Brussels, 03/05/2013 (Agence Europe) - Where has Jean Monnet's “spirit of pragmatism” gone? The new president of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Henri Malosse, looks at today's Europe through glasses slightly tinted with nostalgia. And yet it is a forward-looking kind of nostalgia. Given the EU's “abstruse terminology” and “austerity dogma”, he wishes to promote a return to pragmatism and to bring the EU closer to its citizens. In this interview in Brussels, on Thursday 2 May, Malosse, who is now installed in his new office, cannot conceal his concern at a Europe that no longer seems to know where it is heading. He describes himself as having long been a supporter of the single currency. But he is a supporter who is also subject to disenchantment, who is wondering what price must be paid to ensure that the euro is “worth the effort”. (JK/transl.jl)
Agence Europe (AE) - What priorities do you wish to insist upon during your two and a half year mandate?
Henri Malosse (H.M.) - I do not have priorities. Unlike my predecessors, I do not have a programme. My programme is what is happening right now. In fact, I have just one priority and that is to reconcile citizens with the European institutions - and that requires a great deal of work. Europe needs to change direction. It is not just by telling people that Europe is a beautiful thing that this will make people love Europe (…). Changing the policy implemented in Brussels means listening to people, and taking into account the priorities of people and not the priorities of the financial markets, the stock exchange or the Financial Times.
AE: Given that those two priorities seem to contrast with each other, how can improving the national budget situation be reconciled with the search for growth?
H.M.: Austerity has its limits. With too large a dose, it kills growth and kills the economy. (…) If you reduce revenue, cut the pensions of the least well-off in two, cut officials' salaries in two, and if you dismiss one third of all officials, then who will go to the shops to buy, to make the economy function? No-one. Who will make the small businesses work as they should? No-one. (…) We have gone far too far. It is time for Europe to change direction. I believe that a strategic error has been made, a political error, not just by Barroso (Ed.: the president of the European Commission), but also by the European institutions, an error that cuts us off from the citizens, from people's needs.
AE: If citizens are not heeded or not listened to, does that mean there is a structural democratic deficit within the EU?
H.M.: No, it is not really a democratic deficit. It is really a technocratic bubble. After a number of years, any structure - if that structure is not questioned or if it does not bring itself into question - ends up degenerating. (…) I knew the Europe of over 30 years ago, when I first arrived in Brussels. The spirit of all those working there was quite different. Theirs was a pioneering spirit, a spirit of conquest, a revolutionary spirit. They were people who wanted to change things. Now (…) they are there to keep a system in place. They are people who profess dogmas about liberalism, free trade and austerity - but no longer with the practical, pragmatic side. (…) Today, if you listen to what comes out of the European Commission or Council, you will hear incomprehensible discourse. Well done, Agence Europe - you try to put some comprehension into this impenetrable discourse that no-one can understand. There is bureaucratic phraseology and there are strategies that are so remote from what people really need. People couldn't care less what will be sold to them in 2020. What counts for them is the life that they are living, today.
AE: One of the main concerns today is employment. What can the EU do to address this?
H.M.: First of all, there is the question of European, national and private investment and growth, and then the vice-like grip of austerity must be eased on national public funding and on European funding above all for new projects, infrastructure. (…) I feel there is a small change taking place in what the president of the European Commission says. I believe this is because we are beginning to realise that we are going nowhere. (…) We have remained stuck in the economic dogmas of the eighties. (…) The people in Brussels, the ECFIN Directorate General and others, are in an anti-Keynesian and liberal frame of mind. But there is no reason for this. As there is not enough common governance in Europe, one is content with European institutions for surveillance, such as the OECD, which are not in contact with citizens' real lives. I believe that there is a problem here with Brussels and with the institutions as they are today.
AE: Recovery through investment also means through the European budget. What is your opinion on the state of discussions on the multiannual financial framework (MFF)?
H.M.: It is not the MMF that will trigger growth in Europe. That is insufficient. The Commission's initial proposal was a good one. It was wrong to give up its proposals so fast. Personally, I would have been far more radical. The Commission should have withdrawn its proposal upon receiving the Council's response. It would appear it accepted what was proposed. On many levels, that is short of the needs. But the European budget can only serve as a lever. It has to be acknowledged that the proposal that came out of the Council is extremely conservative, extremely lacking in innovation. It is not with such a proposal that economic activity can be reactivated (…) given that public spending in general cannot increase given the circumstances. (…) In any countries, it has decreased - in Greece, Portugal and Spain. Portugal, the country of origin of the European Commission president, which is supposed to be committed to the 2020 strategy, reduces its spending in the field of education, on the pretext that it is keeping to conditions set by Brussels. That is in total contradiction.
AE: So the answer is to be found in easing off the bolts of austerity - but how far?
H.M.: It has to be spread out over time. In order to save the eurozone, 30% of the Greek population has been sacrificed and 30% of the Portuguese population. That is absurd. I campaigned for the euro, but it was not worth the effort. One can surely spread things out, ensure a better balance between the different countries. There are countries that have a budgetary situation that is better than the others. Therefore, in order to keep all those countries in the eurozone, sacrifices are imposed on the most fragile populations. It is extremely tough. And, what is more, economically it is totally ineffective. I was in Latvia (…). It is now being said that it is setting an example and that all is going well. In 20 years, they have lost 25% of their population. Qualified people are now washing down cars in Birmingham. Their income has fallen dramatically, almost by 50%. The shock has been extremely harsh. And all that to save financial balances. Can one not carry out “softer” deficit reductions and at the same time trigger investment for growth quite quickly?
AE: When you say that “it wasn't worth the effort”, does that mean that countries like Portugal or Cyprus should give up the euro, unless the direction changes?
H.M.: I very sincerely believe that one can ask that question, if the price to be paid to remain in a monetary zone is at such a high level. If I were the political leader of these countries, I would understand that the question should be put to me. I do not want that to happen at all - I believe they should remain in the eurozone. But, for them to stay, it is also necessary (…) for less draconian conditions to be imposed, to be better distributed. Austerity in Greece is largely borne by the least well off. And that is unjust. In Cyprus also (…). Is it truly the moment, when we are in this difficult period, to think of opening up our borders still more, of signing free-trade agreements with Korea, and tomorrow with the United States? It is perhaps the best moment for the German economy but is it the best moment for the Greek economy or for the Portuguese economy? Personally, I have my doubts.