Lisbon Treaty's new voting weights kick in - Eurozone gains a majority

It has been coming down the road for some time but what we once called the "Lisbon Treaty's ticking time bomb" has finally gone off. The eurozone will now have a 'Qualified Majority' in the EU Council, meaning that any UK attempts at forming last minute blocking minorities will now be that bit harder.

Eurozone gains a majority in the Council (old rules left, new rules right)

What are the new rules? 
There are two key differences (contained within Article 16 (4) here) whose effect can be seen on the diagram above:

• The first is the lowering of the winning vote threshold to 65% as seen by the red arrow. 
• The second major change is that the voting weights will now be recalculated each year according to a state's population, as calculated by Eurostat, giving greater weight to larger states (the majority of which are in the eurozone).
• There is one important caveat - as a concession to Poland, at any point until 31 March 2017 a state can request a specific vote is done by the old rules (on the left above) even though the new rules are now the norm.

How damaging could this voting change potentially be?
It goes without saying that the eurozone is not a cohesive block, and interests within the EU cut across the eurozone / non eurozone divide. However, that being said, given increased coordination within the eurozone due to the crisis there is a real danger that, where the eurozone has a collective interest, pre-meetings between eurozone states will become the final decision making body in the EU and could allow a eurozone 'caucus' to emerge. If that happened the UK would be placed in an invidious position.

The danger is real but not all is lost, on some issues the UK could still remain within a 'Qualified Majority'. For example, a block of economically liberal net contributors - dubbed the Northern Alliance - of Germany, The UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Denmark would still (just) have a blocking minority of 36%. This alliance could use its influence on issues such as the EU Budget (as it has done before) and the US/EU free trade negotiations (and could well play an important role in helping to keep the TTIP alive).

There is also a positive sign that the non-Euro state's legitimate interests are being recognised. Open Europe has long proposed a system of "Double majority Voting" whereby EU laws have to gain a majority of 'Ins' as well as 'Outs', in order to prevent eurozone caucusing. Such a mechanism was recently adopted by the European Banking Authority. Furthermore, there is a wider acceptance of the need to offer those outside the eurozone, such as the UK, safeguards on certain issues - as demonstrated by the recent article by the British and German finance ministers in the FT.

The change in the voting weights and procedure is a subtle but important shift. It certainly opens the door for eurozone caucusing and makes it harder to get over the already high hurdle of forming a blocking minority on issues which do not sit well with certain member states. That said, awareness of the threat has grown along with acceptance that a new balance needs to be found between eurozone ins and outs. This should help mitigate the impact but it will still be important to watch how this develops.

Updated: Commission silent as foundation for increased EU budget contributions remains unclear

Update 24/10/14 17.05:
Outgoing Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has just given his press conference which frankly did not clear much up. Barroso insisted, as the Dutch position below does, that this payment demand is part of an annual adjustment which is based off of the revised figures for annual GNI (which are produced by national statistics agencies and then verified by eurostat).

Essentially, he is suggesting that the final figures for the UK in 2013 proved to be so far ahead  of expectations that they altered the UK's share of the budget significantly.

This is not a completely implausible scenario but it leaves some glaring gaps. Firstly, its hard to imagine the economy outperformed so much and other EU economies underperfomed so significantly that the UK has to stump up another €2.1bn. Secondly, this doesn't fit with the leaked doc from the FT. As discussed below, the figures clearly seem to relate to a longer term assessment based off the ESA changes to the way GNI is calculated.

All that said, its becoming increasingly clear that the positions of the Commission, UK and others are not quite compatible so something will have to give in a negotiation.

***********************************************************

Currently, there is still no clear explanation for where the demand for increased contributions to the EU budget came from or exactly how it was calculated - see our comprehensive analysis here. While the Dutch and the Brits are both concerned about being asked to contribute more, they are actually putting slightly different versions of events forward. These two split the prevailing theories about how this has come about.

The first version of events, pushed by the Dutch, suggests that this is not as surprising has been made out since it is actually down to the regular assessment of the four cycle of VAT receipts and tax returns related to GDP of countries. When asked by Dutch BNR radio ‘Does this revision have anything to do with the new accounting method?’, Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem responded,

“No, this seems to come from a [annual] source revision which is something different from the statistical method that is used to calculate [the GDP].” 

