Finally someone speaks the truth. In an interview with Spiegel Magazine, former Bundesbank chief Karl Otto Pohl, says it how it is: “Without a “haircut,” a partial debt waiver, [Greece] cannot and will not ever [repay its debt]. So why not immediately? That would have been one alternative. The European Union should have declared half a year ago — or even earlier — that Greek debt needed restructuring.” As for the reason for the bailout, Pohl’s observation will not be a surprise to our readers “It was about protecting German banks, but especially the French banks, from debt write offs.” Is there any hope for Europe now? It appears no, as the right decision was to let Greece go bankrupt: “Investors would quickly have seen that Greece could get a handle on its debt problems. And for that reason, trust would quickly have been restored. But that moment has passed. Now we have this mess.” Amusingly, when asked if banks used “speculators” as a straw man to break all EU Rules and especially the Lisbon treaty:”Of course that’s possible. In fact, it’s even plausible.” We can’t wait until the German population realizes just how massively it has been scammed. Last week’s Nordrhein-Westphalia Merkel loss will seem like a walk in the park once the mobilized German society decides to fix things on its own.  Oh, and look for the EU and the euro to be a thing of the past.

Key items from the Spiegel interview:

SPIEGEL: The German government has said that there was no alternative to the rescue package for Greece, nor to that for other debt-laden countries.

Pöhl: I don’t believe that. Of course there were alternatives. For instance, never having allowed Greece to become part of the euro zone in the first place.

SPIEGEL: That may be true. But that was a mistake made years ago.

Pöhl: All the same, it was a mistake. That much is completely clear. I would also have expected the (European) Commission and the ECB to intervene far earlier. They must have realized that a small, indeed a tiny, country like Greece, one with no industrial base, would never be in a position to pay back €300 billion worth of debt.

SPIEGEL: According to the rescue plan, it’s actually €350 billion …

Pöhl: … which that country has even less chance of paying back. Without a “haircut,” a partial debt waiver, it cannot and will not ever happen. So why not immediately? That would have been one alternative. The European Union should have declared half a year ago — or even earlier — that Greek debt needed restructuring.

SPIEGEL: But according to Chancellor Angela Merkel, that would have led to a domino effect, with repercussions for other European states facing debt crises of their own.

Pöhl: I do not believe that. I think it was about something altogether different.

SPIEGEL: Such as?

Pöhl: It was about protecting German banks, but especially the French banks, from debt write offs. On the day that the rescue package was agreed on, shares of French banks rose by up to 24 percent. Looking at that, you can see what this was really about — namely, rescuing the banks and the rich Greeks.

SPIEGEL: In the current crisis situation, and with all the turbulence in the markets, has there really been any opportunity to share the costs of the rescue plan with creditors?

Pöhl: I believe so. They could have slashed the debts by one-third. The banks would then have had to write off a third of their securities.

SPIEGEL: There was fear that investors would not have touched Greek government bonds for years, nor would they have touched the bonds of any other southern European countries.

Pöhl: I believe the opposite would have happened. Investors would quickly have seen that Greece could get a handle on its debt problems. And for that reason, trust would quickly have been restored. But that moment has passed. Now we have this mess.

SPIEGEL: How is it possible that the foundation of the euro was abandoned, essentially overnight?

Pöhl: It did indeed happen with the stroke of a pen — in the German parliament as well. Everyone was busy complaining about speculators and all of a sudden, anything seems possible.

SPIEGEL: You don’t believe in the oft-mentioned attacks allegedly perpetrated by currency gamblers, fortune hunters and speculators?

Pöhl: No. A lot of those involved are completely honorable institutes — such as banks, but also insurance companies and investment- and pension funds — which are simply taking advantage of the situation. That’s totally obvious. That’s what the market is there for.

…

SPIEGEL: With the exception that speculators are now carrying no risk at all because euro-zone members have agreed to guarantee Greek debt.

Pöhl: Yes, and that is harmful. It means that the basic balancing mechanism in the market economy is out of sync.

SPIEGEL: Is it possible that politicians invented the specter of rampant speculation to legitimize a break with the Lisbon Treaty and with the ECB’s rules?

Pöhl: Of course that’s possible. In fact, it’s even plausible.

SPIEGEL: What will be the political consequences of this crisis?

Pöhl: The whole mechanism of the European community will change. The EU is a federation of nations, not a federal republic. But now the European Commission will have a lot more power and more authority as well as the potential to interfere in national budget law. That, however, is constitutionally problematic in Germany.

SPIEGEL: But this could also be construed as a positive development. For a long time, critics have been saying that before we can have a genuine currency union we need common fiscal and economic policy. Surely this crisis has brought the EU closer to that goal.

Pöhl: Yes, that is the logical next step of our union, but we must bear the burden. You only have to look at what it is going to cost us Germans. I would have preferred that things hadn’t gone quite this far.

…

SPIEGEL: If you were president of the Bundesbank today, would you be ordering the printing of German marks just in case they became necessary?

Pöhl: No, no, we have not gone that far quite yet. In my opinion, the euro is in no danger. Perhaps one of the smaller countries will have to leave the currency union.

SPIEGEL: How should that work?

Pöhl: It would involve Greece, if we stick with the case we were discussing, reintroducing the drachma.

SPIEGEL: But Greece doesn’t seem to have any interest in doing that — and it would be against European agreements to force Athens to leave the currency union.

Pöhl: That is correct. As long as a country receives such massive support, it would, of course, have no interest in turning its back on the euro.

SPIEGEL: You think that could change?

Pöhl: On the mid and long term, I wouldn’t rule it out.

Via: