FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Europe’s Banking Union: the Big Fix?

by

Last month, MEPs finally signed off on European banking union. This, we are told, is the big fix to the out of control banking system that caused the 2008 economic meltdown that has rocked Europe ever since.

We are told that whereas in the United States regulators and the central bank took swift acted to stem bank problems, the patchwork of national interests across Europe prevented countries from forging a united front to do the same. But this is all to change with a ‘union’ and the clean-up of banks’ books.

A new European authority will have the power to wind up or restructure failing banks – the so-called Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). And a common fund, financed by bank levies, will be established so that emergency cash can be injected into failing banks. The scheme introduces new rules making it easier to make bondholders and even large depositors of failing banks pick up losses. There will also be an obligation for countries to ensure that schemes are in place to guarantee the first 100,000 euros (82,496.41 pounds) in any savings account.

“The banking union completes the economic and monetary union, puts an end to the era of massive bail-outs and ensures taxpayers will no longer foot the bill when banks face difficulties,” Michel Barnier the European official in charge of regulation stated.

A shiny new future, in short. Should we believe him? First of all, just check out the language of Martin Schulz, the European Parliament’s president. He said: “From now on, taxpayers will not systematically foot the bill for bank losses.” ‘Systematically’ is the word to focus on. As Reuters writes, ‘the conundrum of what to do if a very large bank wobbles remains.’

The reality is that the common fund of 55 billion euros is tiny. Compare that to the balance sheet of France’s ‘too-big-to-fail’ BNP Paribas of two trillion euros. And the reality is we don’t know the health of Europe’s banks. So called ‘stress tests’ are only going to be finalised in October and one key indicator –  bad or non-performing loans not covered by capital  – makes up about a third of the equity across the 20 banks. In the cases of three banks bad debts not provided for exceeded their total equity. In January, one broker report showed 27 of the ECB’s 128 banks failing a simulated stress test, although it is the case that banks set aside tens of billions of euros last year, through raising cash or hoarding profits.

As Raquel Garrido of France’s Front de Gauche, puts it, the common fund is ‘hoax’. Its creation, as with the other elements of banking union, were all done in a mad rush – a perfect excuse to dodge a proper democratic debate. It was absolutely essential to get it done and dusted before the European elections, its proponents argued. However, it turns out that this crucial fund won’t be fully financed for eight years to come. That will be 14 years after the financial crash.

Then there’s the matter that it will be the ECB that will directly oversee the banking union, supervising the eurozone’s biggest banks, with powers to overrule national authorities. That’s the central bank headed by Mario Draghi, the former employee of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank whose chequered history includes a bit of creative accounting to help Greece get into the Euro (and in the process saddling the country with a few extra billion euros of debt).

Handing over such powers to the ECB also means governments relinquishing to unelected officials in Frankfurt yet more control over their financial sector, over the credit needed to keep the wheels of their economies going and people in jobs. What Reuters calls ‘political meddling’ over decisions on shutting banks. This will be particularly damaging to southern European countries. Their weaker banking systems face being taken over by France and Germany, and its financial giants, Deutsche Bank or BNP Paribas, entrenching their position as colonies of the richer north.

And who will be the winners in all this?

Well the same lot that we discover benefited from as much as $300 billion in implicit public subsidies four years after the global financial crisis because governments’ made it quite clear to investors that they would not let them fail, the IMF has recently estimated. That’s right, we are talking about the Eurozone’s big banks, the ones that since 2008 have also enjoyed one billion euros in free money (1% interest rate loans) from the European Central Bank under its Long Term Financing Operation and 4.6 billion euros in state aid.

Corporate Europe Observatory explains:

“[Banking Union] is a guarantee that the single market for financial services is not only protected, but deepened. The adopted rules on banks provide a higher level of harmonisation, making it difficult for member states to impose tougher demands on their banks. To big banks, such a harmonised set of rules makes it easier for them to expand, as they offer predictability.

“The battle of the banking union was never really an open political battle fought in public. The issue is probably too complicated for most. Consequently, the lobbyists of the banks have had a relatively open field in the process. Under the banner of ‘strengthening the single market’, they have seen the banking union as an opportunity to enhance their opportunities, while keeping the concessions to a minimum. In that, they’ve been successful, and can look forward to an era where they can continue with the same behaviour on financial markets, and in the end have the authorities clear up their mess.”

And the losers?

As MEP Philippe Lamberts of the Green Party puts it: “Too big to fail banks are simply too dangerous to exist. As long as systemic financial institutions are allowed to exist in their current shape, taxpayers will remain exposed to paying for the follies of a runaway financial industry.”

But EU governments and the Commission have long dodged calls to separate their investment activities (speculative) from retail (useful, traditional lending to main street). A heavily watered down plan to separate them out will only be put on the table for discussion next year and assuming it is approved, will be implemented in 2017, nine years after the crash and all those promises to crack down on the bankster-speculators. The big banks “vast scale” is “blamed for fuelling risky trading and growth in the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market” but the proposed new rules “signal that European policymakers have largely backed down in the face of banking resistance,” Reuters reports.

So should we believe Monsieur Barnier? On one thing which will be most dear to his heart, as a European commissioner, we can take him at his word. Banking union is a further step down the road to EU integration and a power grab by Brussels and Frankfurt. The question is, will the people benefit? You know the answer to that one.

Tom Gill blogs at www.revolting-europe.com

Tom Gill edits Revolting Europe.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail