Riga, 23/04/2015 (Agence Europe) - In an exclusive interview with EUROPE on Thursday 23 April, on the eve of the Riga Eurogroup, the French finance minister, Michel Sapin, launched an appeal to Greece for “precise, serious and detailed” discussions on the long-awaited list of reforms to be carried out in the country. On the taxation of financial transactions, he hopes for an agreement in May, or June at the latest, between the eleven countries wishing to apply this measure (interview with Elodie Lamer).
Agence Europe: Is an agreement with Greece possible in the near future?
Michel Sapin: What we want to see in place are precise, serious and detailed discussions in two phases. The ultimate objective is the end of June. We wanted to be able to set in place a strong and positive procedure by the end of April. I believe - and I hope - that this Friday, we will be able to establish that there has been progress, even if, from the general point of view of our partners in Greece, we have not made progress as quickly as we might have. Time has been lost, but that is time that can be made up. What's important is that on Friday, it is clearly shown that it's not the end of the story, just a chapter in it, and that we are able to note that there is some movement and that the Greek government has entered into sufficiently specific talks. Reforms are needed, lists are needed. But it is equally legitimate if the 'institutions' want to get into greater detail and, in particular, to put figures on the measures. The flexibility of accepting that the earlier list can be changed does not mean that we should lose sight of the need for a serious and sustainable framework. We need a balance, particularly from a budgetary point of view. All of this has to be detailed and credible and it needs to demonstrate that the Greeks want to improve their budgetary situation - and above all not make it any worse.
Is an extraordinary Eurogroup before the end of April a possibility?
That's not at all a schedule we are working to.
Have you had greater clarity on the 30%/70% of measures which are acceptable and those which need to be replaced?
Yes, it's clearer than it was to begin with, when those figures were tabled. There have been clarifications, reforms highlighted as important, particularly fiscal ones, but the title alone is not enough, we have to get into the paragraphs and, in particular, put figures on these measures.
Have you had greater clarity on the state of the Greek public finances?
It is up to the institutions to try to gain clarity on this. This is why we need transparent work based on trust between the Greek authorities and the institutions, so that we can properly measure the stakes, the deadlines, the capacity to deal with it. This is part of the work, but the most important thing is the content of the reforms, the precise details and the capacity to implement them. We have the end of June in our sights. By then, we need to put the work in to allow the Greek government to propose to us the trajectory, the path it intends to take beyond June.
What do you expect from the Greek minister at this Eurogroup?
For him to state exactly where we are, the road we still need to travel and the technical elements it is in a position to provide. We need a bit more clarity on the situation.
Is a further extension of the programme possible?
This seems very difficult to me. I don't think anybody is thinking about an extension.
An agreement on the reforms is not the end of the story, what's important for the tranches to be disbursed is that the reforms are implemented. What flexibility might the Eurogroup have on this point?
The implementation of the reforms is important. Additionally, certain important points from the earlier memorandum, on fighting tax evasion for instance, have not been implemented by the previous governments, and that has been a problem. What we are looking for today is for the previous programme to be brought up to date. This will allow further disbursements to be made.
We also need a balance: if the measure costs money straightaway, maybe a measure which will bring some money in needs to be voted through at the same time? We're not calling for an immediate vote on all laws, nobody is in that mindset. What we want is to be clear on the fact that there is a balanced path, from an economic and budgetary point of view, and on the entire agenda of reforms, there is a specific and credible commitment, and a timetable.
The Eurogroup declaration of November 2012 stated that there would be the means to act on debt, for instance, if required. Is this not, therefore, a gesture you are prepared to make, come what may?
The question of the debt is not the most pressing. What is the most pressing is the commitment, the balance, the ability to prove over time that the government can have a sufficient, credible and sustainable primary surplus. If the question of the debt is dealt with in the spirit of November 2012, it will be later.
On the taxation of financial transactions, do you think that there will be an agreement in May?
The last time I saw the Austrian minister, who is in charge of the political group, he told me that he will be in a position to make proposals in May. The issue will not be discussed in Riga. The Austrian minister is trying to put together a number of possible scenarios. An agreement is possible in May, or it will have to be in June, or in any case it will have to be some time which will allow the first stage to be implemented on 1 January 2016.
What are your thoughts on the Commission's proposal on the transparency of tax rulings? Some states don't want the Commission to have a central position in the exchange of information …
The letter from our three countries (France, Italy and Germany, which was sent to Commissioner Pierre Moscovici in late 2014: Ed) is extremely clear, particularly on the question of the transparency of tax rulings. The Commission's proposal is a good one, along the lines of the same demands we made, drawn up technically and from a political point of view, corresponding to what needs to be done. From our three countries, there is complete and total backing for the proposal. The Commission already has many supervisory responsibilities: on competition, on budgetary supervision. It is in the best possible position to implement these provisions.
This letter refers to a directive to counter unfair tax optimisation by multinationals (BEPS), but never mentions the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base ('CCCTB'). Why not?
That is a different issue altogether. The CCCTB is a project aiming to create tax harmonisation. This work was undertaken earlier, and it reached its political limits. The Commission wants to relaunch it; that's a good thing. But BEPS is fighting tax optimisation, that's different, although harmonisation would also resolve this issue. In addition to the transparency of the rulings, there are the terms and conditions for payment for such and such a service, I'm thinking of patents or similar, on which we need to take action to ensure that we don't end up in harmful situations of under-taxation for the countries of the EU. This is the area on which the work will continue, we are awaiting innovative proposals in June.
So you don't feel that the CCTB is the answer to BEPS?
It's a different answer. Harmonisation is the longer term. We have to make progress on this, but it's different from the BEPS process. I don't see how we can consolidate the economic and monetary union unless we all have the same approach to taxation.
How can progress be made on the CCCTB? Some people have said that 'C' for 'consolidated' should be removed…
The first step is it's the same tax base, that's the logical first stage. First you buy the land, then you build the house.
Should country-by-country reporting be made public?
Today, between the countries of the EU, reporting between administrations is vital, this is what will allow us to put an end to a number of damaging situations. It's of interest to continue work on public reporting. But if it came in, this information would be accessible to other countries outside Europe. There are countries with which we are in talks, we also have to see how that moves forward. If the United States opposes any public reporting, it would make it complicated for the EU to apply it.