I thank members for all their questions. It is great that we can have such a debate. It could be very supportive for me and I am honoured to say that.
The first contribution, from Deputy Donohoe, was related generally to the financial crisis and what could be a sustainable solution. We need to take a case-by-case approach. It is very difficult to answer all the expectations at the same time. Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland face different issues. While we should adopt the same approach, the responses need to be taken on a case-by-case basis and could be slightly different. Different structural reforms and austerity measures are required, for instance, depending on budget deficits and whether the national debt is 150% or 180% of GDP. We must ensure we do not prevent growth in the economy because austerity measures and structural reforms are impossible without growth.
If I am asked about how to respond generally to the crisis, I can say that the Parliament and Commission have done a great deal. There are six items of legislation on economic governance on the table. Economic as well as monetary union are necessary and we are creating economic union. We are doing much to enable comparisons of national budgets through the introduction of the European semester. Each spring all the national budgets will be on the table and Ministers for Finance will be able to compare 28 national budgets. The purpose of the initiatives is to make the budgets of the European Union members states work better together. Many similar efforts and activities are under way for the European Union as a whole, for example, on how to prevent future crises, achieve growth and recovery and proceed with structural reforms. The euro-plus pact is about structural reforms. Many initiatives are under way in the European Union.
We do not have a eurozone crisis today, although it could become one in the event of the bankruptcy of Greece, for example. While there are some instabilities in some members of the eurozone, it is not in a crisis as a whole and growth stands at 1.5% or thereabouts.
The next question focused on general discussion and dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament. This is very important on all levels, including at the level of committee rapporteurs in national parliaments and presidents. Together with the citizens' initiative, such dialogue could help us to bring the European Union closer to citizens. We need democratic accountability. Our citizens do not understand how the European Union works today or the reason it is important to be closer to each other and open up to the market. As these issues are not easy for citizens to understand, we should try to help them understand them.
Being very honest, in my travels from one country to another I ask people the reason they are not active in promoting the European idea and informing people about the European Union. The response I received is that while people are convinced of the European idea, they cannot easily promote it because it is very boring. There are two very boring issues for citizens, namely, regional policy and European policy. The reason they are boring is that there is not much war at the level of the European institutions and in regional policy. In the area of regional policy we are making some soft investments but one does not see any type of audiovisual war. At national level, one usually has a coalition and opposition, as in the case of Ireland, and a great war, as it were, where the government and opposition are ready to fight almost every day, not necessarily using the force of argument. Unfortunately, however, this war is very interesting for citizens. What is very interesting for citizens from the point of view of European affairs? The answer is bribery. The horrible truth is that news about increased funds for the Common Agricultural Policy or CAP reform is not interesting for citizens, whereas bribery is extremely interesting. When the European Parliament is the first item in news programmes, it is not in connection with positive information. The question is whether this can be changed. We cannot change our citizens, at least not immediately, but perhaps we should work on it. I am being very honest on this issue. There are probably not any journalists present. It seems we have some with us, in which case it is too late.
Members may answer my question. What is more boring than the regional and European policies of the European Union? We do not have an opposition and coalition in the European Parliament or Commission. Commissioners and Members of Parliament sometimes disagree because we have eurosceptical colleagues and, therefore, euro-positive and euro-negative views. While there is something approaching opposition and coalition and the discussion is probably slightly more interesting for citizens, it is not a typical coalition and opposition. We try to find agreement and compromise from the very beginning. Deputy Dooley asked me about an important issue and I am answering in a very honest way.
The next question was about how we could restore confidence in the banks. It is obvious that the banks, including Irish banks, are all in a worse position than they were previously because the crisis was financial in nature. The crisis was not originally ours but was imported to the European Union. While we should generally support innovations, the exception is innovations in financing and finance policy. The horrible crisis we had was caused by innovations in some financial institutions in the United States. As members are well aware, innovative papers and bonds in the financial markets were not such a good idea. For this reason, we must be careful in this area in future.
