Martin Schulz - President of the European Parliament HARDtalk

two of his aides were reported for corruption. The report is to be

verified. Welcome to HARDtalk from Brussels.

In recent years, the European Union has been under enormous strain, amid

austerity, the bail out and raising unemployment, many Europeans have

concluded that the European Union is part of the problem, not the

solution. My guests today is the socialist President of the European

Parliament, Martin Schiltz, one of the highest profile advocates of

European integration. He may just be the next president of the European

Commission. Is the art of June with your's mood. -- Izzy out of tune.

Martin Schiltz, welcome to HARDtalk. I want to begin by quoting some of

your own words when you took over as President of the European

Parliament. You pledged to win back public trust and restore public

enthusiasm for Europe. What went wrong?

People who lost trust in the last years because Europe was a promise

for not only piece but also for more social coherence, stability, jobs

and growth, decent salaries. Part of these promises are not kept neither

by the European Union nor the member states. You underestimated the task,

winning enthusiasm, restoring trust the EU institutions. You thought you

could do it, you can't. I can't convince people to be enthusiasts

and about the institution. The idea that country are nations cooperate

because they know that together they are strengthening each other and

they can better manage the challengers. This is the idea of

Europe. Over the Europe you can see that people are enthusiastic but

they don't identify that with Europe. That is what you do not see.

Looking at the latest Gallup polls, they readily poll the biggest

nations in Europe and the latest figures show that the number that

think the European Union is going in the wrong direction, 62% in France,

17% think it's going right. Generally, traditionally very pro-

European, 45% think it is going in the wrong direction. 33% think it is

going in the right direction. Perhaps I have failed to express

what I mean. I share your view. The EU was going in the wrong direction.

The ideal of transnational cooperation is uncontested. The

problem is that more and more people don't identify the European Union

with the idea. My question is reform the idea or reform the EU. I am in

favour of reforming the EU. You use the form the notion of a closer

integration leading to a federal concept. Do you renounce that? Know

I do not. You used the term that I M a European federalist. I have never

said that. When I was a young boy with 18 years, I thought the United

Nations of Europe for the United States of Europe, was like the

United States of America on European territory. As immature men, I know

that you can't do that. I'm very realistic. If we don't speak about

competence, let's speak about responsibilities. National and local

responsibilities will remain to be very important and some things are

better on a regional or national level. The free trade agreement

between the European Union and United States of America must be

dealt between Europe and the United States. It seems to many Europeans,

particularly those living in the economic challenge nations, some on

the periphery of Europe. They seem to be back of legitimacy that have

done so much to govern their lives, the European Commission, the

European Central bank, working in conjunction with the IMF. In

countries like Greece, or Ireland, Portugal and others, it feels too

many people as though their lives have been fundamentally changed. Not

necessarily in a good way, by undemocratic institutions. Do you

think that the way in which the Troika have handled the sovereign

debt crisis and the economic crisis in the European Union has done great

damage to the idea of Europe. The Troika have never acted

independently. They execute the will of the European Council. You are a

German MEP. Adopted unanimously in the European Council. You may

reflect on the fact that Germany is the real economic power that has

dictated events in Europe for the last four years. I argue with that.

I see the impact of Germany and the enormous power of Angela Merkel as a

Chancellor. Around the table, let's be honest, at 28, 27 during the

crisis. 27 heads of state. After a meeting when a unanimous vote is

needed, everybody said it was Angela Merkel. This is not honest. The

heads of state... It could be honest all the reflection of reality that

Germany has driven the response. You have been involved in recent weeks

in long negotiations to create a new German government. It seems that

Angela Merkel will work in a grand coalition alongside your party, the

Social Democrats, you have been talking about a new policy for

Europe, the I would put it to you that you will have achieved nothing

in terms of changing Alan General Michael's policy toward Europe, she

says there is no change. I will add to that later. I want to conclude

our first chapter, the Troika. The Troika executed the will of the

heads of state of government, the prime Minister of England, the

president of France and Angela Merkel. The mistrust of the Troika,

unilateral philosophy of unilateral cuts in growth. What we achieved in

the negotiation was to combine the budgetary discipline with strategic

investments and fight against unemployment of young people. This

is a major change in policy in Germany and Europe. What other

Europeans want to see is that Germany is going to move away from

an austerity driven strategy. The reality is we have a minimum wage

for the first time. The government of Germany is in a coalition

agreement for Angela Merkel binding, starting for example with

these special role of Germany for its neighbours in the Eurozone.

