Brussels, 05/05/2014 (Agence Europe) - The German Martin Schulz, head of the list of the Party of European Socialists (PES) for the European elections, aspires to a fairer Europe which is capable of improving the everyday lives of millions of Europeans living on €1,000 a month. He wishes to share his experience of leading the European Parliament to oblige the European Commission, which he may lead if his party is victorious, to be more accountable to MEPs (interview with written responses, by EL with SP, CG, AN and FG)
Agence Europe - The polls show the Christian Democrats in the lead. How would you explain the drop in popularity of the Socialists and Democrats?
Martin Schulz - The polls are not the elections, it is the electorate thqt decides. Let us not lose focus and let us wait for polling day to talk about on how people vote. And most importantly, let's not give the citizens the impression that the die has already been cast.
What kind of European Commission president will you be?
I want to be a Commission president who gives hope, a new confidence in the European Union. The citizens no longer have any confidence in Europe and this is why I want to fight for the Commission to be more transparent, more democratic and, above all, more effective. We must stop getting lost in texts which lay down nitpicking rules.
We must focus on the bigger picture: employment, environment, international trade, and the protection of rights, particularly digital.
It is my view that the current executive has not taken enough account of the suffering of the Europeans. Our citizens have made great sacrifices to save the European economy by recapitalising its banks, and they have seen their sacrifices rewarded by more austerity, fewer jobs, fewer public services. The consolidation of our public accounts is an obligation to the younger generations, but we cannot sacrifice our growth and our jobs on the altar of budgetary orthodoxy.
I want to campaign for my vision of Europe rather than against anyone, be it my current opponents or the current Commission. As President of the Commission, I will make full use of my right of initiative, whether the member states like it or not, I will not agree to take on roles which are not laid down in the treaties, such as taking part in the troika. The Commission should not have agreed to play that role where there is no transparency or democratic control whatsoever.
What reforms will you initiate within the Commission?
At the moment, the Commission works in silos. This is obviously not the best possible organisation if you want an effective Commission. Nor can the distribution of remits be infinite. We need to rethink how the Commission is organised, so why not in “pools”, as Mr Juncker also believes. I will also make sure that each of the commissioners is given more responsibility: my role will not be to check their work, but to give them clear objectives in carrying it out.
I will arrange their action around four or five major areas, such as employment. We have to give ourselves every opportunity to succeed on the major dossiers, rather than to legislate in areas which should not come under our jurisdiction. At the moment, the institutions are needlessly intrusive, but ineffective when it comes to solving the major problems. Europe is rich, Europe is capable but those in power are poor, lacking ambition. We need to turn this around.
A populist group led by Le Pen and Wilders has every chance of being formed in the future European Parliament. What do you make of that?
I understand that Europeans are disappointed by Europe, but I want to convince them that voting for populists is not the answer. They blame Europe, its leaders, its single currency, for every problem. But they never put forward solutions. That is also a reflection of their work at the European Parliament. Because, and I must stress this, the ones painting themselves as new brooms to sweep Europe clean have been in the Parliament for a long time - since 1984, for example, in the case of Mr Le Pen. But they've done nothing, voted against texts which aim to improve the lot of the Europeans. They are in a blind, systematic opposition which has not and will not bring Europeans anything.
Can the EU really take care of the “little” people? If yes, how?
Europe takes care of normal people, but this is not sufficiently explained, reiterated, stressed. The principle of equal pay for men and women wouldn't exist without Europe, for example.
I want the Commission's work to answer just one question: how can we make the everyday lives of the Europeans better? For the huge majority of them, earning €1,000 is a threshold they will never get beyond. These people are the citizens of Europe, it is for these people that we are elected and not for the banks, which speculate without any conscience, and then call on Europe to come to the rescue. A specific example of this is that we have just adopted an obligation for banks to offer bank accounts with services free of charge or at reasonable prices. That is something for the “little” people.
What would be your first reform to boost employment?
As president of the Parliament, I have travelled throughout Europe. I have met many company heads across the continent. One thing really hit home for me: in Emilia-Romagna, in Italy, small bosses told me that they had state-of-the-art technologies, full order books, but couldn't get loans from the banks. These same banks which borrow from the ECB at 0.25%. This situation is unacceptable. Resolving the tightened credit conditions in Europe will be one of my priorities.
What relationship will you have with the next European Parliament?
As an MEP, and then as president of the European Parliament, I have fought for the European Parliament to have the status which reflects the voice of the citizens, in other words at the heart of the institutions. The Parliament has shown that it is prepared to defend its beliefs, such as in the creation of banking union. As president of the Commission, one of my priorities will be to ensure that the Commission is always answerable for its actions to the Parliament. It is unacceptable that the troika, which has acted brutally, does not have to explain itself to the only European institution elected by universal suffrage.
There is also democratic work to be done as regards economic governance. The European Parliament should have far greater involvement in the European semester, in other words laying down the major objectives of economic policy, given that the instruments to achieve the common objectives have then to be defined - also under the impulse of the national parliaments - at national level.
How can Europe change direction when austerity is cast in stone?
I do not believe that austerity is cast in stone. This is a false truth, which is used as a foil by the populists who see Europe only as an oppressive instrument. Some instruments are already available to boost growth. The stability and growth pact for example: why has budgetary stability been imposed across the board, neglecting growth?
The states have bailed the banks out, even though there is not a word about this in the texts. This practice, which is similar to state aid, even goes against the rules of free competition. It would therefore appear, even in Europe, that “where there's a will there's a way”. Under the treaties as they stand, a more social policy is possible in Europe.
What are your priorities for taxation?
Major groups which make huge profits pull the tax optimisation strings in order to avoid paying any tax in Europe. This is tax fraud at European level, which runs counter to its principles and its values. I intend to fight to force these groups to pay tax in at least one European country.
The states are currently haemorrhaging money over the harmonisation of VAT in Europe, but are steadfastly opposed to agreeing in order to stop this distortion. This is inefficient. And so, yes, I am in favour of abolishing the unanimity rule. However, safeguards have to be set in place. Because touching taxes means striking at the heart of national sovereignty. The fiscal choices of a government decide its fundamental policies, particularly in the social field.
I will start off by proposing common definitions to make it possible to compare tax rates properly, to agree on a common definition of tax havens. We are just taking our first baby steps in tax co-operation, the scope of the work is enormous. In the meantime, the economic and monetary zone is dysfunctional, our monetary zone is less than optimal and our economies are under threat.
Then, I will make use of the existing instruments, such as the European semester or the banking regulations, to encourage the states to show greater transparency and move towards tax convergence. The previous Commission had no problem in recommending pension system reforms but, strangely, it did not go as far as to recommend changes in tax policy.
Tax policy is our main instrument to bring justice back to the current economic systems and fight inequalities. Proposing nothing is criminal.
Are you in favour of awarding contracts whereby a state would be bound at European level to apply structural reforms in exchange for financial assistance?
If we want our monetary zone to be functional, transfers are necessary, but it should not turn into a diktat on the part of certain states which feel that they are more virtuous than others.
The financial contribution which is sometimes referred to must be genuine and not a false argument to force states under a financial stranglehold to carry out reforms which fly in the face of the democratic choices of their people. Given the structure of the Community budget and the restrictions placed upon it by the states in recent negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework, this seems to me to be complicated.
But I will say no to any more binding system which is not linked to genuine financial support. The need for reforms, some of which may be painful for the Europeans to bear, is all too clear. But I also want us to talk about future investments, rather than just a contraction of our social models.