I have met the President of the European Central Bank, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, who is about to finish his term of office, on a number of occasions. I also met Mr. Mario Draghi a few weeks ago and had a very long discussion with him. I will, obviously, mention Mr. Mitchell's proposal and point of view. However, I can say it will be a policy of continuation. I am quite sure of that because I discussed all the problems with both leaders. That policy will continue, at least at the beginning, but perhaps in two or three years the policy could change. As we know, the term of office is very long.
The next question suggested the current solution to the crisis is unfair, that the people are suffering too much and that the solution only suits Germany and France, as suggested by Deputy Mick Wallace. This is an interesting question. Take Greece for example. Without loans, after three weeks there would be no salaries for Greek public sector workers. Perhaps some private companies would have money to pay salaries, but nobody else would. The question, therefore, is whether we are helping Greek citizens or not. The Deputy could say we are not. The Deputy said we are helping Germany and France. Of course, we want to help the banks, because the bankruptcy of Greece would be great problem for some of the big European banks. Only one financial institution, Lehman Brothers, had troubles at the beginning, but this was followed by a deep recession throughout the world, apart from in China. If Greece collapses, we will see the same, perhaps an even deeper recession. The collapse of the European financial institutions will be followed by the collapse of our real economy. That is obvious. There will be no loans for small and medium enterprises and no possibility for solid investment in companies and so on.
On the problems with the banks, it is difficult to survive with no banks. Ireland has spent significant public money trying to ensure the survival of the banks and it is important to support the banks. The Deputy can say we are helping banks. However, one of the first decisions of the European Parliament in this crisis was to decide to cut banker bonuses. We took that decision 14 months ago because we felt it was unfair to retain such bonuses. That was our decision. That aside, we know that it is thanks to the financial system that our economy works. We cannot survive in the case of the bankruptcy of Greece. Therefore, in helping Greece, while we may also be helping some European banks, we are also helping ourselves. If Greece goes bankrupt, we will have a recession and this will bring higher unemployment in each member state. Therefore, there is no other possibility. The Deputy may say it is horrible for the citizens, but I know that very well. I spent 14 years of my life, my professional life, as a leader of a trade union and had to organise strikes and protests in the streets. I know what it means to defend workers. On the other hand, I know what it means to defend an economy. In the end, if we do not improve the economy, there will be no improvement from the point of view of the trade unions.
I went to Latvia one and a half years ago at the beginning of a deep crisis there, deeper than that of Greece. The national debt and the budgetary deficit were higher than those of Greece. In October 2009, Prime Minister Dombrovskis introduced very deep austerity measures and structural reforms and now, after two years, the country is developing. The GDP growth rate was -18%, but now it is from 1.5% to 2%. The budgetary deficit and national debt have also reduced. Latvia is trying to survive. The situation was very difficult for citizens. Committee members cannot even imagine how difficult things were in central eastern Europe at the beginning of the 1990s. We changed our economies. The unemployment rate in my country was 25% for three or four years, a quarter of the population. That is a horrible situation. I was the leader of a trade union at the time, and it was a horrible time. However, if countries want to survive in the long term, they must go through such a period. It is a responsibility to go through with the hardship.
People in Germany might ask why they should pay and, to be honest, that is a reasonable question. Imagine a worker in a Ford factory in Leverkusen who goes to work every day and earns around €3,000 per month. This worker might ask why he should pay for Greece and say he should not pay for it. Let us pay for Greece, because it is for us. It is for also for the worker in the Ford factory in Leverkusen because we want to help him. If we do not help Greece, the workers in Leverkusen will be unemployed in a few months time. By helping Greece, we are helping the worker in Leverkusen, but it is very difficult for him to understand that. I visited Germany two weeks ago and tried to explain on radio and TV that we have a common responsibility and that we want all of us to survive, rather than to divide the different member states. We do not want to close the doors, because closing the doors is the most dangerous solution.
I also understand the position of Irish workers and citizens, who are so patient. They are fantastic and I have stressed that today. Unfortunately, we must go through such economic hardship. The crisis was imported into the European Union and was not originally our crisis. I understand this reply must be aborted.