The point that surprised the Dutch was that the demand came out at almost double what they had forecast and there is no clear explanation of why this is.

The other version of events ties into the document leaked by the FT. Judging by this document it is hard not to see this cost as a result of a calculation based off the introduction of the new European System of Accounts 2010. The UK is suggesting it was unaware of such a significant overhaul to the EU budget calculations and has not been included in the discussion around the changes. The document clearly looks to alter the budget contributions over the period between the introduction of the previous system of accounts and the end of 2013. The total figures also line up with the reports and are yet to be rejected or even disputed by anyone. The fact the figures are so large also fits more with this version of events than the regular adjustment - in this sense something will have to give (size of demand primarily) for the first version of events to be true.

What do they agree on?

• There is clear agreement that this has been handled poorly by the Commission, who is still yet to provide any clarity into the debate or explain exactly how much they are asking for and why.
• Furthermore, the demand for payment immediately also seems to be a miscalculation by the Commission which caught some unawares at least in terms of the size, if not the timing.

While this may seem trivial it is vitally important that the Commission makes clear and gets to the bottom of what is going on here. Ultimately, Cameron’s options will be very different depending on whether the demand is driven by a unique one off event (such as long terms GDP changes) or part of a regular assessment of the EU budget. In any case, whatever the source serious questions need to be asked about how a bill of €2.1bn can materialise with little or no political discussion.

Why is the UK being asked to pay in more to the EU budget and what can it do about it?

There are a number of headlines today around the EU’s request for a further €2.1bn from the UK in terms of its contribution to the EU’s budget.

Below we breakdown exactly how and why this has happened and what options the UK has now.

How has this happened?

• The European Commission has launched a review of EU budget shares (based of VAT receipts and Gross National Income [GNI]) going back to 1995.
• This is tied in with the introduction of the new European System of Accounts (ESA) 2010 which came into force in September. This is a new approach to assess the true value of a country’s economy (its GDP) by counting some activities which are often missed. Many of you will have read the countless headlines about how GDP will now try to quantify the value of prostitution and the drug trade. However, the new calculations also give more weight to research & development and other softer types of investment. The Commission has estimated that these adjustments will push most member states GDP up, albeit by varying degrees.
• Essentially, since 1995 the UK has performed better than expected and better than many of the other EU member states. As such its economy is larger than originally thought. Under the review this means that its share of the EU budget – which is calculated off the back of GDP and population as a share of overall EU GDP and population – has increased.
• The EU is also in the process of producing an amendment to the annual budget which we discussed here. At some point, very recently, the EU has decided to almost combine the two issues possibly causing a speed up in the payment date for this €2.1bn lump sum.

Why has everyone been caught off guard?

• While the annual amendments to the budget are expected and usual (though often unnecessary and far too high as we have pointed out numerous times) this adjustment on GDP terms is unprecedented and seems to be largely a one off – as such it has caught most people off guard.
• It also seems that the release has been kept under wraps for some time. While the amending budget has been known and discussed for some time, with the final details circulated to member states a week ago in preparation for the current EU summit, the details of this were only released to member states a day ago. Essentially it was somewhat sprung on them ahead of the summit.
• This is exacerbated by the fact that this is clearly an extensive long term process and that the ESA 2010 adjustment has been running for years. To say the release and interaction with member states on this issue has been poorly handled would be a massive understatement.

What are the UK’s options now?

• First, it’s clear the UK is not alone in its outrage. The Netherlands has been asked to pay in a further €640m, while Italy has been asked for €340m. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has called this “an unpleasant surprise which raises a lot of questions”, adding, “when I say go to the bottom of this, it means to look at all aspects, including legal ones. It is still too early to run ahead on this.”
• The first option is to get an agreement to deduct any payments from future budget contributions. This would avoid having to pay in a lump sum now and also mean that it on net the UK does not pay any extra.
• The second option would be to secure a political or legal agree to ignore these uprated GDP shares and stick with the originals. This should be doable through a vote in the European Council. That said, because some members are getting a rebate – France and Germany in particular – this could prove a very tricky agreement to strike.
• As Rutte has already pointed out, countries may have legal recourse. Exactly what form this could take is unknown but the retroactive nature of the cost and its lack of discussion and warning could provide some grounds.
• Lastly, the UK (and the Netherlands) could simply refuse to pay. As large net contributors to the EU budget, there is little that others can do to force them to pay. Obviously the EU could launch its own legal action in terms of infraction proceedings; however, the maximum fine for the UK is around €225m on an annual basis – much less than it is being asked to stump up here. This could also be combined with the point above, with the UK refusing to pay until the legal proceedings have run their course. ***see update below***

Open Europe’s take
While this does not necessarily seem to be a political stitch up from the EU there is no doubt that it is unreasonable and politically irresponsible. Retroactively taxing someone over 20 years is fundamentally unfair. The fact that the UK and Netherlands are being punished for doing better than expected and better than others almost encapsulates everything that is wrong with the EU’s approach – particularly when the Eurozone economy is struggling to find any growth.

Once again the EU has failed to learn any lessons from the previous budget negotiations and has helped to feed those who want to leave the EU, possibly ultimately shooting itself in the foot. Still, what's interesting is that in a debate marred by splits, the UK political class is almost entirely united in its outrage against this move. It is ironic that in the week when one poll found British support for EU membership at its highest since 1991, the Commission has managed to unite everyone from Lib Dem MEPs to UKIP in outrage. If Cameron manages to resist the demand somehow, he would be able to score a massive victory.

Update 24/10/14 12:05:
One point to add regarding the refusing to pay option and the potential fines. On top of the potential fine from infraction proceedings mentioned above, the amount of €2.1bn will be charged 2.5% interest (standard 2% above the Bank of England base rate currently 0.5%), which increases by 0.25% for every additional month which the outstanding amount is not paid off. Such interest could clearly mount up very quickly and become very expensive. If the UK is eventually forced to accept £2.1bn figure, then it could clearly turn out to be very costly. Ultimately, though, if the UK is prepared to play hard ball, it would lead to a stand-off that will would need to be resolved by a political negotiation. Such disputes rarely reach such escalated levels and resolutions are normally found before costs mount up. 

EU top jobs: will Matteo Renzi and Mrs. Tusk get their way?

Herman waves goodbye to the European
Council Presidency - who will succeed him?

As we laid out in our flash analysis yesterday, the outcome of tomorrow's EU 'top jobs' summit is looking increasingly predictable. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's efforts to force his Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini into the High Representative post look set to pay off (with Merkel deciding to keep her powder dry for the almighty scrap over the Economic and Monetary Affairs portfolio). Spanish Europe Minister Íñigo Méndez de Vigo this morning tweeted that Mogherini is the "clear favourite" to take over from Baroness Ashton.

Hence, the flip side of the High Representative post going to the relatively dovish Italy seems to be the European Council President post going to a Central and Eastern European member state, with Poland's Donald Tusk (who has been officially endorsed by David Cameron), Latvia's Valdis Dombrovskis and Estonia's Andrus Ansip all in the mix. Tusk himself is staying tight-lipped, with the Polish government's spokeswoman this morning claiming that he had not yet made up his mind - a notable change of emphasis from Tusk's previous outright denials. Somewhat amusingly, Gazeta Wyborcza reports that the person responsible for potentially changing the Polish Prime Minister's mind is...his wife. Mrs Tusk allegedly thinks the post will mean "[more] prestige, [more] money and less pressure."

Of course, with it being the EU, a last minute surprise cannot be completely ruled out, and as in 2009 we could end up with some completely unexpected names that had not been on the radar. However, given the severity of developments in Ukraine - and also in the Middle East - there will be pressure on EU leaders to take concrete measures instead of wrangling about personalities.

EU leaders will also debate the allocation of key posts within the Commission, and Cameron will be pushing for the UK nominee Lord Hill to get an important economic post like internal market or competition, although these are not set to be announced at least until September 8th.

To follow tomorrow's developments live make sure to stay tuned to @OpenEurope, @LondonerVince and @pswidlicki.

EU leaders fail to agree on the remaining top jobs. Anything to remember from yesterday's summit?

Yesterday's European Council summit ended without an agreement on the remaining EU top jobs. However, something interesting still came out of the meeting.

A socialist (and a woman?) for next EU foreign policy chief

EU leaders appear to have established that the next High Representative for EU foreign policy will be a centre-left politician. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President François Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi all said it in the respective post-summit statements.

Renzi, who is pushing for Italian Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini to get the job, also stressed that, "Everyone agrees that there's no other candidacy than Italy's." Hollande added that the High Representative "will necessarily be a woman, taking into account the image of Europe we have to offer". The French President also made clear that he backs Mogherini's candidacy.

The next European Council President will be appointed by unanimity, and could be one of the 28 sitting EU leaders

As Hollande put it during his press conference, the next European Council President "will be a personality that will have to gather consensus". Similarly, Merkel said, "We need a personality...who can hold us 28 together."

Interestingly, Renzi told Italian journalists:

"Hollande said that, according to him, the next European Council President has to be one of the 28 [sitting EU leaders]. It doesn't matter whether [he/she is] from the eurozone or not. He got broad support [for this idea]."

Speaking after the summit, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed that his name has been informally floated for the post of European Council President (an option we discussed here and here), but that he had not been approached officially.

Tusk reiterated that he would prefer to remain in Poland, but then added:

"We have to play out a complicated game and sometimes in this game the argument goes that all options remain on the table. Therefore, if you ask me if this is impossible, I will say that in the negotiations I prefer to keep every eventuality in reserve in order to achieve the maximum that Poland could possibly achieve."

And that was it. EU leaders will meet again on 30 August to try and wrap up a deal. We will be monitoring the meeting very closely, despite it being on a Saturday.

Will Tusk take over from van Rompuy, and what would it mean for Cameron?

Tusk and Merkel "discuss the World Cup" ahead of today's
European Council summit (h/t Maciek Sokolowski)

Yesterday, we reported that Italian Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini's bid to become the next EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs has run into trouble due to her perceived lack of robustness vis-a-vis Russia and Putin, with around ten or eleven countries - mostly from central and eastern Europe - opposing her candidacy. We argued that one way to try to square the circle would be to appoint someone from that region as European Council president to replace Herman van Rompuy, with Polish PM Donald Tusk the most credible candidate.

Today's Rzeczpospolita splashed the news that Merkel was urging Tusk to take the European Council President post and a few hours ahead of the European Council summit this scenario remains very much in play:

#EU diplos tell me latest ticket making rounds: #Poland's Tusk as @EUCouncil pres to placate East on #Mogherini at #HighRep. Tusk resisting
— Peter Spiegel (@SpiegelPeter) July 16, 2014

It is understandable why this 'dream ticket' could generate widespread support - it ticks a number of boxes; at least one top post goes to a woman, one to someone from central and eastern Europe, an experienced politician as European Council President and a relatively junior one as High Rep. It is clear why Merkel - who has good relations with Tusk - is pushing his candidacy.

So why is Tusk resisting? Well, the main reason - aside from his lack of language skills - is that he has no immediate successor as Polish Prime Minister (not least because he has culled any potential challengers) and Polish domestic politics are particularly precarious in the wake of the Wprost tapes scandal. Law and Justice are currently leading in the polls and it is not clear whether the government would be able to hang on without fresh elections in the event of a Tusk departure. Moreover, Tusk himself feels he still has unfinished business in Poland.

Nonetheless, Mutti can be very persuasive so it cannot be completely discounted, and van Rompuy's successor does not take over until November, which leaves a bit of time for a transition. Given that the role will be very important in broking David Cameron's potential renegotiation, what would it mean if Tusk got the job?

Well let's start with the positives - like the UK, Poland is a non-euro country so shares concerns about eurozone integration potentially disadvantaging non-euro members. Poland is also economically liberal and backs further expansion of the single market and the EU-US free trade deal (TTIP). Poland and the UK have also been close allies on Energy issues and with Russia having emerged as a common concern, both recently worked together to push the EU to adopt a tougher position on Russia. Finally, if Tusk were to get the job, he would be keen to stay close to Merkel, something Cameron could use to his advantage.

However, on the whole, a Tusk Presidency may not be good for Cameron; the two have a strained relationship, exacerbated in recent times by the row over EU free movement and Cameron's (ill-advised) comments about Poles claiming UK benefits (Tusk's former spokesperson Pawel Gras claimed the Polish PM had a proper f****** go at Cameron over these). Moreover, while Cameron and Tusk may agree on specific issues, Tusk is dismissive of Cameron's broader argument that the EU is need of fundamental reform and he is therefore unlikely to go out of his way to help him get significant concessions - Cameron would therefore need to ensure he has enough support among other national leaders to negate this factor.    

Is Cameron the greatest pro-European of all EU heads of state and government?

As we've noted, the Juncker-hangover is already taking hold in parts of the German commentariat. In a hard-hitting piece, Lisa Nienhaus, the Economics Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung argues that the EU "needs more Cameron, not less".

"Hang on a minute, how exactly [was Cameron's opposition to Juncker] a mistake? He only said publicly what many think. Juncker may well be a jovial, cheerful bloke, but he is also an example of political mediocrity, who represents more of the same, a lack of ideas. Whoever wants to change Europe, and above all the opaque, hyper-bureaucratic European Commission, needs someone else in that post."

"Cameron did exactly the right thing. He did not only win the hearts of Brits but also of citizens in many other countries who worry about what will ultimately remain of the European Union, a bureaucratic entity that offers occupational therapy and valediction opportunities for veteran politicians. In this sense, Cameron is the greatest pro-European of all the heads of state and government."

She continues that Juncker did not enjoy a democratic mandate from the German people, and that Angela Merkel made a mistake by backing him:

"The Germans, for example, did not vote for the European People’s Party (of whom Juncker was the leading candidate) but the CDU. Juncker did not feature on the posters, it was Merkel. It is not the case that voters would have driven crazy if Merkel had ultimately arranged that someone else would have become the Commission President. In doing so, she would have shown that she takes this post seriously. Now she has only shown that she doesn't really care who takes this job."

As we have been arguing as well, Nienhaus adds that the European Parliament (EP) does not have more democratic legitimacy than the European Council, and the appointment of Juncker is effectively a power grab by the Parliament. She calls on Germans who share this view to support the UK:

"The heads of state and government are ultimately at least as democratically legitimised as the European Parliament. After all, they won national elections in their respective countries." 

"We can only hope that Angela Merkel does not take offence at [Cameron's] 'No’. We need the Brits in Europe, also for other reasons. The belief of the Brits that freedom is good for the economy, and that not everything has to be regulated by the state, is exactly that what the EU is currently missing."

Nienhaus concludes that the UK is vital for the future of the EU, and that the EU debate is missing some of the UK's beliefs:

"The suspicion among the Brits that the powers that have won want to initiate a redistribution of powers and favour a super-powerful state is widespread. That does not appeal to the liberal Brits. Those in Germany who share this view – and there are many – has to support the UK playing a greater role in the EU. We need more Cameron, not less."

Neinhaus's line is not universally accepted in Germany of course. Others have been sticking the boot into Cameron. Nonetheless, Berlin will be aware that last week’s EU summit is a foretaste of what life in the EU could be if the UK were to leave. Without Britain in the EU, Germany would face a bigger risk of being cornered by a block of Southern eurozone countries lead by Italy and France: something that is absolutely not in its long-term interests.

Italy claims "great victory" over "looser" eurozone fiscal rules

UPDATE (11:30am) - In a separate interview with Quotidiano Nazionale on Saturday, Mr Del Rio explicitly speaks of a "great victory" for Italy at the EU summit.

Here's the full quote:

"The green light to flexibility is the great victory [...] One needs to acknowledge that, thanks to Italy, the work of the summit was not focused on names, but on what to do to move from the time of austerity [rigore] to the true implementation of the [EU's] Stability and Growth Pact. We really won a substantial battle."

ORIGINAL BLOG POST (9:50am)

It was bound to happen.

