments made in this column yesterday about the different positions expressed by the European summit warrant further explanation that goes beyond the official texts.
Correcting a misunderstanding. It would be over-optimistic to affirm that the word confidence is the only word to describe the atmosphere in the EU with regard to efforts made by Greece to get its economy back on track. Kind words and encouragement regarding the action taken by the authorities in the country have dominated public positions and have characterised the official conclusions of the European Council. There were, however, a number of oral declarations that were more cautious and sometimes critical.
It is, first of all, crucial to correct a misunderstanding. I get the impression that there is sometimes a certain confusion existing between Greece as a member of the EU and Greece as a member of the eurozone. The first aspect doesn't have anything to do with the ongoing debates: the possibility of Greece leaving is non-existent and it has not crossed the minds of the political leaders or, I'm sure, the Greek public. Political and cultural aspects dominate, and the contribution made by Greece to Europe's heritage and the debt of our civilisation to this country are obvious to all. Europe without Greece is inconceivable and its membership is irreplaceable and definitive. In the event of economic difficulties, Community support instruments will be used in full. Greece's membership of the eurozone does not have any direct link with its status as a Community country.
The existence of the single currency presupposes that all participants respect the rules. If this is not the case, the structure collapses. No one can be excused from this and countries in difficulty benefit from support mechanisms which are continually being strengthened and expanded. But the eurozone can only function as a whole: the hypothesis of a participant failing is incompatible with the existence of the single currency.
Selective austerity? Certain declarations made in the context of the summit certainly indicate that fears in this respect have not been smoothed over. Jean-Claude Juncker is one of those fighting for economic support provided to Greece to be as generous as possible. He considers that EU funding as part of cohesion policy must be provided to Greece, without demanding the part covered by national funding. He is afraid, however, that the sacrifices are being borne by the poorest sections of Greek society, whereas the privileges of the rich (there are quite a few of them in this country) get off scot-free. The following is an extract from a statement made by Mr Junker: “The Greek people are having to make enormous sacrifices - except for the rich…” In another statement, already quoted in this column, he says: “I would like the billionaires and millionaires to be more involved.” This is followed by the following comment: “but this is up to the Greek government…” Didier Reynders, the Belgian finance minister, asserted that “we are increasing the pressure because there have been a number of precedents - statistical inaccuracies, significant prevarication… we need to be sure that the plan will be applied.”
Many questions still remain. There is no point going on with these quotations because at a level of soul-searching, it is quite clear. There's the impression that the determination of Greece to turn its economy round is still insufficient. This can be seen by a number of questions still persisting with regard to certain reforms considered essential but whose implementation is far from being accepted. This includes effective payment of taxes by all citizens; taxation of ship and yacht owners (so many of them in the different ports); real estate taxes for property owners; and a reduction in military spending. Some observers consider that the idea of defending the poor is a pretext, when in fact it is the rich who are defending their privileges.
What should be said of the banks whose interest rates are a form of usury but which balk at accepting the only measures that could justify the use of such usury? Let's not forget some of the statements made which deserve some reflection: “It is much less embarrassing to declare that we are helping Greece, when in fact we are helping its banks”. Fortunately, some of the political leaders have stuck to a firm line regarding the demand for private lenders to be (“voluntarily”) involved in refinancing Greek debt and discussions in this connection are still ongoing (for details see this publication yesterday).
Two subjects to thrash out. This column will return to developments in other dossiers on which the European Council spoke out. In my opinion, they warrant a number of comments: (a) progress in the accession process of Balkan countries and a few new ideas in this regard; (b) the approval of the European strategy for the Danube region and what this really means. (F.R./transl.fl)