could ask for the same conditions and adjustments? that ’ s exactly the key problem. there is a discussion about relaxing the conditionality emerging in ireland and portugal, and also in greece this debate is gaining new traction. but foot - dragging on addressing the structural problems will perpetuate the crisis, and the market reaction reflects this concern. why not change those principles and make a softer adjustment? once more, the financial assistance can only buy time but does not address the root causes of the crisis. it is like a painkiller. if you do not ensure that you cure the illness you will be worse off once the effect wears off. i would also doubt that public support for the necessary reforms increases if they are spread even more over time, not to mention public support in the countries guaranteeing the rescue mechanism. bis central bankers ’ speeches in greece, there ’ s a lot of debate on the need to renegotiate parts of the program. is there space to make some changes? the key point is that there is an agreement that all involved parties including the greek government have signed. if the agreements were now seen as being open to renegotiation, then for instance the portuguese prime minister would have difficulties facing his parliament and explaining that he is to implement reforms. i think that would be a very dangerous strategy. it would harm those countries that are implementing reforms very quietly. greece is usually described as a special case. could that be so in this case, in a positive sense, allowing greece to adjust the program? greece is already receiving special treatment. adjustment will be spread over a much longer time. greece benefitted from an exceptional debt relief. you see, greece got much more support than any other country. relaxing this already softened framework even further cannot be an option. one of the leaders of the two parties that could win says that the greek government would request a total change of the program. what response would a unilateral move from greece create? who will be elected in greece is a democratic decision that we all have to accept. but also the newly elected greek government is bound by existing agreements. if it unilaterally opted out of the programme, it would mean that in my view the basis for more financial help will no longer be given. greece would have taken its decision but would also have to bear the consequences. we will all be affected, but my assessment is that greece will be worse off than everybody else. have you prepared any contingency plans

of europe ”, however, it was self - evident that such incremental measures would gradually move europe deeper into federalism. indeed, this clear sense of direction was, in their way, a key motor to keep the integration process moving forward. since then, the european integration process has tended to move in waves. there have been times when it has stalled, such as the during the “ empty chair crisis ” in the 1960s. and there have been times when it has unexpectedly sped ahead, such as with the launch of the single market act in the 1980s, and the commitment to economic and monetary union ( emu ) in the 1990s. but today, there is some confusion as to where we stand. in some ways, the degree of ambition to achieve a full political federation seems to have become more limited, which has led some to wonder whether the integration process will lose its forward momentum. this reflects in part the failure of the constitution for europe in 2005. the unsuccessful referendums in france and the netherlands can be interpreted in different ways, but they clearly suggested that the people of the european union were not ready to embark on 1 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches the road towards full political federalism – or at least not at that point in time. it is also fair to say that the appetite for such federalism today is not much different from in 2005. in recent years there have been growing doubts about the european project. at the same time, polls consistently show that european citizens support federal decisionmaking in a wide range of areas, ranging from energy to migration to the fight against terrorism. this reflects the fact that the benefits of federalism are much broader than its economic, fiscal and monetary dimensions. indeed, since the eu was originally devised as a peace - keeping device, it is not surprising that one of the early initiatives for european integration was a motion to establish a european defence community, although this failed in 1954. while a full defence union is probably still unrealistic, there are increasing signs that further integration in this area could happen in the near future. the commission reflection paper published on 7 june of this year lays out proposals for establishing a european defence fund, which could form the nucleus of a future defence union. last week, the european council welcomed the significant progress made by member states in preparing a permanent structured cooperation ( pesco ) in the field of defence, and the work done on the commission ’ s proposal for a european defence industrial development programme ( edidp ).