"We believe that Spain and
its institutions are strong enough to manage the situation in full respect of
the State Law and the Constitution"
"Our decisions [on the
budget] are not different because Calviño is the minister; however, the fact that
we speak the same language makes it easy"
Jyrki Katainen, vice
president of the European Commission and former Finnish prime minister, is
spending his final months in Brussels and in the front line of politics. A few
months ago he considered presenting himself to succeed Jean-Claude
Juncker, but the absence of clear support,
the fatigue of a lifetime in the public front and the political career of his
wife, who will enter Parliament in the next elections, made him to opt for
leaving it.
Tomorrow he
will arrive in Spain, where he will meet with the Minister of Defense, the
Minister of Economy, Vice President Calvo and Pablo
Casado and Juan
Manuel Moreno. He will meet
with the CEOE and will hold debates with
citizens in Malaga or Fuengirola. He defends the "tough measures"
during the crisis, admitting the high "social costs", because thanks
to them, he says, Spain has been able to recover so well. And it does not avoid
questions, neither about populism, nor about the Spanish Budget nor on
Catalonia.
Spain goes up in the rankings of
the so-called Juncker Plan.
Spain is the fourth country to
benefit from the EFSI, that's a very good thing. The European Fund for
Strategic Investments (EFSI) has provided 8,100 million in funds which will
activate 46,200 million in investments, a very significant figure. There are 147,000
SMEs that are financed through these funds. In terms of real money it will mean
up to 15,500 million euros in investments for them. The Juncker Plan has had an
important impact on job creation and the growth of Spain, but people do not
know it.
No, they do not know.
It happens many times,
especially when talking about SMEs. The bank reaches an agreement with the
European Investment Bank, supported by the EFSI, but the clients do not know
that it is thanks to this EFSI. In any case, as long as the financing comes,
that's fine. In the EU's Multi-Annual Financial Framework, in the structural
funds area, Spain is the fourth largest beneficiary in research. The new Budget
has additional items for border management. The EU plays a big role in Spain. I
do not try to buy votes offering money, it's just reality.
Spain does not have yet and might
not have a Budget for 2019. And you have shown suspicions about the draft.
Spain will continue to be a net
beneficiary with the new EU Multi-Annual Financial Framework. The Structural
Funds will increase 21%, I think. It’s a lot. Nadia Calviño knows the Budget
from top to bottom. Knowing the national limitations, the European Budget
should increase. I am sure that things like R & D, border control, security
are well understood in Spain. On the Spanish Budget, the Commission has
evaluated the latest draft and there seems not to be great changes compared to
the initial one, that's fine. The only significant concern, shared by the Bank
of Spain, is that the growth would be lower than previous estimates. And what kind
of impact could this have on the Budget.
It is not the only question that
you do not see clearly.
We have some doubts about the
digital tax, about whether it can really contribute as much as the government
plans. We do not know all the details yet, it is complicated to say something
safe, but the Commission has expressed doubts.
Doubts, no big worries.
Not on the Budget in general. The
economy is growing, although it is something less than anticipated. Unemployment
falls, employment goes up, many of the fundamentals data are good. People often
forget one fact: the reason the economy grows and is so resistant is that Spain
did a good job during the crisis. Unlike what happened with others, Spain never
lost its credibility. The measures were very hard and I understand that the
social cost was high, but the country managed to defend itself and that is the
reason why it is now where it is.
You, as a former Finnish prime
minister, were among the most 'hawks' during the crisis. There has been some
self-criticism from the IMF, President Juncker offered some nuances about
Greece. Do you share those mea culpa?
Did you go too far?
We cannot put in the same basket
all the countries that needed financial help during the crisis. Greece is a
totally different case and cannot be compared to Spain. In Greece, clearly, the
medicine was toxic. Things could have been done, to a certain extent,
differently to soften the social costs, but the problem is that there was no
confidence in Athens among the Member States or it was very, very low. That
made decision making very difficult. In Spain, in general, the analysis was
different. The government managed to begin to balance the situation and the
measures were credible. I do not know how different the performance could have
been. Spain was different from the rest in terms of its size, we were lucky
that it maintained its credibility all the time, that the Government was able
to manage the situation. Spain never became a problem in the Eurozone..
What is the role of the fact that
you in the Commission, in Brussels, know Minister Calviño so well? The response
to unilateral changes in deficit targets in the past, the letters, were
different.
We want to treat everyone in a
similar way, regardless of the different personalities, but it is also true
that Nadia knows what we expect and what we are thinking. The meaning of
certain verbs, sentences...
She speaks your same language.
Exactly. Our decisions are not different
because Nadia is the Minister but the fact that both parties speak the same
language makes understanding easier. It is something very human.
What are you going to say to
Pablo Casado, who has been very critical of the Spanish budget in Brussels
itself?
I want to hear him. I always try
to meet with governments and opposition. We will talk about my portfolio, the
European Budget. It is very normal for the Commission to argue with the
opposition. Sometimes it brings additional information of relevance. When
looking at the Budgets we look at the numbers, the figures. We do not tell
anyone that they should take other measures if what they propose leads to the
same result. There is a lot of margin. Sometimes the opposition provides
information on the measures. About its credibility.
Pro-independence groups occupied
the headquarters of the Commission in Barcelona a few days ago. And there is a
campaign again now that the trial of the 'procés'
leaders begins. Are you worried about what happens?
We are not worried because we believe
in the Spanish judicial system, which is certainly one of the most independent
and credible in Europe; I have looked at the indexes. We believe that the
country and its institutions are strong enough to manage the situation in full
respect of the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Of course all the incidents or
protests that we have seen raise concerns, but we have no doubt about the
institutions in Spain.
