 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this plenary session on Europe's twin challenges. Europe is always facing challenges. Today they are twin challenges. And I was saying to our distinguished panel a few minutes ago that even these twin challenges, each of them has several grandchildren. And so we'll be well challenged today in being able to address them all in the time that we have. But we are very fortunate to have with us a very distinguished panel, which I will introduce very quickly, Sigmar Gabriel, the Vice-Chancellor and Federal Minister for Economy and Energy of Germany. We have Leibniz-Dottes-Strauma, the Prime Minister of Latvia and the Keny, the Tishik of Ireland. We have Alexander Stubb, Prime Minister of Finland and Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands. We are going to jump into the big agenda at the moment of a Europe that is not just facing the challenges of growth, which continues, as you all know, to be at least in aggregate, depressed, slow across the Eurozone and across the EU as a whole, even though there are some standout countries and a couple of them on this panel, in terms of the growth pattern at least. But it's also a Europe that is facing challenges of stability, and the stability is both internal in terms of challenges to established political parties and structures, the challenge of terrorism so tragically shown in the attacks in Paris recently, and the stability of a neighborhood that probably has never been quite as turbulent in recent decades as it is today, both to the east and to the south, and inevitably that external instability is projecting itself internally inside each of these countries inside the EU as a whole. So it is a big agenda, and these are a very dramatic and difficult set of twin challenges. Let me start, first of all, with Sigmar Gabriel, and I'm going to kind of run it this way, well actually not run it this way, but run it in alphabetical order. So Sigmar Gabriel first, and maybe this is an inevitable question to give to you today on the day where at some point in the middle of this panel we're likely to hear something at least about European quantitative easing. Have we reached an inflection point five years at least after the height of the crisis, the financial crisis, where Europe does not seem to be able to get a kickstart to growth through the structural reforms that everyone has undertaken so painfully in their labour markets and all sorts of aspects of their domestic economies, but this is a time where stimulus of some sort is needed in a more active and proactive way to be able to get Europe back to a sustainable growth pattern. And I might just say that Sigmar Gabriel will answer in German if he wishes, let him make his choice, but you all have the translation devices with you. I beg your pardon because I think I was too engaged in politics as a young man and not a very good student for English and French, so thanks a lot for giving me the opportunity to answer in German. Our experience in Germany with the necessary structural reforms has been such that it took us a long time to take the decision to actually implement them, and then secondly, they led to much internal political discussion and conflict, and we're reaping the fruits of this reform only eight to ten years after having introduced them, so why should this be different for Europe? First of all, many countries have a hard time taking such decisions, and as a German I would say that many structural reforms that are now being undertaken or are necessary in France and Italy and that the Greeks have had to take a long time ago are much more stringent than the ones we were willing to take upon ourselves in Germany, and this is part of the reality of truth. Secondly, I also believe that on the whole European politics and policies followed by the ECB to stimulate growth and activity and recovery should not be undertaken by one institution alone and the German government is convinced that the program of the European Commission and the one proposed by the President, at least bears in it the opportunity of combining structural reform and growth initiatives and incentives, but the structural reforms will also have to be taken into account and actually take place, they should not be neglected, and the growth initiatives should not just be a straw fire, but actually invest in the competitivity of Europe in research and development, in energy efficiency, in digital progress, and then one last comment about the Germany experience. In 2003 there were two countries that did not abide by the Maastricht conditions. One was Germany and the other one was France, but there's a vast difference between the two countries in 2000 and 2003 was the year Germany started its structural reforms and we knew that we would need to also invest at the same time as the structural reforms and that's why we did not abide by the Maastricht conditions and we would have to have saved another 20 billion and I believe that resistance in Germany would have been so strong that we wouldn't have had any structural reform, but at the time France simply increased its debt, didn't have any structural reforms, didn't attack them and introduce them and my conclusion from that is that such reforms always have to be combined in investment in education development and research competitivity and have to be connected to growth. You cannot do one without the other. Very quickly on one point, Germany obviously benefited however at its time of doing structural reform you might say from the fact that other countries did not do it at the same time. Therefore the rest of the EU remained a stimulated active market that you were able to then deploy your more efficient economy into whereas today obviously throughout the EU people are undertaking structural reform and Germany itself is continuing a fairly tight policy of looking for a zero budget deficit, cutting its overall debt level. So surely you benefited in Germany from an imbalance you might say at that time but now all of the Eurozone is having to work pretty much to one hymn tune, to one set of options. Well the task for Germany now today is to support the EU and the Commission when it brings onto the market its stability package but every nation has to have the courage to broach such structural reforms and to be clear about them without making people afraid. This is difficult. The countries that have attempted this usually have had to pay with not being elected next time round they lost to the opposition, that's also part of the truth, that was our experience. The social democrats launched this structural reform and then we paid a heavy price for it but there is no alternative. The alternative would be to simply prolong the crisis and that this situation becomes untenable for human beings, for the citizens, maybe others can contribute more to this loading and spoke about island. How can one give people the sufficient confidence to believe that they will benefit from difficult times, this structural reform, that is a difficult task for politicians to give such confidence to the electorate. So that they can believe that their children