Putting the communitarian method that means strong European

community. Major changes in Germany ahead. Really? Now back to the

beginning you are now saying because of your influence in Germany there

is going to be a greater German commitment to building stronger,

more integrated European institutions. To use the

communitarian method means that the existing institution should do their

job. You spoke of the Troika, the Troika was an institution created

inside the European institution to invite the IMF. Do you want more

powerful in -- European institutions. Know. My hats will be

the same. My job is not to create other institutions. There is a live

debate in Europe now. Prompted more than anything else by David Cameron

in Britain saying that the time has come to look at the EU's power

structure, to redefine it, to open up the treaties and to actually send

a lot of powers which reside in Brussels back to the nationstates.

And to change some of the fundamental principles upon which

the European union has been built. I always listen to this announcement,

it was made at a speech in the Hague. I was waiting for the

concrete proposals. Which policies he was speaking about. He is giving

us some clues in the recent days he has indicated that he wants a

fundamental reassessment of the freedom of movement. He is so

concerned about the way in which migration is working in the European

Union. He says as long as there is such a divergences between the rich

economies and the poorer economies within the European Union than

migration and the principle of freedom of movement have to be

modified. This was seven or nine months later from the G8 speech that

now he has become concrete. I listen very carefully about what he says to

limit freedom of movement that too in the European Community because of

the fear that he has because of the end of the acceptance for Romania

and Bulgaria there will be even exodus to the labour market in the

UK. This is a problem and I want to check if it is therefore necessary

to limit free movement for all Europeans. I don't believe so. We

can solve the problem he has, not to get an overwhelming access to the

labour market in the United Kingdom and not only with free movement,

let's discuss how to solve the problem. The problem goes deeper

than Romania and Bulgaria. As Mr Cameron points out, is -- as long as

they're divergences, it needs to be reciprocal. If you take my work is I

will take yours. Those not it works. In the German coalition agreement,

one of the major changes is the minimum salary standard in all

European member states. A major change in the European policy. Do

you think Mr Cameron will accept that? I don't know, you should

discuss that with him. There are other disposals we need to discuss.

David Cameron is now asking to limit freedom of movement. This is also in

my eyes due to the domestic debate in the United Kingdom, one thing is

clear, this and unbalanced development in the European Union

and the Eurozone leads to mobility. The best strategy is to increase the

capacity of countries like Romania or Bulgaria to use the money of the

European budget to improve the life condition of citizens in that

country. This is the best instrument to avoid migration into the labour

market of other countries. What matter the point about Mr Cameron,

he has made it a pledge, he has told the party and the country in Britain

that there will be a referendum in Britain. The question will be should

Britain remain in the European Union or leave it? He says, he wants to

rein in, but only if he can negotiate fundamental changes. We

have talked about changing the principle of freedom of movement. He

wants other things. I do, as President of the European

Parliament, inclined to look with favour upon his position? I am

prepared to look at his proposals to the contribution to the debate you

introducing your question, in favour. I have checked the proposal,

if he makes these proposals, some are interesting, others are rest

less realistic. What is not realistic? I try to finish my words.

The third contributed to the European budget, the United Kingdom,

is asking for a fundamental debate about the European Union in the

future. How could I refuse, as president of the parliament, refuse

a debate. It is very serious. In interesting point you make, would

you care if Britain stays leaves? I think the European Union needs

Britain and the United Kingdom needs the European Union. I am prepared to

discuss with David Cameron, if the puzzle of the United Kingdom is to

improve the effectiveness of the European Union, I am in favour. If

it is a view for a political or strategic gain at home, I am

reluctant. What are your red lines? The modification of the principle of

freedom of movement? On the economic and social questions he raised, we

can perhaps solve a lot of problems by using the subsidiary clause of

the Lisbon Treaty. Freedom of movement, I'm sceptical that we can

have a Europe where freedom of movement for goods and services but

not for people. Please, let's be realistic. A union of four freedoms,

not 3.5. What we see in the UK right now is a very active debate in

Scotland about whether Scotland should be an independent nation.

They will vote on that matter. But even as they discuss that, the

Scottish independence movement insist that if they vote for

independence, they will have the right during the process of

establishing independence, from inside the EU, they will have the

right to negotiate their own membership as an independent

Scotland. The counterargument is that, no, they will have to apply

and conceptually from being outside of the EU. What is your view? If

there is a new country gaining a new sovereignty that did not exist

before, is a new country... No automatic right of entry? The

country has a right to apply for the EU. But no automatic assumption?

