The European Sting is Your democratic, independent and top quality political newspaper specialized in European Union News. Unique Features: iSting & Harry StingThe European Sting - Critical News & Insights on European Politics, Economy, Foreign Affairs, B (2024)

European Parliament, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Public Hearing with Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank. (From left to right) Costas Mavrides, Alfred Sant, Renato Soru, Pervenche Beres, Jakob von Weizsacker. (EP Audiovisual Services, Brussels РBelgium, 31/3/2015, © European Union 2015 РEP).

This week the European Parliament and the European Central Bank rather unknowingly or unwillingly failed to protect the European citizens from the attacks of ‘money sharks’. In two different occasions the two most important European institutions secured the bankers reign on peoples’ money. Let us take one thing at a time.

When the average hard working European citizen reads or hears news about the ‘financial stability and confidence’ he or she immediately thinks that it is about protecting his/hers bank deposits or their retirement pensions. Unfortunately it’s not like that. Let’s see why. When it comes to core decisions, in the political or administrative levels about security, confidence and regulations in the financial markets, things become so complex that it’s almost impossible for the average person to understand. This is also true for the legislators at the European and the national levels.

In reality, the complexity and the ‘epistemology’ in this domain are especially planned to hide the facts. For example the wider public is still not informed that the 2008-2010 financial crisis erupted exactly because ‘financial stability and confidence’ were altogether absent, and the entire financial system in the developed world functioned without adequate legislative or administrative rules.

A hunting place for financial sharks

Every financier or banker was and still is free to do whatever they liked with other people’s money. Actually the ‘grey banking’ and the ‘grey financial system’ continuously expands at the expense of classical banking. The traditional business of banking, that is deposits and loans to and from the real economy, is gradually diminishing. Bankers prefer doing risky business in all kinds of derivatives or gamble in every conceivable market (real or financial). Of course they keep the profits and charge the losses to taxpayers.

The latest proofs of the lawlessness that prevails in the dark universe of the financial world come from the European Parliament, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. Those are the very authorities which are presumably there to protect the average citizen’s deposits and superannuation schemes from the financial sharks. Let’s start with the European legislators.

The legislators didn’t know

Last Tuesday the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee issued a Press release ostensibly commenting on the new rules the EU is about to introduce on financial benchmarking and security. Not to forget that already more than two years have passed after the scandal of the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) and EURIBOR (Euro Interbank Offered Rate) rigging broke out (interest rate benchmarking) involving the most respected financial houses of the developed world (Barclays, Deutsche Bank, RBS, Société Générale, UBS, Citigroup, Crédit Agricole, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase and the broker RP Martin).

Those benchmarks are used as the base for loans, derivatives, futures, options and a God knows what other financial products. In short those banks have been cheating their clients in more than one way. At that time (the Commission opened the proceedings in February 2013) Joaquín Almunia, the then responsible Commission Vice-President in charge of competition policy said: “What is shocking about the LIBOR and EURIBOR scandals is not only the manipulation of benchmarks, which is being tackled by financial regulators worldwide, but also the collusion between banks who are supposed to be competing with each other’.

What effective rules?

The European Parliament boasts now that it has introduced effective rules against financial benchmark setting rigging. Last Tuesday’s Press release goes like this “A draft EU law to make the benchmarks used to price EU citizens’ mortgages, loans and bonds more trustworthy was backed by the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee on Tuesday. The text (lead MEP Cora van Nieuwenhuizen, ALDE, NL) aims to clean up the benchmark-setting process, by curbing conflicts of interest like those that led to the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rigging scandals of recent years”.

But how are the EU legislators going to control those mighty banks? Last Monday in view of the Tuesday’s 31 March vote the EU Parliamentary Committee issued another Press release saying that “…critical benchmarks that track a large volume of trade will have to comply with principles set out by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) about how they are produced and calculated. They will be overseen by a college of supervisors chaired by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and comprising national supervisors”.

The wobbly caretaker

What is this IOSCO organization though whose principles can secure the financial assets of the average working European? According its own words “IOSCO develops, implements, and promotes adherence to internationally recognized standards for securities regulation. It works intensively with the G20 and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) on the global regulatory reform agenda”. In reality IOSCO is a loose international organization of national securities commissions. It comprises 124 ordinary member states, 12 associate members and 62 affiliate members.

Its principles and authority are so loose that it is completely incapable of imposing any effective rule or control on financial benchmarking. It hasn’t even recognized that there was a racket with LIBOR and EURIBOR. It calls it an “attempted manipulation of benchmarks”. In reality the European Parliament has bestowed the protection of the financial assets of the European citizens to a completely slack organization which can protect nobody and nothing.

ECB lost the legal fight

Now let’s turn to the new measures allegedly meant to enhance financial stability in centrally cleared markets in the EU, which the European Central Bank and the Bank of England just announced. Before doing that one should keep in mind that the London City and the British real estate and other markets are the world’s largest washing machines, whitewashing any important amount of money. The British bankers were the pioneers in our brave new financial world. That’s why during the latest financial Armageddon the first western lender to go bankrupt was the British bank Northern Rock at a cost of around £50 billion to the British taxpayers.

On 29 March the European Central Bank and the Bank of England announced “a series of measures aimed at enhancing financial stability in relation to centrally cleared markets within the EU”. In reality they did exactly the opposite. The result of their joint action will be a relaxation of the security and stability rules, because they opened the mainland European markets to London’s mega-sharks.

The devil in the details

In detail now, it must be mentioned that this whole affair of the joint action of the two central banks comes after the British authorities won a case in the European Court. The Court opened the way to a British financial ‘novelty’, the UK Central Counterparties-CCPs, to offer their services of financial clearing in the Eurozone, from which they were initially excluded by the ECB. According to the relevant ECB announcement “In its judgment on 4 March 2015 in case T-496/11 brought by the UK Government, the EU General Court “[annulled] the Eurosystem Oversight Policy Framework published by the ECB in so far as it sets a requirement for CCPs involved in the clearing of securities to be located within the Eurozone”.

Of course the ECB had very good reasons to exclude those risky private British ‘clearing houses’ from offering their services (clearing in all kinds of securities and tradable assets) in mainland Europe. According to the ECB “A CCP places itself between the original counterparties to a transaction, effectively guaranteeing that if one counterparty fails, the CCP will continue to perform on the transaction to the other party”. The British economic establishment aims at promoting their CCPs as the new pivotal agents in the new financial environment, where all important transactions will be carried out through central clearing agents.

A brave new financial world

More so if the G20 soon makes it obligatory that all the standardized over-the-counter transactions in derivatives be centrally cleared. However nobody can imagine what will become of our brave financial system if a CCP goes bust. Mind you however that the British-inspired central clearings will be carried out by a lot of private agents without strict monitoring, rules or adequate reserves. In reality, a part of the lucrative risk management may now gradually slip to CCPs.

However, given the decision of the EU Court, the ECB tries now to offset the risks of allowing those totally unsafe British CCPs to offer their services in the Eurozone markets. So the two central banks concluded the following agreement, “The ECB and the BoE are today (29 March 2015) extending the scope of their standing swap line in order, should it be necessary and without pre-committing to the provision of liquidity, to facilitate the provision of multi-currency liquidity support by both central banks to CCPs established in the UK and euro area respectively. CCP liquidity risk management remains first and foremost the responsibility of the CCPs themselves”.

What the ECB and the BoE are doing?

In reality what the two central banks are doing is to make the EU and the British taxpayers responsible to offer the needed liquidity to keep the market going, when a CCP fails. What else could a financial villain hope for? Pocket the profits and ‘nationalise’ the losses! And there are plenty of CCPs in London.

All those arrangements in the European Parliament, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England are to facilitate the extravagant life of financial sharks and promise to bailout their establishments of paper cards if they go bankrupt. The EU legislators offer a token protection to the EU hard working savers/depositors the nature of which they don’t understand. At the same time the ECB is forced to offer the needed liquidity, in case a British financial crook in the form of a CCP goes bankrupt. In any case the question remains, who can control the CCPs if they decide to increase their revenue by withholding a clearing for some hours or days or by accepting as real a delusive or phony transaction?

In short nothing is as it looks in our brave new financial world. In reality it is exactly the opposite of what it says it is.

Related

The European Sting is Your democratic, independent and top quality political newspaper specialized in European Union News. Unique Features: iSting & Harry StingThe European Sting - Critical News & Insights on European Politics, Economy, Foreign Affairs, B (2024)

FAQs

What are the criticisms of the European Union? ›

The main drivers of Euroscepticism have been beliefs that integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state, that the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency, that it is too bureaucratic and wasteful, that it encourages high levels of immigration, or perceptions that it is a ...