will be better off. That is one of the major tasks for politicians and I think some have been quite successful. Thank you very much for those replies. Let me turn to Enda Kenney, we were again saying before we came on stage here this is like a northern European panel and yet within it there is actually huge diversity in economic performance. As I said earlier the Eurozone is roughly in a fairly flat economic picture but that wouldn't be the case for Ireland where I think your growth rate is over 4% of the moment and looking to hold maybe a 3.5% in the next few years, however, unlike some of the other countries represented on this panel, you are carrying a heavy debt burden, fairly fragile recovery, where do you see this balance between the structural reforms that you have undertaken and the need for a more accommodating economic environment across the board within Ireland? I think I should give you some context here. The government I lead was elected in 2011. At that stage we had unemployment was over 15%, we were blocked out of all the international markets, we had lost our credibility and integrity. We entered a bailout programme, 64 billion, with no tools at the European level to deal with that for a population of 4.5 million with just 2 million people working, lost a quarter of a million jobs. So when you speak of stability I think it's important to note this, the government I lead is comprised of two parties, a centre-centre-right party and a left-of-centre party, and we were able to maintain political stability in the country despite the unprecedented economic circumstances that we inherited. And that was because we were able to set out a very clear plan, a very clear strategy to explain to people that the challenges that we all face as a country were unprecedented. And it meant that instead of choosing a path of confrontation, we actually chose a path of constructive negotiation with the Troika and with the European institutions. And if that's of any value in terms of stability, we're now at a point where just a fortnight ago you were able to borrow 10-year money at 0.86% and able to buy out over the next, or this year and last year, the IMF loans that were borrowed at much higher rates. But if there's any lesson in that, it is that European countries have got to work closer as Europeans and with the institutions, of which the ECB has won the European Council and the European Commission. The Commission is a new commission, it's set out platforms for investment, for structural change and for stable public finances, because we cannot continue with the Europe where there's a chasm of disconnection between the Commission, the Council and the individual governments. And if you don't do that, it leads to extremism on either side, which causes social disruption and political instability. So for us having learned a difficult lesson here, our recovery is fragile and it's incomplete. We need another three to five years of steady growth and of political stability negotiating with our European colleagues so that the people of our country actually feel the benefit of air recovery. So we're in a different spot, but it's fragile and incomplete. And I can see the lines up ahead where we as our country and as our other countries actually need to work much closer together with the institutions that the treaty set up to deliver prosperity, hope, opportunity and jobs for our people. And just quickly on debt, because you've got this high level of growth at the moment, your deficit has come down extensively, but you're pulling down a debt level that was in the 120% ratio to GDP. Is this like the millstone around Ireland's neck, if you see what I'm saying? Is this going to be manageable over time? It's part of the difficulty, but our debt has peaked at 123%. It's now down just above European levels. It will continue to fall rapidly. We had a deficit in double digits three and a half years ago. It will be below 3% this year. It will be eliminated by 2018. And we expect on the growth pattern that we've got now on the plan and the strategy that we're following to be able to create what we call full employment by 2018. That is the recovery of all of the 250,000 jobs that were lost during the economic collapse to have that restored. And that means in terms of politics being about people, that young people who left Ireland as immigrants will be able to come home and work in their own country, if that's their choice, with new experiences and new skills. So I actually see the time ahead while it's difficult and challenging and there are extraneous issues like Russia and energy costs and all that that can impact on a country. The weakening of the euro has been of great benefit to Ireland in terms of exports and in terms of what we offer from tourism and so on. So I'm very optimistic for the time ahead, but it does require not just clarity of agenda but discipline in managing public finances, in making those difficult political changes in individual countries and collectively walking with the institutions that we are to work with for a population of 500 million people. We should not be in a position where there's this chasm of disconnect between the institutions and the citizens because Europe offers, and I want it to be a place where they can have that hope and aspiration and belief that it offers opportunity for children of the next generation, for every country. Thank you. Let me turn to Mark Ritter. Mark, the Dutch economy performed actually pretty well through the crisis and yet we're heading a period now where growth in Netherlands is really headed down to a pretty modest, you know, one percentage kind of level. And I'm just wondering whether, from your perspective, having been one of the countries that was held up as one of the ones that actually performed quite well through the crisis, what do you think is driving this slowdown that you're experiencing at the moment in terms of external performance and the current account remains very strong, what, seven and a half percent of GDP or so? And yet you're stuck at the moment in terms of the growth side. What does this tell us about the broader picture for Europe and its future picture of a country like Netherlands, which is so competitive internationally, is struggling domestically? Well, my assessment of the Netherlands situation is a bit different. I would argue that we were hit quite badly at the start of the crisis in 2008, 2009, being an exporting country. We were hit quite hard by the situation and it was bringing our growth figures down and our unemployment up. We were basically lacking behind in Europe and at the moment we have modest growth figures of over 1.5 percent and we are now at the forefront of the European growth expectations. And what we have done is basically applied the basic recipe, which I believe you almost always have to apply in times of crisis, which is to work on fiscal consolidation, putting your public finances in order, as Anna was saying, at the same time making sure that you take care of all the necessary reforms and we have reformed the housing market, the health sector, the social security sector, pensions, education everywhere and at the same time continue with investments in terms of research and development and, for example, logistics and we invested last year the biggest amount ever in our roads and our railways over 8 billion euros and some external experts are telling us that we now have the best road and railway system in Western Europe and this will also drive growth as my belief over the time to come and this goes back to the main challenge we are facing as a collective because Europe at the moment is simply not competitive and we have many imbalances and my big worry is that we will slow down in Europe in terms of fiscal consolidation and reforms while we have to step up in terms of fiscal consolidation and reforms and Ireland but also Portugal and even Greece is a case in point that when you do this, when you take care of all these necessary measures, that at the end you will see growth returning and unemployment falling and house prices rising again. So this is your evidence. That, as you said, that optimistic outlook is one that's there but how vulnerable do you think Europe is at this moment of adjustment where it's right, as you said, in the middle still of a lengthy structural adjustment to be competitive in the world. How vulnerable then is Europe to external shocks? Let me hold off on Russia and Middle East will cover those in the middle but I'm thinking of, in a minute, I'm thinking about China, decreased growth there, whether export markets, we need a very benign international environment in order to enable this structural period to be undertaken. Would you share that element of course? We are extremely vulnerable and this is because we take too much time to implement the necessary measures and this is a painful process and when you go through a painful process make it as short as possible, like the Irish did, like they do in Portugal and in Greece, make it as short as possible but we take so much time and some of our biggest economies are still debating some of the necessity of this recipe and if you're not applying it, my worry is that we will stay at a relatively low competitive level, that we will be, as you asked me, quite, we will run the risk that what is happening in China and other parts of the world will hit our economy much more than is necessary so my plea is that we step up the game and I'm absolutely convinced that our general public will understand this and the fact that now a number of governments which have implemented, like my own, this recipe, have been reelected is also a case of point. Right Mr. Saruma, if I can turn to you now, a country that's demonstrated in Latvia some very impressive growth levels, 3% range, still quite low debt, so positive in that sense but unemployment quite high, obviously hit also in the crisis. Could you share a thought or two about how you are adjusting but also given that you're Latvia's president of the EU at the moment, you're obviously therefore very much involved in the EU agenda, how do you see the EU agenda supporting what you're trying to achieve domestically in Latvia at the same time? In the beginning I want to say about growth and stability and if we speak about growth and stability then growth, economic growth is a must for stability, is a must and stable growth will be our archangel for Europe. If we speak about Latvian crisis and how Latvia overcame crisis, in the beginning we had huge, huge consolidation of budget and two sets of our consolidation came from structural reforms and one set we increased VAT for four points and what we did, what is main issues, speed of decisions, then ownership, our reform was drafted in Latvia, it is our own reform. Then it is solidarity, we sit in one room all parties, trade unions, business, municipalities, coalition parties and all of these groups signed agreement that we agree with consolidation, with our structural reforms and yeah, it's good result, it's good result and now we have growth but I agree what Mark said, we had to do all these things in one time, improving export, we had now growing exports and we had social security pillow for an employment because we, an employment was increased at that time, now it is the same level as we had before crisis, so all these things in one, one time and past doing, past doing about Europe. Yeah, how do you see the EU agenda helping you in this process? Very shortly we have three priorities, competitive Europe, digital Europe and engaged Europe and if we speak about competitiveness then I want to again split in two parts, it is, it is besides structural reforms, it is something as, as necessity number one but it is investment plan, so-called Junkers investment plan, what we want to push through all legislation, regulations in our presidency and start implement new investments then international trade, TTIP, it's TTIP, free trade agreement with USA, Japan, Canada, we need exports of our trade but it is, it will be not easy because we have to transparency and explain to society why it will benefit for EU. Yeah, investment plan. It sounds like a good plan, let me turn to Alexander Stubb now, again Finland at the moment finding growth very difficult to deliver, particularly hit probably on the external side at the moment, where would you place this balance right now, where do you see Finland in the flow between structural reform starting to show returns and the need for a more accommodating environment within the EU as a whole? Probably balance between the two, just two quick comments, the first one is I think we should as a public sector or politicians stop creating an illusion that it is the public sector that drives growth and jobs, it is not, it's the private sector that does it, there is no growth without entrepreneurship, there is no growth without companies that actually create value added. What us the public sector can do is basically on three things on three levels, number one is structural change at home, we're all grappling with that, I agree with Leimdott, I agree with Mark that you have to do things as soon as the crisis hits, the problem we had in Finland we probably did too little, too late, the second level is the European level, there we must continue to liberalise the single market, cut red tape and basically create a digital single market, we have not completed the single market yet, there is not sufficient free movement of goods, labour, services and money and we have to keep on working on that against all the protectionist tendencies that we have right now and the third thing that we can do is liberalise world trade, again I agree with Leimdott and with Ender, we need a T-Tip EU-US free trade agreement, we need to push in that direction, my second comment is on the stimulation of economies, I divide it into two quite simply, one is public money stimulus, I think we've come to the end of the road on that one, Finland pumped in probably more per capita than anyone else in 2009, 2010, 2011, subsequently we doubled our debt from approximately 50 billion to 100 billion, so we've gone from 30% of debt ratio to GDP now up to 60 and yet we have low growth figures, I do not think that you can stimulate an economy on the basis of debt, that