The Plaza de Oriente, a few meters from the Upper House and a few more from the Lions of San Jerónimo, was once the epicenter of State power. Located in front of the Royal Palace, it is characterized by a calm only interrupted by the melody composed by those birds that live under the gaze of Philip IV.
Something similar occurs in his office, heart of his home, where he receives us on one of those mornings when the sun is pressing in Madrid. The sound of birds is replaced by an opera that serves as the soundtrack of the interview and the trees of the square by enormous bookshelves that reflect part of all the thought of an era. One day it was also the center of decision-making. Joaquín Almunia (1948) was at the head of the economic affairs of the European Commission for practically ten years, occupying the monetary portfolio first and, later, the Vice-Presidency for Competition. Before, during another decade he was minister of the governments of the socialist Felipe González.
From his personal archive he now reflects on the direction Europe is taking in key weeks for the continent's competitiveness and credibility. Next Thursday, the heads of State and Government will arrive in Brussels with the sole objective of adopting conclusions that will serve, once and for all, for Europe to speak the language of the powers. Despite no longer being on the front line of institutional action, the socialist keeps up to date with every step Europeans take, which gives him the authority to warn: “European patriotism today is to advance integration”.
Question: In recent days, there is much talk about the single capital market, but it seems that it doesn't quite advance. What is failing?
R: That would have to be asked of some European leaders and also some private sector agents, for example certain banks within the European Union. Some consider that a single financial market would eliminate advantages they currently have by exercising certain competencies within their own country.
Joaquín Almunia:"If Europe does not advance in single market, competitiveness or defense, others will analyze the world for us"
Q: Given these difficulties, there is increasingly talk of a multi-speed Europe.
R: It is not the ideal. The ideal is that all countries of the Union advance together in more integration where necessary. But since that political cohesion does not always exist, it seems to me that we cannot prevent some countries within the Union from wanting to advance faster in areas where integration is incomplete: energy, capital, telecommunications, digitalization or defense.
It can be done with reinforced cooperations foreseen in the treaty, although to initiate them unanimity is needed. If that unanimity is not possible, there remains another resource that I don't like but is possible: a coalition of volunteers.
That has already happened, for example with Schengen or with the European stability mechanism during the financial crisis. It is not the ideal solution, but sometimes it is inevitable.
Q: In the current context, Europe seeks more "strategic autonomy." What do you expect from the next European Council?
R. This month's is a very important Council. It has the mandate from the heads of State and government themselves to advance in the single market, in competitiveness and industrial policy, and in security and defense.
From what we know of the previous informal Council, there are areas where there is more agreement and others where the debate remains open. Hopefully these issues will be resolved, because European integration needs to advance more than at any other time in its recent history.
If we do not advance in single market, competitiveness, growth, security, defense or immigration, Europe runs the risk of becoming an object of analysis for others without the capacity to defend its own interests.
Joaquín Almunia:“Investments in competitiveness should not destroy social cohesion”
To weaken Europe at this moment would be an errorn, in the face of what Trump is attempting. European patriotism today is to advance in integration.
Q: The reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi speak of large investments to strengthen European competitiveness. Where will the resources come from?
R: The resources to advance in security, competitiveness, or cohesion come from the same place. It is not a one-time expense for one year, it is a continuous effort to increase the obtaining of resources to undertake all the objectives that we want to put on the table at an extraordinarily complex moment.
Resources must be obtained by uniting savings and investment markets, developing technologies thanks to research, and strengthening our innovation capacity. We will also have to resort to debt. Not everything can be financed with public and private resources.
But for that indebtedness to be viable and socially sustainable, it should be based more on debt issued in common by Europe than on the sum of the indebtedness of each country.
Q: Can that investment effort jeopardize the welfare state?
R: Not necessarily. Part of these investments seek growth, increased productivity and competitiveness. The important thing is that this growth does not destroy social cohesion or the social market economy systems, which are one of Europe's strengths.
We must protect what we have achieved. One of our strengths is a social market economy system that provides stability and allows citizens to trust their public representatives.
Q: The European Commission talks a lot about regulatory simplification.
R: As an instrument I agree: simplifying rules so that they are understandable, applicable and effective is logical. Within Europe sometimes there is too much complexity.
But one must be careful with ideologizing simplification. It is not about throwing important objectives overboard in the name of a certain ideology.
Q: What assessment do you make of the legislative action of the current Commission?
R: I am concerned that a clear consensus has not been reached on key issues such as a common immigration policy. And I am also concerned about the reluctance observed in President Ursula Von der Leyen and in a part of the European Parliament with going backwards in the luca against climate change.
Europe has been a leader in that field for years. If Europe does not lead the fight against climate change, Trump's America certainly will not. I doubt that developing countries will do so, as they do not have our economic and political capacity to become leaders in this area. Even though they are the main victims of the consequences of climate change.
The big question is whether China, which is a greenhouse gas emitter, but which is aware of its environmental deterioration problems, is going to be the one to take over among the big investors. The Chinese have been able to define strategies and be able to apply decisions consistent with their strategic objectives. Hopefully, it will take over if no one wants to take it from this fight. We would reach an agreement as the European Union much easier than the one it could reach with The White House.
With all that, on the horizon I glimpse too many forecasts of legislative files that I don't know if they will be able to approve them.
