“Rajoy está obligado a convocar un gran acuerdo nacional para salir de la crisis”
El expresidente: "Por solo 30.000 millones sufrimos las exigencias de una intervención plena”
"Rajoy is obliged to convene a national agreement to end the crisis"
The president: "For only 30,000 million suffer the demands of a full engagement"
Soledad Gallego-Díaz Madrid 23 JUL 2012 - 11:04 CET
The president: "For only 30,000 million suffer the demands of a full engagement"
Soledad Gallego-Díaz Madrid 23 JUL 2012 - 11:04 CET
Felipe Gonzalez (Seville, 1942) is concerned and angry. Believes that a limit has been exceeded and that Mariano Rajoy is required to convene a national agreement. Concerned about the European crisis and is furious with the way things are developed in Europe from Spain. Criticizes the Government for consent to a "total intervention" in fact, very cheap, "low cost" to the European Union itself, without having negotiated seriously as a condition of access to reasonable financing. Spanish, the errors began in 1998, but admits that the government of Rodriguez Zapatero did not correct these errors, but they threw gasoline on the fire. Executive believes that the current dynamics are driving this country to ruin and turns against that possibility. "We are going to drift and Spanish and as Europeans." He does not believe in governments technocrats but requires a national consensus "to emerge from the crisis and to act in Europe." Considered foolish to believe that "Spain is too big to drop it because it would destroy the euro." Does Europe was not able to destroy itself? He recalls. Just a proliferation of voices of nationalism unsupportive.
Former President of Government (1982 to 1996) is away from Parliament and public life, but has not left even a moment of being a political asset, which is currently Spanish, European and world with a tremendous capacity for analysis and criticism . Starred, along with the German Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterrand, the Maastricht summit which agreed to the birth of the single European currency, the euro, and changed the founding treaties of the European Union to give greater political impetus . Its recognized European vocation and their knowledge of EU structures made the recourse to him in 2007 to chair a Reflection Group on the Future of Europe, known as the Wise Men.
Question. How did we get here?
Response. Merkel said that we are paying 10 years of mistakes in economic policy based on a huge housing bubble. Now that we take the right at all, you have to say yes, he's right. It refers to the 10 years prior to 2008, when the global financial system broke and Spain, more specifically, the housing bubble. So, approaching it from Spain, the gallop began with the liberalization of land law, which was started with banal argument that the more offers of land is cheaper there, as if markets were rational. The reality is that the soil was becoming more expensive, we've done three or four times more square meters of which required a balanced demand and that we have fostered a wildly corrupt practices.
P. Then, is it the fault of Spanish decision?
R. The responsibility is not just an undisciplined people galloping toward a housing bubble, as they liked. There is a shared responsibility for monetary policy that provided loans below inflation, and that was not just the responsibility of the Spanish financial institutions, but the Germans, the French ... The error is ours, but shared. There has been a terrible crisis of brick, but the debt crisis has been caused because there have been banks that have fueled this debt irrationally. That has happened, Merkel is right, for 10 years, resulting in a debt of households and firms is unbearable. But that has not happened just in the state. At the time referred to Merkel, Spain had a much better public finances than those of Germany and almost any other country. We arrived at the outbreak of the crisis with budget surplus of more than two points and a public debt below 37% of GDP.
P. Ten continuous years of mistakes is long.
R. It starts, as I said, with political decisions from 1998: Aznar, Rato, Rajoy, to understand, but not corrected by the governments that come from 2004, ie with Zapatero. No adjustments are governments who lived in an apparent ideal world. The economy growing at three-something percent, loans below inflation ... The same happened with the dramatic error in the electricity sector liberalization, which has accumulated a debt of more than 25,000 million. Start with a decision that has apparently liberalizing a cost to the State enormous and again I say, not corrected in the Zapatero government, but it adds more fuel to the fire.
So, yes, all this has had some continuity for 10 years. Sure there have been accompanied by a European model of faulty monetary union without economic union. When we became us that the interest rate was reasonable with respect to economic growth and inflation in our country, that is, when we need to cool the speculative economy, the interest rate was fixed by criteria that did not meet our needs . So the European Central Bank fed the fire that we were riding in Spain.