runs into trouble at the end of the day, the other side of it is then what the ECB does and of course I firmly believe in the independence of the ECB, whatever they do on quantitative easing today, we welcome with a smile. So you're neutral but you welcome it with a smile, so that's not a frown, so I will interpret something at least into that but let me ask you one thing because of course the other big thing happening this week will be the voting Greece and I'm wondering given what we've heard across this panel, countries that were hit very hard by the crisis that have had to take as you said one hit structural reforms and other countries that took structural reforms earlier and parties lost power, how much sympathy would there be amongst a group of this sort of leaders for if there were a Syriza government a demand for a renegotiation of some sort of the debt burden that's been carried I'm thinking in the Kenny Island carrying 123 down to 100 you know chipping away at that debt burden but Finland as well you just if I could start with you Alexander Strube that as you said pumped in a lot of money is now having to take very painful reforms domestically how much sympathy is there going to be politically how much room for maneuver is there to negotiate with with the government that just wants a different option. I think there's been a lot of sympathy and a lot of solidarity throughout Europe I think Mr. Gabriel put it quite well we needed to have that we've taken extensive measures to try to stabilize the eurozone Portugal came back on the market Ireland has come back on the market Greece is trying to come back on the market all of us have taken very difficult structural reforms I can't take issue with the Greek elections all I can say is that I should in the name of fairness tell the Finnish electorate and the Greek electorate what the Finnish position is and the Finnish position is that will deal with any democratically elected government that Greece has and that it will be very difficult for us to forgive any loans or restructure debt at this particular moment we can look at different kinds of extensions we can look at different kinds of programs and we will deal with it I think we're looking at three different scenarios one is that things will continue as are to is that will go into an extensive period of instability in renegotiating something not renegotiating the debt levels but something with the structural programs and then three a dirty exit and I think we need to try to avoid the dirty exit at all costs but as I said we respect the democratically elected government in Greece. Sir Gabriel if I could come back to you quickly on one of the kind of drivers that was put out there potentially of growth which is laid out TTIP the transatlantic trade and investment partnership I think in Germany in particular there are real reservations about certain aspects of that agreement and yet it is held up amongst other steps as one of those sort of not deficit increasing options that Western economies have to try to improve their competitiveness size of the market etc etc I mean are you supportive of the TTIP aims do we have to break it into pieces what's your sense of the timing just very quickly I know it's a very difficult debate in Germany but where do you stand on this it's a difficult debate in Germany but also in France and in Austria and some other countries UK maybe maybe in Germany sometimes it's more difficult because we are a country which is rich and hysteric this combination is sometimes difficult please do not read it bring it to the newspapers I'm sure they were we are among us and I'm among friends so you can speak very open and frank no come to the point I mean I think what's necessary is that we bring we all in Europe should bring the debate about free trade agreements on a different level on a higher level because of course it's necessary to negotiate many different issues and some of them are difficult to to to come to a common agreement for the time being but in my country and I think also in some others it's necessary to explain to the citizens why we are negotiating about a free trade agreement with the US and therefore we have to show that the guys from China and others they call the 21st century a Pacific century but they in reality they mean an Asian century and of course it is an Asian and a Pacific century and if when I looked some weeks ago to these Asian meeting I thought by myself my goodness what kind of self-consciousness we can see there and the last guy from Europe was Mr. Putin nobody else from us was there so what I think is maybe it's the last chance for Europe to influence standards for world trade agreements the next agreement will be one between the US and the Asian Pacific region and whatever we have which kind of questions we have to the standards to stability to social questions to questions to the ecology and others agreements about free trade between Asian and Asia Asia and the US will have a different level to agreements between Europe and the US and we should use maybe all last chance to set the standards that that's from my perspective the reason why we need these agreements and we it's necessary to bring the public debate on this level nevertheless we have to solve in the same time a lot of questions in the in the in the center I think it's the debate about I SDS in my country but I mean we are able to send people to the moon why we should not be able to solve questions to I SDS and others it is possible and Europe this is one of the biggest chances Europe has for the next decades and we should use them I think if Germany is engaged in making the solution happen then I suspect the solution would probably happen I understood you wanted to come in very quickly I mean it's very important that we make a case for t-tip the problem is that it's one of these issues which sort of become like the Polish plumber of the services directive because you can be anti-European anti-American anti-free trade anti-national or multinational corporations and you start sort of stirring around I SDS I mean hands up who knew that letter combination a year and a half ago I mean I put it in the books ISDN that's what I thought it was there are over five thousand investment protection agreements worldwide there are approximately 500 cases on the basis of it we've had a very close look at look at them and as a matter of fact most of them have ended up quite well all of our free trade agreements have investment protection agreements it's very important that we have one with the United States as well it's just important that we consult we find an iron out any kind of problems with it but again if we want to jolt into our economy what's better way of doing it than the two biggest economies in the world the EU which is the biggest economy in the world and the US do it together and much like Mr. Gabriel said it's a question of who wants to set the standards of free trade is it Europe and the US or is it China that's the choice that Europe has marketer you wanted to come in but can I just piggyback on your next intervention by point bringing in the populism issue I mean I laid this at the beginning part of political stability in Europe is that the political environment is much more fee brow from the big to the small countries you have populist parties that are really gaining traction the gaining traction on the back of past foreign policy failures on the global financial crisis and then t-tip kind of fits into a conspiracy theory of globalization Americanization can you just address this as well because you've got features of this in the Netherlands very much that's where we as politicians come in and we have to make sure that we make the case the urgency to do this and the fact that t-tip this free trade agreement will as you said help to add growth to Europe without having to increase government spending so this is a fantastic opportunity and yes that we have to be extremely transparent and also to explain the negatives and the positives and the trade-offs etc etc that's what we exactly what we are doing what I wanted to expand on this because I fully agree with both speakers on t-tip but there are more opportunities to add growth to Europe and I feel the sense of urgency to do this without having to increase government spending somewhere already mentioned the digital single market will add 3.8 million jobs if we would really be effective in implementing the services directive this would add 2.5 2.6 maybe even 5% extra growth to Europe which we are not doing at the moment and then the energy market if you will be really effective in implementing the energy market that would also add extra growth and make us more energy independent so there are ample opportunities and I think the the frustration sometimes the sense of urgency to put it more positively I think we all feel is that collectively in Europe we are not doing enough to bring this about and on and Kenny on the issue of the services market this idea that there are if not politically at least structurally low-hanging fruit that can be grasped at the moment are you as a government trying to really push this within the EU context or not absolutely I can't disagree with the comments about t-tip and indeed Alex's comments in respect of of what might happen when the people in Greece cast their votes during our own presidency of the Union agreement was had from the European Parliament that the t-tip negotiations could start I think it's absolutely you're absolutely spot on here in that this is an opportunity to set down standards for world trade inside five years certainly inside ten years the frontiers up ahead will have changed utterly with digital connection and and and global access at the push of a button so the teams on both sides are actually very good teams I think there are about 17 chapters left here but the frustration for the politician because your mandate is limited anyway by virtue of the people's choice and you never know what that's going to be but when political decisions are made that they should be followed through quickly at the triangle between the Commission the Parliament which is now core responsibility following the Lisbon Treaty and the European Council means that with the politicians the leaders make decisions and agree at European Council to actually have those implemented without a vast bureaucracy growing up around it which strangles it from a red tape perspective is one that's recognized by this Commission because President Yonkers has appointed a number of vice presidents who have been former prime ministers who should know that when you make a political decision you shouldn't allow it to get lost and strangled in red tape this I think is a frustration that everybody's felt around the European Council table so in Ireland yes we had to reduce drastically at the extent of people working in the public service yet to restrict and do a deal with all of the trade unions in respect of pay and cut backs and pay and moratoriums and on recruitment these things are very difficult for people to take but the same time you've got to use whatever little flexibility you have in referring to what Mark said about creativity entrepreneurship ingenuity through the education system and young people seeing new opportunities and giving vent to allow that to happen that means you've got to be very pragmatic in the choices that politicians actually make what can help growth how can we help young people get into business if it fails start again where are the new markets I see real opportunities arising from t-tip and whatever else drives us it is the fact that you can set down standards for the next 40 years in terms of world trade this is the prize and the other prize at the end of that are jobs of competitive countries well-managed economies and millions of jobs are the side of the Atlantic the next 10 years the phenomenal growth in populations in Asia will speak for itself and that way of population and way of decisions coming from there will create its own momentum but for us as along with the United States two of the most developed entities on the planet we should be able to sit down and agree on how trading relations can improve for the benefit of all the countries and therefore all the people that's what it's all about thank you look we've I'm going to open it up in a minute to get some questions from the participants here in the room but let me just turn back first to lambda to Strayoma and at least start to broach the external issues the stability around yes you're going to have some interesting moments in your presidency coming up in particular vis-a-vis Russia there are sanctions review meetings that will need to take place in March in July fighting seems to have flared up again but the Russian government wants to find a way to follow up on the Minsk agreements I mean we're in a very difficult period here at the moment it strikes me at least between an EU that is obviously very uncomfortable about this being the new status quo you know a detached relationship with Russia and yet it sees the reality of the decisions that be made by the Russian government what has happened on the ground and the decisions that were taken in the past European Council meetings so I know it's a big question Latvia small country sitting on the border of the Russian Federation but also holding the EU presidency how you're going to manage just your two or three priorities for these next six to nine months in managing this relationship I want that everybody of us will think what will be day after what will be day after zero will be destroyed economy in Ukraine without social security safety we have to think all Europe Russia Ukraine what will be day after is and and sorry mean that what would be the day after if things go wrong or stay another time it will end I don't know in how it will end but what will be day after and but if we speak about a situation yeah in this 21st of century nobody can accept as then in middle of Europe one country takes one part of another country and take simply it's not acceptable and politically we can't accept this we had discussion in other European Council meetings it's not acceptable and other chooses sanctions we had no another choose because there are no another choose and we I