Kyriakos Pierrakakis raised Europeans, calling for political courage to implement the necessary economic transformation.

The need for decisive action to change Europe’s productive model was at the heart of the statement made by the Minister of Economy and Finance at the ECOFIN.

The President of the Eurogroup, addressing the members of the EU Council of Ministers at the open meeting, underlined that these changes require vigour and a clear vision.

Setting out a crucial dilemma for the future of European cohesion and development, Pierrakakis posed a clear question to those present: “The question is, do we want to be the generation of politicians who will unleash the potential of the European Union or not?“.

The detailed statement of K. Pierrakakis:

“The dilemmas behind the debate on the Savings and Investment Union seem to keep coming back. If I had to put it in simple terms, the key question is this: do we stick to the talk or do we move on to the action? Are we going to continue to repeat that we agree with the Savings and Investment Union, but then put forward our national reservations – the ‘yes, but’? Or are we going to go ahead with implementation?

Two stories come vividly to mind in these discussions, because both, each in their own way, have common features whether we are talking about cross-border banking consolidation or digital euro or Capital Markets Union elements. I will come back to these stories at the end of my speech, but let’s get to the technical issues first.

We support the European Commission’s proposal. We need to strengthen the capabilities of ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) because, frankly, we cannot do the same thing 27 times. And especially as technological developments accelerate, this will become increasingly difficult. Can we maintain capabilities at the national level? Yes, we can. We have already done so through the Single Supervisory Mechanism of the European Central Bank. It is a very useful example. We have used it in the past: centralised supervision can be combined with decentralised implementation and enforcement. Overall, the degree of supervision can be differentiated according to operational needs.

There are objective criteria we can use: cross-border activity, operational importance for the market, the need to ensure a level playing field. These can guide supervision in each case. And I think Bertrand Dumont mentioned earlier a very interesting framework for finding common ground.

Now turning to the two stories to conclude: The first is the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The UK is no longer on the table, but it is a very telling example – Ireland knows it well – where the UK chose systemic efficiency over national protection. We’re talking about tariffs, an issue that is again topical globally. This move, i.e. choosing economic efficiency and tearing down barriers and protectionism, then unleashed the economic potential of the British Empire. It required political courage to achieve economic transformation. Believe me, I come from a country that has demonstrated this at the national level. And it’s paying off socially, politically and economically.

The latest story – and the first time I’ve ever mentioned anything from ancient Greece in my contribution to ECOFIN – is from the Persian Wars. When the Oracle of Delphi said that “wooden walls” would save the city, some interpreted it literally: to actually build walls around Athens. But the more open-minded people of the time, and in particular Themistocles, interpreted “wooden walls” as boats. And so the famous Battle of Salamis was won.

The lesson is clear: do you open or close? Do you choose to tear down the walls and release the potential, or not? At the end of the day, such discussions are more philosophical than technical. Do we want to be the generation of politicians who simply protect the same things over and over again, or the one who unleashes the potential of this Union? I think the question is rhetorical.

Thank you.”