P. Does the drift could be corrected with another Spanish European policy?
The housing bubble began in 1998 with the Land Act, but the Zapatero government
did not correct these errors
R. At least, he would have avoided this tragic situation in which, of course, are Spain and Italy, and by extension, the monetary union. The total correction has its difficulties. If you look at the U.S. see a single currency with divergent economic policies led to a tremendous explosion in the late nineteenth century, which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Today, California is a state that can not balance their budgets. But how to finance their debt? Through the Federal Reserve and negative interest rate. Obviously, they must make a serious restructuring, but the Fed stops the speculation flatten California as in Florida prevented. Not so the case here, where the European Central Bank does not act as a central bank.
P. We are not a federation.
R. We are neither a federation nor do we have a central bank acting as such, I insist. Spain has a deficit figures and debt lower than in Britain, yet Britain is financed through the Bank of England interest rates low and Spain is financed unbearable interest rates. Because the ECB acts as central bank, but does prevent national central banks act as such. Is a restriction of new asymmetric because strongly favors countries like Germany and its neighbors, and hurts the same way to others. So we might say that talk of a single European currency is almost political fiction. There is only one euro with completely different assessments by markets. In California, the dollar, regardless of the debt of California, is the same as in New York. In Alicante, the euro is more expensive than in Frankfurt.
CLAUDIO ALVAREZ
P. Is that what happened to monetary union?
R. It should be remembered that all this happens in a context in which we have forgotten, despite the irritation of citizens, that the origin of this crisis is the implosion of unregulated global financial system. Say it again now ... It has become a rescue operation of the deregulated financial system and, once made, at taxpayer expense, not only to ransom itself but also to pay the consequences of deep recession that caused the financial crisis, once it has done all that has not touched the source of the crisis. They are doing the same practices that led to the crisis and, suddenly, you find that J. P. Morgan has lost billions more dollars.
P. Why is that?
R. I give a personal opinion: because the real power shift has occurred in the last 25 years the representatives of representative democracy to the centers of the world's financial decision not been reversed. An example: when Obama understands what happens, as any intelligent person, and proposes the reform of the functioning of the financial system of the U.S. Congress, Wall Street goes through and makes a perfect speech on avoiding the mistakes that were taking place on Wall Street in the great centers of production errors. The speech is impeccable, so and background on what to do.
It has a single failure, the end, and that's what makes you melancholy. Because the U.S. president, still, at least in theory, the most powerful man in the world, going to Wall Street, said the reform that is occurring in the Congress and asked the actors on Wall Street to help you get through. Is dramatic. The reform will not happen in Congress unless the players convince Wall Street of Congress (which they depend in part) of the goodness of the reform.
The displacement of the real power of the democratic representatives to the centers of the world's financial decision not been reversed
That's the ultimate reason for all the whys. The displacement of the Parliament regarding the process of decision making becomes more acute every day. Here in Spain, I do not know whether the Government has introduced a bill in the last seven months. I would say all are executive orders, which is discussed in other parliaments of the European Union which affects Spain and here is hidden.
P. Are intervened Spain?
R. Here we are, relatively speaking, worse than anyone, because we are in a rescue situation, like it or not say in terms of intervention similar to that of Portugal or Ireland, but ... at low cost. 30,000 million for all the conditioning we have a full engagement. In Spain, the final rescue, closed all of the markets (and we're six feet of it), would be 500,000 or 600,000 million, far more than the current bailout. But with 30,000 million, for the moment, credit line, the operation is complete: banks in trouble, good banks and the entire economic and fiscal policy.
P. How is it possible?
R. We fall down with incomprehensible things much one wants to build a story that makes it comprehensible to the public what happens. The worst has happened, within the entire adjustment package is excessive and that there is not a single sign of countercyclical measures, the worst, I think, is that the Prime Minister, who has been elected by an absolute majority has made a statement saying: "We have no freedom to choose."
P. But has it?
R. Let's see if he says he has no freedom of choice means that people have made by choosing an exercise in futility. Now, if you ask me, do you have? Sure you have it, another thing is that it is able to exercise the freedom that corresponds to choose from. Sure he has. If you have a person you have not voted, Mario Monti, how not going to be the Spanish prime minister. Monti decided measures and then go to Brussels to defend them. Here we heard the finance minister said: "On Tuesday we will see what decides the Eurogroup and then we will know what adjustment measures adopted."
