SPIEGEL: Over 30 years ago, you both initiated the establishment of the European Monetary System, which was a decisive preliminary step toward European monetary union. Now, as elder statesmen, do you have reason to fear that you will live to see the collapse of the euro?
Schmidt: The euro will, of course, still exist a few years from now. I am certain that it will outlive me. It could be that it outlives us all, and that is what I assume will happen.
Giscard: The euro will certainly be around longer than us.
SPIEGEL: The eurozone lacks political and economic uniformity. How can a union with such diverse members endure?
Schmidt: When the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992, the EU had 12 Member States. And these 12 made the mistake of inviting everyone in Europe to join, and even to become a member of the monetary union. The currency wasn't actually born until 10 years later. Now, the EU has grown to 27 members, the majority of whom decided to adopt the euro.
SPIEGEL: Back when the monetary union was established, should they have also immediately pushed through a political union?
Schmidt: That is going a bit too far. A political union is not absolutely essential to overcoming the government debt crisis, the bank crisis and the economic crisis, in other words, the three-fold crisis that we currently face in Europe. Over the medium term, it is entirely desirable, but it is not a conditio sine qua non -- in other words, something that we absolutely need in order to emerge from the current three crises.
Giscard: The Eurogroup simply doesn't have the organisation that it needs. We have to stop mixing up the large European Union with the smaller monetary union. It is not possible for all 27 EU members to constantly intervene when the 17 euro-zone members discuss their concerns. They don't speak the same language in both circles.
SPIEGEL: Does the Eurogroup need its own institutions that function in parallel to those of the EU? After all, it already has a chairman, Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker.
Schmidt: It would have been desirable to give the Eurogroup its own staff in addition to a chairman from Luxembourg. This need has been neglected.
Giscard: Of course, one needs institutions -- how else can the fiscal and economic policy coordination be expected to work? When the Eurogroup meets under Juncker's chairmanship, there is not even a secretary general, not even a written record of the meeting. That is absurd. The Eurogroup council needs its own structures, independent of the large European Council. For some time now, a decision has been pending on the successor to Mr Juncker as chairman of the Eurogroup. This is an incredibly important position. It may even end up being a German. In addition to him, a secretary general should definitely be appointed to stand by his side. Every council in the world has a secretary general.
SPIEGEL: Doesn't this run the risk of creating a big institutional mess?
Giscard: On the contrary, it is precisely the confusion between the 27 EU Member States and the 17 members of the monetary union that has to be avoided. That is why I am urging that the small euro council should meet in Strasbourg, not in Brussels. The summit venue should make the distinction clear.
SPIEGEL: Wouldn't both camps then irreversibly drift apart?
Giscard: There is already a Europe of integration, which is more or less rapidly making progress: the Eurogroup. And there is the Europe of the internal market, with the countries that are only interested in the EU as a free-trade zone. The institutions of one are too unwieldy for the other, and unwieldy institutions are powerless. In the Eurogroup, there are those who pay, and there are those who seek aid. Those who pay should also monitor those who submit applications for assistance. It doesn't work with the European Commission, which is responsible for the entire union.
Full interview
© Spiegel Online
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article