think nobody of us is happy with sanctions nobody's happy but it is our common decision what we did in in December the sanctions will be it will be more or less it will be depends on the minx agreement right what will be this means agreement and what we see now in Ukraine there are fights and we will see what we will discuss and how what we will decide in March when we come together but if cetacean will be not better as it now that I don't see that somebody of us will say let's stop sanctions it will be not this case well let me just give I could I know a few people wanted to come on this point I want to Mark Ruta Alexander Stubin Mr. Gary in particular just a quick comment then open up here and you may get questions on this as well but Mark Ruta first you know Netherlands had a very strong actually economic relationship has have many EU members with the Russian Federation in your and obviously now in a very different position not least after the terrible tragedy that befell your citizens earlier last year but as you look to the future do you have a map from your government's perspective of what would change the situation in terms of loosening or tightening sanctions or keeping them as they are do you have a kind of mental map that's fairly simple Minsk agreement will lift otherwise it just it stays as it is for as long as it needs what's your mental map well exactly as you said Russia has interfered in Eastern Ukraine has taken Crimea and the sanctions have been linked to these facts I have to stress not linked to MH 17 the tragedy was MH 17 is now independently there's not independent inquiry going on we have to await the results the sanctions have been linked to what happened in Crimea and the fact that they interfered in Eastern Ukraine so that means that Russia has to implement what we collectively agreed and your boss involved the French president of German Chancellor heavily involved in this whole process and we all support them in their role so what has to be implemented is what has been agreed in Minsk and when you take a look at the actual situation there is every evidence that Russia is still interfering there's every evidence that potentially even new military material people and tanks etc. are coming into Russia coming into Eastern Ukraine and the divining line between the territory held by the Ukraine and the territory held by the separatists that divining line which is also part of the Minsk water pool is again being violated at various stages and various points so at this stage I find it totally unacceptable to discuss a weakening of the sanctions Russia has to do what is only acceptable for a country to do which is to accept the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and then later on I think we as European Union have to make it clear that we we want a strong relationship from Europe with Ukraine but we also have to make it clear that we find it only acceptable and logical and also for history that Ukraine will also build a relationship with Moscow and Russia it should not be a zero sum game that Ukraine has to make a choice only for Europe given the history their place on the map it's only logical in the long term that they will build a strong relationship with Europe and Russia but that means after the Minsk protocol has been implemented and the separatists have stopped for their doing and Ukraine has taken full control of its territory thanks that was true yeah I mean funnily enough I remember last year in Davos we talked a little bit about the geopolitical risk of Maidan square not of Russian invasion and probably none of us believe that the ramifications would be as far-reaching as they have been because all of us were basically preparing for the sochi olympics this time last year I think we've had basically three ramifications number one is geopolitical I think we're coming to the end of an era and that is the end of the end of the cold war for the past 25 years we believe that Russia would integrate itself into western institutions we've done a lot of work in that direction as well we've had partnership agreements with the EU and Russia with partnership agreements between NATO and Russia Russia joined the WTO we all felt and believed that Russia would become a normal western democracy the answer is after 25 years it hasn't the second ramification is security political power politics and spheres of interest are back in the european borders they came back with the war in georgia in 2008 and have now been extended and we are in a situation whereby a large country has basically annexed an area of a sovereign and independent state and created a sphere of interests we are in a situation where whereby on the borders of europe we basically have six frozen conflicts right now Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abbasia, the Crimean Peninsula and now potentially eastern Ukraine that is wrong that is why the european union has reacted should have reacted and will continue to react then we come to the third ramification and that is economics now make no ments about this the russian economy has not gone down because of the sanctions the russian economy is in a free fall because it was not able to modernize itself post cold war it is still based on energy and gas 50 percent of their state income is oil and gas exports name one russian consumer good that you use there are not too many the russian economy will retract four to five percent this year the russian ruble is in a spiral inflation 10 percent and the price of oil yesterday 46 dollars to the barrel is this in all of our interest no it is not it is in our both security political interest and in our economic interest to make things normal again the only way in which it can be done is for russia to do it themselves and i say this coming from a country that has 1300 kilometers of border with russia that is more than anyone combined in the european union and i come from a country whereby russia is our biggest trading partner together with sweden and germany we need to solve this crisis but the ball is in the russian court if they don't fulfill the minsk agreement the peace process i don't think we're going to get out of this in the foreseeable future and i think that's a travesty both for russia and the western world let me give one last comment sigma gabriel i'm going to open it up just on the russia issue if you want to add anything to this not least if you share their views then you can see of course completely agree with the prime minister of finland the ball is in the the field of russia maybe the only thing we should think about is what our colleague from latvia said what is what we can offer for the day after what we can offer what what's our offer to russia maybe in a new idea of this modernization packed which we thought that it's the right way for russia and where we're all set that they do not used it in a proper way but nevertheless i think the next step should be also the discussion among us what can be an idea for a partnership after we solve the current problems i mean the way through it's only through the minsk protocol there's there is no alternative and everybody of us wants to relieve the sanctions but sanction to leave means russia is to move to move to what they agreed it's nothing which is in heaven it's it's in the protocol but i think i mean we discussed about t-tip one seconds ago next step in europe can be a negotiation with russia about free trade it was put in the idea to have a free trade zone between lisbon and veladi was stock i mean it's not like in a in a different world than we are today it would be a good idea so that should be the next debate about us to offer them a way out because maybe he is now a population with things by what was six 86 that he's doing a good job but at the end of the day clinton said it's the economy is stupid and the economy is going down and it went down before the sanctions before the sanctions and that would be my my idea to think about the day the day after thank you very much look let me take three questions and please wait for the microphone to get you say who you are i'll take three or four questions now and we'll distribute them we've got a break at 11 25 i can see a first hand went up right here in the middle and i see one there yep roll and rod finsbury i would just like to ask the panel how should europe deal with the insurgent populist parties particularly those on the right who often appear morally repugnant okay just hold hold that thought uh look at the question where we are see a gentleman there can we get a microphone there please that keep your hand up please sir keep your hand up thank you and i'm looking around for another but if people are cautious that's fine ben fizzle and deutche veller um in trying to convince the people that t-tip is a good thing that structural reforms are good why are you failing okay any more questions there's locking on europe i'm looking at this if you got one no i over there down here okay let's take those and let people digest i've got lots more questions the middle east hasn't come up yet so um uh if i can just actually throw that one onto the list uh in a minute but first of all how to deal with populist parties where to start yeah i thought there have been some two fins and some not two fins no alexander stood for elections in in finland in um three months uh first observation you mentioned only the far right i don't actually think it's a question of far right or far left their general populist movements and the way in which i divide them is localists and globalists a lot of the populist movements are basically localists and they have very different strands you have some far right tendencies but one could argue that there are many left tendencies which anti-establishment anti-government anti-politics anti-whatever um i think they've come out with a force uh you have of course garrick builders uh in the netherlands you have fronds national in france you have uh the true fins uh in finland but for me they're not a traditional populist party they have actually now over the years trying to make themselves very governmentable if you will they talk quite sensible stuff on economic policy they talk quite sensible stuff on foreign policy where i fundamentally disagree with them is on european policy and immigration how do you deal with them there have been two different approaches finland we have allowed for cooperation we discuss with the true fins we have not isolated them and i think it's worked quite well in sweden a different path has been chosen there is basically no communication or cooperation between the mainstream parties and sveria democratana and just to make sure that there are no misunderstandings i'm not comparing the true fins with the sveria democratana i'm saying that there are different kinds of strands so i think embracing populism in dialogue is probably the right way to go about it but when you start talking about values when you start talking about law i think there's some limits that should be set uh in this dialogue and in this discussion michael durr i knew you wanted to come in on this just one observation from a study i saw done on the uk on this issue was the extent to which uh british political parties in many ways conceded local politics or a local presence in some cases to some of the more populous parties that emerged in very specific parts of the country it wasn't across the whole country so you know one way for let's call them more established parties or mainstream parties to be engaged against them is to get re-engaged in a way which may link a bit to the second question but i'll let you say whatever you want well i have to be very clear it's us all of us all politicians of the main party center right center left and in a center who have created these populists we have not given answers to certain questions we have made certain issues a taboo which should not be debated we have seen immigration coming into europe for good reasons but this has also given a raise to tensions in society and we've said well we should not debate those tensions uh we should not debate those issues and then we think it is strange that voters then go to populous parties so the answer is that the main government parties which have always taken responsibility to take tough decisions to lead our societies also in difficult times that again that's exactly i think what at least these panelists are all doing and many other politicians that we provide the answers that we tell the people yes it is necessary to accept fiscal consolidation tough measures tough reforms yes there is a reason why there has been immigration and yes we have to look at it again and be very sensible in how we continue with this how we apply our asylum asylum rules in europe and how we deal with this and there is good reason for that uh and when we do this we don't have to discuss with these populist parties we are discussing directly with our own electorate and explaining to them that we have the answers to these issues that we will that we understand all the worries all the fears and all the aspirations and that we want to answer them that's what we need to do no taboos having an open and fair debate between us the main parties the main parties in government and our own people and then Kenny you want to come in the gentleman asked the question down there why have you failed or why are you failing it's not actually a question of having failed it's a question of not having delivered because trust in the institutions and the and politics actually comes from delivery so it's a case of of when you set out with a strategy and a plan have you got the capacity to deliver on it and if you fail to do that it's also easy for opposition politics anywhere to say well I do differently you don't actually have to pay for that we've got a different view here uh the key here is democracy and people and at the end of the day I feel in in a country in Ireland now where you have a rise of populism no more than in any other country it is the case of out of all this confusion out of all of the offers that come from populist parties the key for the future is discipline is clarity is stability of agenda so that people can say there's the record this is what you have delivered this is where the future is rather than everybody crossing over with their own different views otherwise it leaves you extremism right and left and when I had the privilege of being in Paris after the tragedies when all of the leaders walked down that street arm in arm linked together it was a demonstration of the why of the european union as distinct from the what of the european union and therein lies the key to the future that when people elect their politicians on particular programs it is a case of being able to deliver because the frustration builds and populism follows and and the extremes of right and left you can see that it's social disruption that applies so for every politician the reason or time to lose has got to be absolute focus on what is achievable and what can be delivered effectively right in the interest of the people that's the starting point and the end point because they ultimately are the masters so it's a form of re-establishing trust on that look we've got five minutes left I've got one question I definitely want to ask and I didn't see any other hands going up sorry there's one question apparently in the corner over there you're holding it no you're holding your microphone up but uh no yes ma'am yeah one question here then I'm going to add mine on if yours isn't the question. Mandy Parai from the LSE this is a question for Gabrielle regarding Germany's view on the Maastricht Treaty and whether it would allow some of the rules to be broken so that countries can get involved more. Sorry so it's in the last begin so it's whether it allows some of the rules to be broken so that people can some of the countries can integrate further. Okay I think it's going back you mean when they broke the Maastricht Treaty back in the 19 that's how come on when you broke the 3% which he did address in his remarks yeah 2003 thank you um whether those rules does he regret having broken them now I think he actually gave it an answer to that earlier on and there's a question just when let's take that question as well with this and I'll add mine in we need to finish in four minutes. Paul Shear from Standard and Pause I'd like to ask a related question which is really about the architecture of the economic and monetary union and do you see the architecture of a monetary union without fiscal union fiscal rules but without fiscal union and associated political union as being sustainable and desirable in the long term? Okay so let's finish up with three questions the first because mine is going to come in a minute the first form for Sigma Gabriel which was the issue of whether you regret or not that flexibility that Germany and France took in 2003 or maybe it's good because it's given more scope whether he would allow Greece to break the rules yeah exactly would you yeah would you allow Greece to break the rules you can answer that question and maybe you might want to touch a little bit on the architecture as well I will let each of you I'll take it in this order say something about it but I do want Alexander Stubb having done a long time as foreign minister to answer the question are we in a phase of containment on the Middle East is the threat that's emerging from there that's hitting our societies internally now one that needs to be contained or do we need to engage as well to use the phraseology of Prime Minister Strahjuma is the Middle East a place we need to engage in or is it one way enough to contain you can mel on that while we're coming around the table may I give a short question to the to the last question of the gentleman if the construction of the monetary union is is the right way to solve the I would answer no of course we have to go further to a fiscal union and to to political union but I think it's senseless to discuss this future construction without doing that the daily work and the daily work is that every government has to find a combination between structural reforms and investments in the competitiveness from from my perspective it's not the question if governments have public spending or not it's the question in which sector they invest in research and development education if if if Greece is investing in education infrastructure would you give them more flexibility my advice would be in the discussion with the Greece Greek government to go further on the on the track that we had agreed the difference between the decision 2003 for France and Europe and Germany was it was agreed in Europe and now we have an agreement with Greece which is I think relatively fair and I completely agree with the that what the Prime Minister Finland said that the voters in Greece are free to vote and afterwards we have to to have a fair discussion with them but also with our own taxpayers and citizens and and so that's that the three options you said the last one is that which we don't want to choose the first two ones maybe are maybe are the solution for the day after the election then I only want to add one one answer to the question of what's about populists yeah I think the answer from Mark Rutter and also from from Alexander Stupp he asked he said Germany said Stupp that's not right to have a fair discussion an open discussion about everything that's the real answer but we as politicians we should not forget that some of our elite dialogues among politicians and with people from the business sector are not the same debates they have on the street when we said yes we have to open the markets the service markets a single market in Europe everybody says yes that's right of course it's economically right but please ask a worker in your harbor which has to pay the rents for the houses and flats in Amsterdam or Hamburg if his competitor comes from Portugal with a wage was impossible to live in Hamburg or Amsterdam so what is the answer is the answer that competition is only by low wages then you will create uncertainty and you will help the populists so I have not a perfect answer today but we should be careful to think that the dialogues between elites in the economy sector or politicians sector is the same discussion they have on the breakfast table and sometimes in the past we did the wrong thing we said better we should not discuss what they are discussing on the breakfast table and now we have them on the street we're coming right up to the close of this panel and I think I want Alexander I put a question to you which is a very difficult and very big question do you have a sort of a one-line-ish one-center-ish sort of answer to that with all of your distilled experiences for a minister your question your question was whether to contain or engage in the Middle East in 20 seconds I think we should engage and the only way in which we can engage is to try to contain the geopolitical risk through dialogue if the Middle East crisis had been solved in the past 40 years my 20 seconds will not provide the answer I'm sorry but that's a fair answer look thank you very much to all of our panelists super panel we have to finish really on time I can see people really waiting on the sides to get you all of our distinguished guests their next meeting thank you very much for attending for some good questions and a very strong hand for our panel