I'm not doing an exercise in nationalism, because they say in percentages: if Spain did all you have to do to correct the errors accumulated in 10 years of imbalances in balance of payments, trade balances and loss of competitiveness, if you do all you have to do impeccably well-which would mean he knows what to do, which does not seem to affirm this Government-I would have done 20% of what we need to exit the crisis. 80% has to do Europe. So, here are two levels of analysis: what happens to us as Spanish and what happens to us as Europeans. And the two are drifting.
Do not think that Spain is too big to go down because behind the euro. Do not be destroyed before Europe itself?
P. What happens to us as Europeans?
R. Europe has an enormous responsibility to itself and to its destination. It is wrong to say over and over again that "Spain is too big to drop it, because Italy will come back and do not know what catastrophe of explosion of the euro". That is a false truth. If you look at the history of twentieth-century Europe, we know that Europeans are able to physically destroy Europe. How can they not be able then to end the euro! It depends on whether you increase the voice of nationalism unsupportive. Europe has gone through two world wars. "I never dare to destroy the European euro," say some. Why not? Europe is at a crossroads of three ways in which I have insisted many times. The first way is to make a big bang for the economic union and a federal prosecutor, in addition to structure the monetary union. Why use the word federalization, which produces rejection? I do it intentionally, because if there is seudofederalización without democratic legitimacy, we are lost. If there is no democratic legitimacy in the process, and we want only to black men, as finance ministers for the whole EU, the European integration process derrapará massively to citizens.
P. There are two other ways.
R. Yes The second way is the opposite to the first, undo what has been done from the point of view of monetary union and the internal market. People think that while disposing the monetary union is to maintain the internal market, or will keep even Schengen. I would say not likely, not least because those who are experiencing this very serious crisis will have to make massive devaluation to gain competitiveness.
CLAUDIO ALVAREZ
The third way, the most likely scenario, is dragged through the mud: take one step forward and two steps back. And out of each Council saying that we have a roadmap, we have decisions made, and are to reassure the markets. Continue with this stupid fight over whether or not markets are rational behavior. It's a great stupidity. Why speak of rationality? Of course, if there is a decision of the ECB, which for once makes the central bank, announcing that "if the risk premium exceeds 200 basis points, I realize the debt," the party is over speculative.
P. If mutualiza debt, federalized European Union.
R. There may be an intermediate, which was appealed, and has always taken when there is political will. But let's face it: all treaty rules prohibiting public aid failed after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, with national bailouts of the banks themselves. All the difficulties we've had then not taken into account when, from Gordon Brown to Mrs. Merkel, Sarkozy through, poured money and restructured the system that produced systemic risks. That was not planned, on the contrary, was expressly forbidden in the European regulations. What was it that happened? After doing what he had to do and there was nothing to do, he agreed to put an institutional umbrella that had been done. And from then restore the bodies of Brussels powers of surveillance and control they had, but the operation was already done. Or is that Brown went to Brussels to say how much money put into the nationalization of one or another bank? Or Sarkozy, or Merkel? It was because they did. Politically, also better than it did, because he had bundled if they say no, you can not do.
P. What happened between last August, when the ECB bought Spanish bonds, and today, when he says you can not?
It has changed our relevance to the time to demand compensatory
the sacrifices that we require or we commit
R. I think that has changed, really, our relevance to demand offsets the sacrifices they ask us, or we commit. Rajoy said in terms, "we have no freedom to choose" other what we choose to do. We always say the same phrase: "All right, continue to deepen, follow that path." Would have to answer: "Tell me where is the end of the road, to tell people that this road has a limit, and that this limit is this, and that from this limit will occur this other." That never happens, we have not even seriously negotiated this intervention. We operated on all sides and we have not even negotiated a counterpart.
Now is the greyhound that runs after the mechanical rabbit that moves another, and never enough. At the end of the year, quarterized surveillance, we will say that is not enough to do more. And the more you do in the same direction, this engine of destruction of productive middle class that have been implemented has no outlet.