This is Alex Salmond who is telling this to his people. We have never

had such a problem but the legal services of the European

institutions are looking very carefully at that question, which is

not only a Scottish question but also a question in Catalonia. New

sovereignty leads to new questions. The European Parliament has had

direct elections since 1979 and has gradually increased its powerful top

at the same time, the number of people voting in European elections

as declined to just over 40%. Why is that? One of the elements of

parliamentary democracy is that voters must see their vote matters

for something after the election. Is it because, as David Cameron says,

there is a lack of a sense of being part of the same body politic? This

is his opinion. I have another one. The EU is a community of countries

and nations. And the citizens and nations are presented in the

European Parliament. But Parliamentary democracy is to build

an executive and control an executive body. This is not

happening from the time being but with the Lisbon Treaty and the

change in the Lisbon Treaty that the European Parliament votes and

appoints the next president of the commission, we have a major change.

Did you say that the parliament appoints the next... ? That's not

how it works in the Lisbon Treaty. The council led by all the member

states has a right to listen to what the Parliament tells it in terms of

politics but it does not have a duty to appoint a president to the

commission that has been nominated by the Parliament. Do you know

Article 17.7 of the European treaty? Tell me. In the Council of heads of

state of government mixed with qualified majority, 72% of the

votes, a proposal to the European Parliament about the president of

the commission. After consultation and taking into account the results

of the vote, this is the first time the vote of citizens matters for the

governments. And my fight is that the governments respect the will of

the voters. This is a major change in Europe. If somebody likes David

Cameron prefers to continue to decide behind closed doors a deal

between heads of state of government, that's up to him. I

prefer that the vote of the voters matters. You say this with such

great passion because you are the head of the Socialist party and you

hope to begin ex-president of the European Commission. Yes, thank you

very much, but this article was adopted at a time when I was not

president of the European Parliament. Are you saying... ? Your

first question to me was that I wanted to regain... And you asked me

how to do it, giving Europeans a chance that they vote matters after

an election. That there can be an election campaign like in the UK. No

one is asking you as a citizen of the UK. I have to just ask you some

questions. You are asked as a citizen of the UK to vote for

Cameron or Miliband. I want European citizens to vote for candidates from

the Liberals, Conservatives, the Socialist, the Greens, who should

lead Europe in which direction. You say if the Socialists win the

biggest blog in the next European Parliament elections in 2014, you

will expect to become the next president of the European

Commission, will you? Who are you interviewing? A candidate of the

social Democratic party or the President of the European

Parliament? That's a good question. I was invited as the president of

the European Parliament. I am asking you... Let me make you a proposal.

After this, you can invite me again and you can discuss this with the

candidate. Right now, you are discussing this with the president.

I want strong candidates. So, for sure... More enthusiasm for Europe.

UCB commission president, which has traditionally been a job free from

partisan politics, you wanted to become a deeply partisan post? I

want the president of the European Commission to be appointed after a

European election by free, elected parliamentarians. David Cameron is

always criticising the EU for not having enough democracy,

transparency and parliamentarian accountability. For the highest

executive post in Europe, we need exactly that. Be said of the

European reforms of the commission has to act as the referee in

Europe's political game, not as captain of one of the teams. You are

arguing the precise opposite. The reality in Europe is that every

Tuesday, there are moves within the commission. The liberal

commissioners meet with the liberal parliamentarians. The Conservatives

with the Conservatives, the Greens with the Greens. This is an

illusion. The commission is a political body. We were talking

about the polling evidence of the deep scepticism among European

peoples towards the EU and its institutions today. You said in

January in 2012 that for the first time since inception, the failure of

the EU is a real possibility. Do you feel like that still? Yes. Yes. We

discussed a lot of problems. Because the problem are neither publicly

debated like we do it, I wish there were more such debates in Europe.

And we don't deliver. The calls we are blocking each other. People are

losing trust. And it is an experience in democracy. The moment

people give up their support of an idea, the idea is lost and we feel

every day more that people lose trust in Europe. I try to regain

trust with my... And what we could end up with is a European Parliament

that has is not the biggest bloc, one of the biggest block occupied by

politicians who do not believe in the European Union and actually want

to leave the EU. To destroy the European Union. That's your word.

Many are so sceptical they would like their countries to leave the

EU. Or to leave the European Union. This is true. And would that be the

end of this European Parliament, this European Union, if that is the

case? We should not exaggerate. If they have 10%, 15% of seats... The

polls say they might have 25%. Are the polls the results? If, in

reality, they have 10%, 15% of the seats in the European Parliament,

85% will not share their opinion. And before opinion polls become

reality in the form of votes in an election campaign. And you just

asked me what should be the election campaign? The fight for a more

democratic and transparent Europe, delivering solutions. That's what I

running. That your fight? My fight. Thank you for being on the

programme. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed.

It has been terribly grey over the past few days but today, we will see

brighter conditions with sunshine. With that will come much colder