What is the primary purpose of the European Union Quizlet? ›

The main goal of the European Union is to include as many European countries as possible and to. However, there are also some other goals the European Union has, which are more connected to the internal political and justice systems of its members.

Why is the European Union so important? ›

The aims of the European Union within its borders are: promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens. offer freedom, security and justice without internal borders, while also taking appropriate measures at its external borders to regulate asylum and immigration and prevent and combat crime.

What is a political union in Europe that wants to establish common economic foreign security and justice policies? ›

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political union between 27 European countries. The EU that we know today has its roots in several treaties signed in the aftermath of the Second World War.

What is a main disadvantage of the European Monetary Union? ›

The monetary policy of the European Monetary Union is decided and carried out by the Central European Bank. The main disadvantage of a monetary union is the lack of independence in monetary policy making by individual states.

What is a criticism of the EU ETS? ›

Among the key conclusions is that the lack of flexibility in the structure of the EU ETS cap, and its inability to adjust to radically altered wider economic conditions in the shape of the financial crisis, threatens to undermine its efficacy in providing incentives for abatement.

What is the primary purpose of the European Union to create a common? ›

The EU established a common market the same year to promote the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital across its internal borders.

What is the main purpose of the European Union responses? ›

EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the internal market; enact legislation in justice and home affairs; and maintain common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development.

What does the European Union aim primarily to ensure? ›

EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within the internal market, enact legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries, and regional development.

Why is the European Union unique? ›

In this sense, democracy in the EU comes from the member states rather than the Union itself (Rumford 2002, p215). Hence, the EU is a unique political system because it “governs without government” but also has a democratic tradition through its member states.

Why European Union is so powerful? ›

Business, growth and trade

The EU is the largest trade bloc in the world. It is the world's biggest exporter of manufactured goods and services, and the biggest import market for over 100 countries. Free trade among its members was one of the EU's founding principles. This is possible thanks to the single market.

What are the disadvantages of the European Union? ›

The Main Disadvantages of the EU Membership
  • 1 – Fewer Borders = Increased Danger. ...
  • 2 – Local governments are powerless to act in some instances. ...
  • 3 – Lack of transparency & money costs. ...
  • 4 – The European Union favours bigger countries.
Mar 23, 2022

Is the United states in the European Union? ›

In this sense, the USA is a member and indeed an influential but virtual member of the European Union. The official American perceptions regarding all the critical issues are represented in the spectrum of political perceptions that are put forward in the European political state of affairs.

Do Europeans like the EU? ›

Across the 14 EU member countries surveyed, a median of 67% hold favorable views of the European Union while 31% have an unfavorable view. Many of the Central and Eastern European countries surveyed hold strongly positive views of the political union.

What government does the European Union have? ›

The EU treaties declare the Union to be based on representative democracy, and direct elections take place in the European Parliament. The Parliament, together with the Council, form the legislative arm of the EU.

What are the negative effects of EU? ›

The European Union has one of the world's largest environmental footprints per capita, with our unsustainable lifestyles built on the exploitation of resources and labour in other parts of the world.

What are the criticisms of the EU taxonomy? ›

The first criticism is that the Taxonomy is binary: a company not meeting the thresholds would not be deemed sustainable and would lose access to financial markets. This assumes that there are many taxonomy-aligned investment opportunities to which investors could re-orient their capital.

What is one con of the European Union? ›

Con: drawn-out process

The "interfering" of member nations has become the biggest obstacle, he added, and EU members need to be "serious about the process" of enlargement and "lead rather than obstruct" accessions.

What were the negative effects of European expansion? ›

Colonization ruptured many ecosystems, bringing in new organisms while eliminating others. The Europeans brought many diseases with them that decimated Native American populations. Colonists and Native Americans alike looked to new plants as possible medicinal resources.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Annamae Dooley

Last Updated:

Views: 6806

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (65 voted)

Reviews: 88% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Annamae Dooley

Birthday: 2001-07-26

Address: 9687 Tambra Meadow, Bradleyhaven, TN 53219

Phone: +9316045904039

Job: Future Coordinator

Hobby: Archery, Couponing, Poi, Kite flying, Knitting, Rappelling, Baseball

Introduction: My name is Annamae Dooley, I am a witty, quaint, lovely, clever, rich, sparkling, powerful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.