P. But why the European Union requires that process? What is the objective?
R. Because nationalism, governments that rely on the votes, makes it impossible to change the national political reasoning and political reasoning is generated in Europe. It's funny. Hollande has made a double contribution: a sign of countercyclical policy, even with only 120,000 million, and the finding that the adjustment has to be more moderate to be bearable, and rightly so. I say it is funny because on another level is Germany, Merkel, the party to make a bid for greater federalization, while France has a harder time accepting that road.
P. Back to the Spanish situation. Could the government have negotiated differently? Many think that when you borrow money, you have no right to say anything.
R. What do you mean? Of course. I have asked for money for something specific, something concrete, which by the way other countries have already made. Remember that they have done with their money, but against European legislation to be changed later. I offer a line of credit of up to 100,000 million to recapitalize what it is supposed that I have injured, or one third of our financial system. I take the money for it and negotiate the transaction is subject to a recapitalization, allowing them to act as key stakeholders, such as capitalizing key, in that part of the financial system. But the second thing I do is require the same conditions for everyone else. For starters, the stress tests. Why involve the healthy part of our financial system and not other countries?
P. Does the EU is demanding that Spain does not require things to others?
R. No one. Unless, of course, countries with total intervention, which has taken over its macroeconomic management and funding. In the Spanish case, is doing exactly the same with much less cost.
As compensation, there should be a guarantee for Spain would be funding through the European Central Bank
P. In other words, this type of rescue is right for the EU, not us.
R. Of course, if no counterpart that is. Montoro's terminology, a person who believes that the Constitution authorizes it to invade the powers of the autonomy-which has been accepted is absolutely black men, we have them here quarterly to adjust the deficit target, and Therefore, playing all the country's economic policy. And all at a cost to the EU relatively small.
Inject 30,000 million and if you meet will give you another 30,000. Even the government believes will ask 100,000. The cost is very low for them. I do not seem bad, if there is a clear contrast: a guarantee of funding to give Europe through the tools you have, or put in place. Which now has lighter the European Central Bank. Look here: the counterpart to the brutality that I'm doing, they put my economy in a recession, that will allow us to reach the hare whatever you do, is that I can finance at reasonable rates. I do not say to those of Britain, which are negative interest, fees or Dutch or German, but, well, to set a yardstick by which Europe intervenes, so that the risk premium does not make the program unsustainable.
P. Do you think a merger would be possible government back on track and set a clear horizon?
R. I worry about how they grow in the media, even the most conservative right, pressures on the benefits of a government technocrat. I worry not only for the delegitimation of democracy, but because I think a serious mistake, beyond the political mistakes that make the A, B or C. It is a mistake. -I do not want to call names so as not to offend in Europe, the same that have led to the crisis but now, as specialists to manage the output. Who are the handlers available from Goldman Sachs to help us overcome the crisis as good technocrats? What responsibility does Goldman Sachs? This all seems a mess. What do think is that the Government should be aware of two things: one, that citizens have a right to know what they are doing, why they are doing and for what purpose. And point number two, that a transaction of this nature requires a consensus among all stakeholders, thus a national consensus.
P. Are you in favor of a national pact?
P. It has nothing to do with the Moncloa Pacts, but even more reason then to make a policy of national consensus. The national consensus means agree what to do. And that requires start with an account of what we have done wrong and how to correct it. And what is Europe doing wrong and how much influence we bring to the table to correct the deviation of Europe. Does that has to be done by consensus among all stakeholders? Absolutely. Does the majority support that? I'm sure the majority is now an engine of destruction of legitimacy. Instead of reaching this consensus to gain efficiency and restructuring the public administration, what we are seeing is the continued crush the credibility, prestige and significance of the regions, and strengthening the provincial councils, as if to back to the nineteenth century cacique structure.
P. Is there a risk that by involving all political forces, if everything goes wrong, there is no replacement possible?
If the government leaves no consensus, Rubalcaba has made clear that this government and these dynamics lead us to ruin
R. No, there is no risk. The worst of all worlds is the one living Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba, wanting to behave with responsibility and being constantly slighted State as a partner by the Government. When I asked, I say, "Act like you're the government, knowing that you're not." But the margin for maneuver is running out. So is saying, "not here". Have to build your own story and say "we have to go around here." And make it clear that this government and these dynamics lead us to ruin. This government leaves no room to talk, to negotiate, to say "hey you, are wrong in this. Do not you understand that there is no single measure that goes against the cycle? ". I worry that they are inviting to Rubalcaba, really, and I have to do is pick up this crazy way.
P. Rubalcaba Could do nothing in the government?
R. I am not making a commitment here Rubalcaba in the government. What I mean is that more clarity and that the Government of Rajoy, with a reduced majority, has lost credibility. No one can believe in Europe that the team that is responsible for most of autonomy, of local councils before having responsibility in the central government, no one can believe that the Government Rajoy arrives without a program, without a proposal , so unfortunately, seems to be true. We have exceeded the limit, Rajoy is required to convene a national agreement to end the crisis and to act in Europe.
Former President of Government (1982 to 1996) is away from Parliament and public life, but has not left even a moment of being a political asset, which is currently Spanish, European and world with a tremendous capacity for analysis and criticism . Starred, along with the German Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterrand, the Maastricht summit which agreed to the birth of the single European currency, the euro, and changed the founding treaties of the European Union to give greater political impetus . Its recognized European vocation and their knowledge of EU structures made the recourse to him in 2007 to chair a Reflection Group on the Future of Europe, known as the Wise Men.
Question. How did we get here?
Response. Merkel said that we are paying 10 years of mistakes in economic policy based on a huge housing bubble. Now that we take the right at all, you have to say yes, he's right. It refers to the 10 years prior to 2008, when the global financial system broke and Spain, more specifically, the housing bubble. So, approaching it from Spain, the gallop began with the liberalization of land law, which was started with banal argument that the more offers of land is cheaper there, as if markets were rational. The reality is that the soil was becoming more expensive, we've done three or four times more square meters of which required a balanced demand and that we have fostered a wildly corrupt practices.
P. Then, is it the fault of Spanish decision?
R. The responsibility is not just an undisciplined people galloping toward a housing bubble, as they liked. There is a shared responsibility for monetary policy that provided loans below inflation, and that was not just the responsibility of the Spanish financial institutions, but the Germans, the French ... The error is ours, but shared. There has been a terrible crisis of brick, but the debt crisis has been caused because there have been banks that have fueled this debt irrationally. That has happened, Merkel is right, for 10 years, resulting in a debt of households and firms is unbearable. But that has not happened just in the state. At the time referred to Merkel, Spain had a much better public finances than those of Germany and almost any other country. We arrived at the outbreak of the crisis with budget surplus of more than two points and a public debt below 37% of GDP.
P. Ten continuous years of mistakes is long.
R. It starts, as I said, with political decisions from 1998: Aznar, Rato, Rajoy, to understand, but not corrected by the governments that come from 2004, ie with Zapatero. No adjustments are governments who lived in an apparent ideal world. The economy growing at three-something percent, loans below inflation ... The same happened with the dramatic error in the electricity sector liberalization, which has accumulated a debt of more than 25,000 million. Start with a decision that has apparently liberalizing a cost to the State enormous and again I say, not corrected in the Zapatero government, but it adds more fuel to the fire.
So, yes, all this has had some continuity for 10 years. Sure there have been accompanied by a European model of faulty monetary union without economic union. When we became us that the interest rate was reasonable with respect to economic growth and inflation in our country, that is, when we need to cool the speculative economy, the interest rate was fixed by criteria that did not meet our needs . So the European Central Bank fed the fire that we were riding in Spain.
P. Does the drift could be corrected with another Spanish European policy?
The housing bubble began in 1998 with the Land Act, but the Zapatero government
did not correct these errors
R. At least, he would have avoided this tragic situation in which, of course, are Spain and Italy, and by extension, the monetary union. The total correction has its difficulties. If you look at the U.S. see a single currency with divergent economic policies led to a tremendous explosion in the late nineteenth century, which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Today, California is a state that can not balance their budgets. But how to finance their debt? Through the Federal Reserve and negative interest rate. Obviously, they must make a serious restructuring, but the Fed stops the speculation flatten California as in Florida prevented. Not so the case here, where the European Central Bank does not act as a central bank.
P. We are not a federation.
R. We are neither a federation nor do we have a central bank acting as such, I insist. Spain has a deficit figures and debt lower than in Britain, yet Britain is financed through the Bank of England interest rates low and Spain is financed unbearable interest rates. Because the ECB acts as central bank, but does prevent national central banks act as such. Is a restriction of new asymmetric because strongly favors countries like Germany and its neighbors, and hurts the same way to others. So we might say that talk of a single European currency is almost political fiction. There is only one euro with completely different assessments by markets. In California, the dollar, regardless of the debt of California, is the same as in New York. In Alicante, the euro is more expensive than in Frankfurt.
CLAUDIO ALVAREZ
P. Is that what happened to monetary union?
R. It should be remembered that all this happens in a context in which we have forgotten, despite the irritation of citizens, that the origin of this crisis is the implosion of unregulated global financial system. Say it again now ... It has become a rescue operation of the deregulated financial system and, once made, at taxpayer expense, not only to ransom itself but also to pay the consequences of deep recession that caused the financial crisis, once it has done all that has not touched the source of the crisis. They are doing the same practices that led to the crisis and, suddenly, you find that J. P. Morgan has lost billions more dollars.
P. Why is that?
R. I give a personal opinion: because the real power shift has occurred in the last 25 years the representatives of representative democracy to the centers of the world's financial decision not been reversed. An example: when Obama understands what happens, as any intelligent person, and proposes the reform of the functioning of the financial system of the U.S. Congress, Wall Street goes through and makes a perfect speech on avoiding the mistakes that were taking place on Wall Street in the great centers of production errors. The speech is impeccable, so and background on what to do.
It has a single failure, the end, and that's what makes you melancholy. Because the U.S. president, still, at least in theory, the most powerful man in the world, going to Wall Street, said the reform that is occurring in the Congress and asked the actors on Wall Street to help you get through. Is dramatic. The reform will not happen in Congress unless the players convince Wall Street of Congress (which they depend in part) of the goodness of the reform.
The displacement of the real power of the democratic representatives to the centers of the world's financial decision not been reversed
That's the ultimate reason for all the whys. The displacement of the Parliament regarding the process of decision making becomes more acute every day. Here in Spain, I do not know whether the Government has introduced a bill in the last seven months. I would say all are executive orders, which is discussed in other parliaments of the European Union which affects Spain and here is hidden.
P. Are intervened Spain?
R. Here we are, relatively speaking, worse than anyone, because we are in a rescue situation, like it or not say in terms of intervention similar to that of Portugal or Ireland, but ... at low cost. 30,000 million for all the conditioning we have a full engagement. In Spain, the final rescue, closed all of the markets (and we're six feet of it), would be 500,000 or 600,000 million, far more than the current bailout. But with 30,000 million, for the moment, credit line, the operation is complete: banks in trouble, good banks and the entire economic and fiscal policy.
P. How is it possible?
R. We fall down with incomprehensible things much one wants to build a story that makes it comprehensible to the public what happens. The worst has happened, within the entire adjustment package is excessive and that there is not a single sign of countercyclical measures, the worst, I think, is that the Prime Minister, who has been elected by an absolute majority has made a statement saying: "We have no freedom to choose."
P. But has it?
R. Let's see if he says he has no freedom of choice means that people have made by choosing an exercise in futility. Now, if you ask me, do you have? Sure you have it, another thing is that it is able to exercise the freedom that corresponds to choose from. Sure he has. If you have a person you have not voted, Mario Monti, how not going to be the Spanish prime minister. Monti decided measures and then go to Brussels to defend them. Here we heard the finance minister said: "On Tuesday we will see what decides the Eurogroup and then we will know what adjustment measures adopted."
I'm not doing an exercise in nationalism, because they say in percentages: if Spain did all you have to do to correct the errors accumulated in 10 years of imbalances in balance of payments, trade balances and loss of competitiveness, if you do all you have to do impeccably well-which would mean he knows what to do, which does not seem to affirm this Government-I would have done 20% of what we need to exit the crisis. 80% has to do Europe. So, here are two levels of analysis: what happens to us as Spanish and what happens to us as Europeans. And the two are drifting.
Do not think that Spain is too big to go down because behind the euro. Do not be destroyed before Europe itself?
P. What happens to us as Europeans?
R. Europe has an enormous responsibility to itself and to its destination. It is wrong to say over and over again that "Spain is too big to drop it, because Italy will come back and do not know what catastrophe of explosion of the euro". That is a false truth. If you look at the history of twentieth-century Europe, we know that Europeans are able to physically destroy Europe. How can they not be able then to end the euro! It depends on whether you increase the voice of nationalism unsupportive. Europe has gone through two world wars. "I never dare to destroy the European euro," say some. Why not? Europe is at a crossroads of three ways in which I have insisted many times. The first way is to make a big bang for the economic union and a federal prosecutor, in addition to structure the monetary union. Why use the word federalization, which produces rejection? I do it intentionally, because if there is seudofederalización without democratic legitimacy, we are lost. If there is no democratic legitimacy in the process, and we want only to black men, as finance ministers for the whole EU, the European integration process derrapará massively to citizens.
P. There are two other ways.
R. Yes The second way is the opposite to the first, undo what has been done from the point of view of monetary union and the internal market. People think that while disposing the monetary union is to maintain the internal market, or will keep even Schengen. I would say not likely, not least because those who are experiencing this very serious crisis will have to make massive devaluation to gain competitiveness.
CLAUDIO ALVAREZ
The third way, the most likely scenario, is dragged through the mud: take one step forward and two steps back. And out of each Council saying that we have a roadmap, we have decisions made, and are to reassure the markets. Continue with this stupid fight over whether or not markets are rational behavior. It's a great stupidity. Why speak of rationality? Of course, if there is a decision of the ECB, which for once makes the central bank, announcing that "if the risk premium exceeds 200 basis points, I realize the debt," the party is over speculative.
P. If mutualiza debt, federalized European Union.
R. There may be an intermediate, which was appealed, and has always taken when there is political will. But let's face it: all treaty rules prohibiting public aid failed after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, with national bailouts of the banks themselves. All the difficulties we've had then not taken into account when, from Gordon Brown to Mrs. Merkel, Sarkozy through, poured money and restructured the system that produced systemic risks. That was not planned, on the contrary, was expressly forbidden in the European regulations. What was it that happened? After doing what he had to do and there was nothing to do, he agreed to put an institutional umbrella that had been done. And from then restore the bodies of Brussels powers of surveillance and control they had, but the operation was already done. Or is that Brown went to Brussels to say how much money put into the nationalization of one or another bank? Or Sarkozy, or Merkel? It was because they did. Politically, also better than it did, because he had bundled if they say no, you can not do.
P. What happened between last August, when the ECB bought Spanish bonds, and today, when he says you can not?
It has changed our relevance to the time to demand compensatory
the sacrifices that we require or we commit
R. I think that has changed, really, our relevance to demand offsets the sacrifices they ask us, or we commit. Rajoy said in terms, "we have no freedom to choose" other what we choose to do. We always say the same phrase: "All right, continue to deepen, follow that path." Would have to answer: "Tell me where is the end of the road, to tell people that this road has a limit, and that this limit is this, and that from this limit will occur this other." That never happens, we have not even seriously negotiated this intervention. We operated on all sides and we have not even negotiated a counterpart.
Now is the greyhound that runs after the mechanical rabbit that moves another, and never enough. At the end of the year, quarterized surveillance, we will say that is not enough to do more. And the more you do in the same direction, this engine of destruction of productive middle class that have been implemented has no outlet.
P. But why the European Union requires that process? What is the objective?
R. Because nationalism, governments that rely on the votes, makes it impossible to change the national political reasoning and political reasoning is generated in Europe. It's funny. Hollande has made a double contribution: a sign of countercyclical policy, even with only 120,000 million, and the finding that the adjustment has to be more moderate to be bearable, and rightly so. I say it is funny because on another level is Germany, Merkel, the party to make a bid for greater federalization, while France has a harder time accepting that road.
P. Back to the Spanish situation. Could the government have negotiated differently? Many think that when you borrow money, you have no right to say anything.
