Rome, 03/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - The head of the S&D group at the European Parliament, Hannes Swoboda (Austria), says that without any changes to the Council of Ministers' position on the single bank resolution mechanism (SRM), the European Parliament would not be able to accept an agreement. He comments on statements by the president of the Parliament, Martin Schulz, about being prepared to accept an intergovernmental agreement for the legal basis of the SRF. Speaking at the PES congress in Rome on Friday 28 February, Swoboda criticised the way Europe has handled the crisis. (Report by Elodie Lamer).
Agence Europe (AE): What is your assessment of the last five years of European governance?
Hannes Swoboda (HS): There was a deep economic and social crisis and Europe has not found the right answer overall. It was very simple-minded, neo-liberal answer based on ideology, not on facts, and the social consequences of the policies were neglected; it led to the creation of citizens' mistrust and lack of confidence towards Europe. But there were also some positive measures, like Banking Union.
AE: Do you think the socialists and democrats also bear part of the responsibility for the rise of Euroscepticism?
HS: Of course everyone has a share of responsibility. But I think the socialists and democrats tried overall to influence policies in the right direction.
AE: What would a Commission led by Martin Schulz change?
HS: Economic policies would much more take into account positive action for employment, with more room for investment, and a strong fight against tax avoidance, so we can use that money for investment. Also, the intergovernmental approach would be less strong, so we have a real strong common policy. The EU would also be much more connected with the citizen.
AE: Does that mean that you will change strategy and abandon austerity?
HS: First of all, we don't see many results from these policies. The debts of many countries are not decreasing. But it's not about tolerance of debt; it's about an alternative policy to reduce debt. With more jobs, there are new incomes and fewer unemployment benefits. It could be successful but less harmful to the citizens.
AE: About employment, the Commission says it's a competence of national governments, what do you think about that?
HS: The Commission too often hides itself behind the lack of competence. The Commission must have a clear voice and that's the difference between President Barroso and Martin Schulz. If you don't have competence, you must have a strong message and mobilise citizens to pressurize their government to do something against unemployment. And then, employment has to do with national economic policies which are evaluated by the Commission. If you have a reduction of deficit but not unemployment, then of course you don't work for employment. So I think this is an excuse which I would not accept. And with the youth guarantee, the Commission could do much more than it did.
AE: On SRM, is an agreement still possible before the elections? Martin Schulz said in an interview with Die Welt that he would be ready to accept to wind up banks intergovernmentally with a revision clause in EU law. Are you in line with that?
HS: That sentence from Martin Schulz was highly overestimated and emphasized. Of course, there are some intergovernmental elements in it, but the real question is also the length of time, the decision-making process, and that's still open. We decided yesterday (Thursday 28 February) in the Conference of Presidents to put SRM on the agenda of the plenary in April. If we don't find a solution, we will vote on first reading. It is necessary to signal to the Council that they cannot blackmail us. Without clear changes, we are not ready to accept the Council position.
AE: What should Europeans do about the Greek debt? Europeans seem to think not paying back could frighten investors, but the IMF says over-high debt could frighten investors
HS: It's about stretching repayment. A haircut is criticized because other public debts would be affected. It must be clear that no country or citizens have lost any euros to Greece. It's a loan which has been paid, and citizens have the wrong impression.
The question is not about not paying back, it's about having a long time to pay back, and that's also security for investors. The line of the European Commission is inversely-related to the IMF's line. It's absolutely sure that too high debts frighten investors, but the alternative is not to reduce the debt but to give it a long-term stretching so countries are able to repay their loans.