Q: How should the relationship with China be oriented?
R: The European Union years ago defined China as an economic rival, partner, and strategic adversary. That trilemma is difficult to sustain.
We have to recognize the risks that exist in the relationship with China, but also avoid throwing stones at our own roof. We need each other mutually, just as we need to strengthen relationships with other regions of the world. The Spanish Government has been the first that has asked for a concretization in relations. We lead the opposite to the European position.
Joaquín Almunia:“To weaken Europe and its institutions at this moment is unpatriotic”
In that sense, agreements like the Mercosur one, the agreements with India, Indonesia or the modernization of the agreement with Mexico are examples that Europe is starting to react. We have the need to calarar that relationship without ignoring the risks it has and the dependencies. We have learned a lot in a short time what our dependencies on the outside are costed us Europeans.
Q: How do you see the recent evolution of European competition policy?
R: Competition policy has evolved a lot over time. First with the demonopolization of network sectors in the nineties and now with the regulation of digital markets.
Regulations like the Digital Markets Act or the Digital Services Act mark a new phase for regulating markets that could not be addressed only with traditional competition instruments.
Also changing is the relationship between public sector and private sector in the context of industrial policy and, increasingly, of defense policy.
Q: Do you believe in the idea of “European champions”?
R: Yes, as long as they are not confused with national champions. To think that gaining global scale can only come from national mergers is a deception for the consumer and can recreate monopolies that we already tried to correct with the liberalizations of the nineties.
Joaquín Almunia:“If Europe does not lead the fight against climate change, Trump's America certainly will not”
Q: Do fines on big tech companies like Google have a real effect?
R: Ask Google's treasurer if he likes paying billions in fines. Evidently not.
But regulation remains essential to avoid the creation of natural monopolies. It is not the only tool, but it is a fundamental tool.
Question: Taking advantage of the 40-year anniversary, how has Europe been shaping itself in these four decades and how has Spain influenced that reformulation?
Answer: The 40 years of Spain's presence as a member of the then European Community have gone very well for both of us. For Spain, of course: it has been a period clearly marked by the advantages that being full members of today's European Union has brought us. And for the European Union with us, it has gone very well because we have made important contributions to the integration process almost from the very moment we sat there as full members on January 1, '86.
For Spain, European integration has meant welcoming us as members into the space in which we like to live: a democracy, with freedoms, protection of human rights, a democratic political model and a social model based on a social market economy, what we call the welfare state. We have done it thanks to our efforts in Spain, in democracy, but obviously the European Union has helped us a lot.
Joaquín Almunia: “We cannot ignore the risks from China, but neither can we throw stones at our own roof”
Economically, it has created a space for us in which we have been able to progress and find resources to finance an advanced social model. And it has also served us as a guide: we have learned what welfare states are by knowing well the most advanced countries in Europe that are members of the European Union.
And what have we contributed to the European Union? We have contributed Europeanism. We are a clearly pro-European country, although today there are parties in Parliament that were not there when we joined the European Community and that are Eurosceptic. There is no longer the unanimity that existed 40 years ago in the Spanish Parliament in relation to the European project, unfortunately, just as there isn't in other countries of the Union.
We have also contributed ideas, such as the Erasmus program, or the idea of European citizenship. Spanish pro-Europeans like to feel European. It does not create reluctance for us to merge our identity with the European identity. Rather, we consider it an advantage to be able to be both Spanish and European; to be able to be, in my case, Basque, Spanish, and European. That is an advantage for living in the 21st century.
And then we have contributed important elements to cohesion policy. It was an idea promoted by Jacques Delors together with European leaders of the time such as Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl and our president Felipe González. Among them, they ensured that cohesion was in the treaties and in European policies. The European idea cannot be separated from territorial and social cohesion nor from solidarity.
Joaquín Almunia:“Regulation is essential to prevent the creation of natural monopolies”
Q: Has the relationship between Spain and Europe always been easy, from the accession negotiations to recent crises?
R: The accession negotiations were very complicated, but not because of Spain, but because of France, the France of Giscard d’Estaing, who believed that any Spanish tomato that crossed the border was going to end the European idea.
In a Europe with a single market the basic idea is to eliminate borders for the exchange of goods, services and people, and hopefully soon also for the exchange of capital.
Spain defended that idea during the negotiations.We managed to overcome that blockade when the selfishness that Giscard d’Estaing showed towards the Spanish economy, especially agriculture, disappeared, thanks to the change in the French presidency, which accelerated the accession negotiations.
It is true that Spain went through moments of distrust towards European policies during the financial crisis, but that has already been overcome. Today we continue to be a very pro-European country, probably more than most of those in the Union.
“Will you be able to get a headline from here?”, jokes the former community leader when the questions cease. The chat has extended in time and seems willing to prolong indefinitely if the incessant bombardment of topics to be discussed is not stopped. In the background, the background music that has accompanied the conversation continues.
Already with the confidence generated by a "the recorder is off", Almunia reviews his agenda in the European capital, to which he says he will travel soon. The same will do the Twenty-Seven in less than a week to try to agree on the definition of a roadmap that returns them to the definitive European complacency.
Europe risks it again, again, in one of those daytime summits that achieve agreements through the exhaustion of the passing of the hours.