R. What do you mean? Of course. I have asked for money for something specific, something concrete, which by the way other countries have already made. Remember that they have done with their money, but against European legislation to be changed later. I offer a line of credit of up to 100,000 million to recapitalize what it is supposed that I have injured, or one third of our financial system. I take the money for it and negotiate the transaction is subject to a recapitalization, allowing them to act as key stakeholders, such as capitalizing key, in that part of the financial system. But the second thing I do is require the same conditions for everyone else. For starters, the stress tests. Why involve the healthy part of our financial system and not other countries?
P. Does the EU is demanding that Spain does not require things to others?
R. No one. Unless, of course, countries with total intervention, which has taken over its macroeconomic management and funding. In the Spanish case, is doing exactly the same with much less cost.
As compensation, there should be a guarantee for Spain would be funding through the European Central Bank
P. In other words, this type of rescue is right for the EU, not us.
R. Of course, if no counterpart that is. Montoro's terminology, a person who believes that the Constitution authorizes it to invade the powers of the autonomy-which has been accepted is absolutely black men, we have them here quarterly to adjust the deficit target, and Therefore, playing all the country's economic policy. And all at a cost to the EU relatively small.
Inject 30,000 million and if you meet will give you another 30,000. Even the government believes will ask 100,000. The cost is very low for them. I do not seem bad, if there is a clear contrast: a guarantee of funding to give Europe through the tools you have, or put in place. Which now has lighter the European Central Bank. Look here: the counterpart to the brutality that I'm doing, they put my economy in a recession, that will allow us to reach the hare whatever you do, is that I can finance at reasonable rates. I do not say to those of Britain, which are negative interest, fees or Dutch or German, but, well, to set a yardstick by which Europe intervenes, so that the risk premium does not make the program unsustainable.
P. Do you think a merger would be possible government back on track and set a clear horizon?
R. I worry about how they grow in the media, even the most conservative right, pressures on the benefits of a government technocrat. I worry not only for the delegitimation of democracy, but because I think a serious mistake, beyond the political mistakes that make the A, B or C. It is a mistake. -I do not want to call names so as not to offend in Europe, the same that have led to the crisis but now, as specialists to manage the output. Who are the handlers available from Goldman Sachs to help us overcome the crisis as good technocrats? What responsibility does Goldman Sachs? This all seems a mess. What do think is that the Government should be aware of two things: one, that citizens have a right to know what they are doing, why they are doing and for what purpose. And point number two, that a transaction of this nature requires a consensus among all stakeholders, thus a national consensus.
P. Are you in favor of a national pact?
P. It has nothing to do with the Moncloa Pacts, but even more reason then to make a policy of national consensus. The national consensus means agree what to do. And that requires start with an account of what we have done wrong and how to correct it. And what is Europe doing wrong and how much influence we bring to the table to correct the deviation of Europe. Does that has to be done by consensus among all stakeholders? Absolutely. Does the majority support that? I'm sure the majority is now an engine of destruction of legitimacy. Instead of reaching this consensus to gain efficiency and restructuring the public administration, what we are seeing is the continued crush the credibility, prestige and significance of the regions, and strengthening the provincial councils, as if to back to the nineteenth century cacique structure.
P. Is there a risk that by involving all political forces, if everything goes wrong, there is no replacement possible?
If the government leaves no consensus, Rubalcaba has made clear that this government and these dynamics lead us to ruin
R. No, there is no risk. The worst of all worlds is the one living Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba, wanting to behave with responsibility and being constantly slighted State as a partner by the Government. When I asked, I say, "Act like you're the government, knowing that you're not." But the margin for maneuver is running out. So is saying, "not here". Have to build your own story and say "we have to go around here." And make it clear that this government and these dynamics lead us to ruin. This government leaves no room to talk, to negotiate, to say "hey you, are wrong in this. Do not you understand that there is no single measure that goes against the cycle? ". I worry that they are inviting to Rubalcaba, really, and I have to do is pick up this crazy way.
P. Rubalcaba Could do nothing in the government?
R. I am not making a commitment here Rubalcaba in the government. What I mean is that more clarity and that the Government of Rajoy, with a reduced majority, has lost credibility. No one can believe in Europe that the team that is responsible for most of autonomy, of local councils before having responsibility in the central government, no one can believe that the Government Rajoy arrives without a program, without a proposal , so unfortunately, seems to be true. We have exceeded the limit, Rajoy is required to convene a national agreement to end the crisis and to act in Europe.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