Puigdemont blames the Commission and Juncker for what is happening and for the Catalans' loss of understanding with the EU.
The EU is very popular in
Catalonia. People always have the right to present their vision, their desires.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed, but everything you want to do must be in
respect to the law, the rule of law, the legal order, respecting the
institutions.
You considered yourself for a
candidacy of the EPP to the next European Commission but ended up resigning.
Why?
Two reasons. The first is that
I've been in politics all my life and I've started thinking that maybe I should
do other things. I am still at an age that allows me to open other professional
paths. The second reason is that my wife chooses and has a good chance of
entering the Finnish Parliament, and if she is there we cannot be in different
countries.
What options do already known candidates
to become president have? Will the Member States allow it?
You never know. The last time it
was quite clear that the spitzenkandidat
would be president, but now it is less secure. At the same time the European
Parliament has said that it will not accept anyone else, that it has to be a spitzenkandidat. If you look at the
polls, the nationalists or skeptics would have about 155 seats in 705, an
important minority but that opens the question of how many parties will be
necessary to have a comfortable majority in Parliament. Before there were two,
three. Now it can be four or even five and that will complicate the matter.
Understanding the EU is not easy.
This type of clash between institutions does not help, and even less in the
face of what can be the most important European elections.
We do our best to communicate,
but everything we do here is not, and will never be, comparable to the role of
governments and national political parties. Local leaders do not pay attention
to European policies, if they do not communicate the priorities and what we do
here, we cannot expect people to understand it. Citizens should know at least
the priorities of their countries regarding the EU. I do not say that they
should praise the EU or acclaim it, but they should show its relevance. For
example, talk about climate change, circular economy, artificial intelligence,
or how to improve cooperation in Security and Defense.
Do you really think that a party
talking about circular economy or artificial intelligence and linking that to
the EU would change something?
Yes, I really believe it. I
remember, before the crisis, when in my country the EU was in fashion and
everyone wanted to be close, to be linked with Europe. 10 or 15 years ago.
Then the EU became toxic, that's
what you told me the last time we spoke.
Exactly; with the crisis the EU
became toxic, nobody wanted to touch it except to criticize it. Now more and
more leaders are returning to it. The EU had not been that popular for a long
time. People's expectations are also greater than before, there are more global
challenges that a single country cannot address.
You believe that the EU has not
been so popular for a long time, but we have more skeptical, europhobic or
populist movements. Some people clash head-on, like Macron with Salvini and
Orban. Others maintain that this polarization is an error. How do you see it?
I think that politicians should
always fight for their values, for what they believe to be fair. In my country,
when the True Finns were on the rise, it was partly due to the EU rescue programs.
I signed all of them and it was not popular. I think I did the right thing,
however hard it was. If I had yielded an inch I would have made their cause
bigger. I fought for what I believed was right. If you try to move towards
them, they impose their agenda. If you do not subscribe to those same ideas,
genuinely, it is better not to get into their territory. It does not mean that
you have to be aggressive but there are times when you must respond, fight. I
get a little tired of the fact that the minority imposes and dominates the
political debate and a silent majority does not know what to do or does not
dare to intervene.
But in the end, the True Finns entered the Government and now they are not what they were; is it good to involve them, to put them in the management?
Exactly. The best remedy to
reduce populism is to involve them in decision-making and face their responsibilities.
Sometimes it does not work, of course, or they do not accept to participate.
Their life is all white or black, and governing is making difficult decisions.
You go to Andalusia. Your
colleague and Vice President of the Commission Frans Timmermans attacked the PP
and Citizens for contemplating this path with Vox.
I do not like to participate in
local debates if they do not have a link with the EU. Sometimes I enter in the
debate if fundamental values are at stake, or the Rule of Law, but if not,
better not to participate. It is up to Spanish voters to decide who governs
them.
There are 100 days left for the
European elections. The message, the Eurosceptic line, is clear. How should the
pro-European sentiment you defend be articulated? On what pillars?
First, we must
not underestimate the ability of citizens to understand the things that are
happening. The populist and nationalist way is to sell complicated issues
putting them in nice packages and simplifying. I understand that some buy that,
but the simple solutions for complicated problems are not true. Those who present these ideas lie to
people.
In what do you believe?
Give people arguments to think
about. I would concentrate on the circular economy, on having a sustainable
model. In artificial intelligence, to be competitive and create ethical standards,
because we are the only continent that really seems worried about having them.
Third: climate change. Fourth, Security and Defense. And Africa, something key
to the future of Europe. I will test these five points in Spain and invite
people to weigh on it.
Allow me a flurry of short
questions. Do you need 27 commissioners, one per country, or with less?
It is good to
have one per country; this helps people understand the EU, and to treat
everyone in the same way.
A more political or more technocratic
European Commission?
The Commission,
and this is the most important thing, is the guardian of the Treaties. You must
maintain that role because no other institution can do it. And in an era in
which all democratic institutions are in question we must keep them standing.
That said, the Commission can be political. To have priorities, because our
prerogative is to launch legislative proposals. It would be hypocritical to say
that all our ideas materialize in an ideological vacuum, it is not true. I am a
politician and my priorities come from my beliefs; and this is the same in the
case of all my colleagues. But we must be careful not to fall into certain
relativisms, to say that everything is political, everything is relative, that
all rules can be twisted by political pressure.
Which is better, only one
president for the Commission and the Council or better follow as now, with two?
(Thinking a lot) I used to think
that only one would be better, but seeing the institutional design ... it might
be better to continue as before.
Do you approve the transnational
lists for the European elections?
No, better to follow nationally.
I do not believe in transnational lists. MEPs are chosen by lists and must be
very well known, coming from each Member State at least.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment