IMF proposes a United States of Europe ( which of course means Germany ) with a Eurozone Fiscal Union , Banking Union , Harmonized Employment , Common employment Scheme and " Firewall Tax " ..... Separately , the European Commission may seek an EU bank bailout facility ( boy you can tell the German election is over with all of this stuff being rolled out days later ! )

Friday, September 27, 2013 1:28 PM

IMF Proposes Eurozone Fiscal Union, Banking Union, Harmonized Employment, Common Unemployment Scheme, Firewall Tax

In the biggest nannycrat proposal ever, the IMF announced it's vision for the United States of Europe (without using that name to describe the proposal).

Via translation from El Pais, please consider IMF suggests common unemployment benefits for the eurozone.

 The IMF proposes more discipline, more fiscal integration, and the creation of a common unemployment benefit and risk sharing scheme to help the club of countries that have experienced damage in this crisis currency.

Fund staff argues that ommon fiscal governance, along with the banking union, are necessary to offset the "weaknesses in the architecture" of the eurozone, reinforce the club of 17 to future crises. In addition, the study argues that the most urgent step to acquire banking union goes through a firewall overall tax.

The pillars of a fiscal union , according to IMF staff, go through a series of mechanisms to pool the risks and avoid further costly bailouts, always subject to greater fiscal discipline. The tighter control over public finances of each country, which occur revenues and expenditures, is the condition of these forward-looking statements, both from the point of view of the IMF and Brussels.

Obedience and monitoring standards would allow the creation of a liquidity fund for troubled countries including a common unemployment benefit or "rainy day fund".

This fund would be nurtured with an amount equivalent to between 1.5% and 2% of the GDP of member countries, which is in line for a fund with Germany for its most troubled regions.

Harmonisation of Employment

But there is much work ahead for something like a common shutdown could crystallize into a eurozone labor markets as diverse. "A common insurance scheme would require a minimum of harmonization in taxation of employment plus pension rights, which would be a positive step towards a single labor market," the report warns.

The fiscal integration also requires a kind of Eurobonds or form of joint financing, led by the center of power and backed by global revenue, which would be possible once common tax structure is already underway.

A single monitoring mechanism should complement a firm commitment to establish a strong firewall " to anchor confidence in the banking system. " And this will require common money too: "While some insurance against banking fiascos be funded by the industry itself, a common fund for recapitalization, liquidation and deposit guarantee would reduce the risk of infection."

The True Vision - A United State of Europe

That is the most comprehensive vision for the United States of Europe we have seen yet. And I propose an immediate up-or-down vote, right now, in all of the 17 member countries.

I am quite sure the unemployed in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy will be 100% in favor of a common unemployment scheme, especially if Germany would foot the bill. And France would always vote for more taxes as a matter of course, the bigger the tax hikes the better.

Common work rules would have to be along the lines of the French work rules of course. And who could possibly be against common pension schemes at the expense of Germany and the Northern European countries?

The more I think about this the more perfect the proposal is. It is complete with every nuance the nannycrats want. So let's not delay. We need an up-or-down vote right now, not by the governments of each country, but rather by the citizens of each county who can decide if they like all of the proposed benefits and taxes necessary to make the United States of Europe work.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Thursday, September 26, 2013

An EU bank bailout facility?

Bloomberg reports on a potential proposal by the European Commission to alter the EU’s ‘Balance of Payments’ (BoP) facility to allow it to aid banks which may need to be recapitalised in the aftermath of next year’s ECB Asset Quality Review and the EU's bank stress tests.

As a reminder, the BoP facility was originally created to aid countries with currency crises that may impact the rest of the EU or the fundamental stability of the state. It has since been adjusted to apply to only non-euro members and seen its scope widened slightly with its budget increased to €50bn due to the financial crisis. It is guaranteed by the EU budget and therefore ultimately by the member states - with the UK underwriting around 14-15%.

What is the rationale behind this move?

• Next year’s stress tests are hopefully going to be the most stringent and comprehensive so far, yet there are fears that, without clear aid to help banks found to be in trouble, supervisors may shy away from revealing any deep problems.
• This is backed somewhat by the ECB’s insistence that the stress tests will not be able to be effective unless there are clear backstops for banks in place.
• The eurozone does have some form of backstop in the shape of the ESM which can provide aid to banks (via states) but also has a direct bank recap tool.

Can it be done?

• The most likely approach would be to use Article 352 (the flexibility clause) to adjust the regulation establishing the facility.
• However, the facility also has a treaty base, Article 143, which specifies lending to states. For this reason, it seems unlikely that a direct recapitalisation tool could be added but a credit line which is lent to states to solely aid banks could potentially be. This could come with less or more specific financial sector conditions than other loans (for example see ESM and Spanish bank bailout).
• This would require unanimous approval in the Council. So far, Germany and the UK have expressed scepticism based on the fear that a backstop would reduce the pressure on banks (and their governments) to reform and clean up ahead of the tests.

Could it be significant?

• Yes. If it were approved it would create a collective fund to salvage banks should a member state be unable to deal with the problem alone. If the UK were to approve the move it could open up the door for future pay-outs of funds to aid other countries' banks – decisions taken under qualified majority voting. 
• Furthermore, it also seems to be driven by events in the eurozone. Firstly, it seems an attempt to extend this centralised banking union model (to break the so-called sovereign-bank loop) to the entire EU - even though the other countries have already rejected this to a large extent. If they really wanted to join the banking union, which some might, there will be chances for them to engage directly.
• The creation of the fund would raise some serious questions. Will this backstop exist without strong influence over the amount of risk taken in or the relative size of banking sectors to governments across the EU? If so, surely that creates a moral hazard problem. If not, it would necessitate far greater powers over member states' financial sectors. 
• Lastly, it highlights the level of concern around the health of many of the EU's banks. This was furthered by the EBA's recent assessment that the largest EU banks are some €70bn short of where they need to be to meet the new Basel III rules.