The battle to make EU fiscal rules more 'flexible' was one of the key issues on the table at last week's European Council summit. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and French President François Hollande were seeking to make their support for Jean-Claude Juncker conditional on a de facto loosening of the rules. So what was the outcome? Well, depends on who you ask. If you ask Renzi's people, this weekend saw a watering down of the rules.

Graziano Del Rio, Renzi's top aide (see picture), claims thus in an interview with today's Corriere della Sera:

Q: Italy comes back from Brussels with the rule of the 'best use' of the flexibility already provided for [by the EU Treaties]. Isn't that too little to speak of a Europe that abandons austerity and of a victory of the Renzi government?

A: No, it's not too little because it is precisely the lack of use of flexibility that has caused our most serious problems.

Q: So, during its semester of [rotating] EU Presidency, Italy won’t ask to raise the [EU's] deficit limit, the famous 3% of GDP? 

A: I don’t think that’s a rule set in stone forever, but we don’t want to be the ones who move it onto sand. No, we won’t ask to raise the 3% [deficit/GDP threshold]. That’s also to avoid suspicions and titters in Europe, keeping in mind that there are other countries that glaringly breach that limit – and even Germany has done it during a certain period of time.

Q: Excuse me, but what does this greater flexibility mean then?

A: It means that, when deficit is calculated, part of the spending is not taken into account, or, better, it is considered as flexible. The [EU’s] Stability Pact effectively becomes looser. It can be done for co-financing, that is the money Italy is obliged to spend to use EU funds. We’re talking about a figure around €7 billion a year. But there’s also the investment clause, that would allow [us] to leave out of the calculation spending with a high social impact […] We’re talking about a figure around €3 billion. In total, flexibility could be worth €10 billion a year, although it can’t be taken for granted that these two items can be added together.

Of course, everyone is talking about 'interpretation', and no-one will say the rules have been formally re-written. Still, this looks as if the Italian government is claiming they have managed to loosen EU fiscal rules, via a new interpretation. Spin or otherwise, Berlin and Frankfurt won't be entirely pleased.

The Juncker row: Were there any concessions to the UK and what happens next?

The UK suffered a major defeat this afternoon when it was outvoted over Juncker becoming the next president of the European Commission. However, this isn't the end of the road for reform – not even close – but it certainly has strengthened the risk of Britain leaving the EU. See here for a our full analysis of this.

So did the UK get any early concessions? In his press conference, David Cameron took his defeat on the chin and said it would make his reform strategy harder:

“Today’s outcome is not the one I wanted. And it makes it harder, and the stakes higher…This is going to be a long, tough fight and sometimes you have to be ready to lose a battle to win a war. It has only stiffened my resolve to fight for reform in the EU, because it is crying out for it.”

Cameron was asked whether much more of this kind of thing would prompt him to recommend an ‘Out’ vote in a referendum. He declined the offer but did make the point that:

“And at the end of 2017, it will not be me, it will not be the House of Commons, it won’t be Brussels who decide about Britain’s future in the European Union. It will be the British people. It will be their choice, and their choice alone.”

 There were three nods to the UK in the Council conclusions:

• “The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed.”

• “The European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.” 

• “Once the new European Commission is in place, the European Council will consider the process for the appointment of the President of the European Commission for the future, respecting the European Treaties.”  

Any of this significant? It’s the basis for a conversation but can mean anything and nothing at the moment. It falls way short of compensating for the defeat inflicted on Cameron. As we argue, it all depends on what happens next.

There were also this on the role of national parliaments:

"In line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the Union must concentrate its action on areas where it makes a real difference. It should refrain from taking action when member states can better achieve the same objectives. The credibility of the Union depends on its ability to ensure adequate follow-up on decisions and commitments. This requires strong and credible institutions, but will also benefit from closer involvement of national parliaments."

Again, hardly earth-shattering. So what happens next?

Well, in the short-term, there are three things to watch:

1. Will there but further nods to Cameron over the next few days and weeks? There’s already talk of Merkel, Hollande and Cameron doing something jointly. 
2. Who will become the European Council President? This is in many ways the person who will broker the agreement between EU leaders that will decide whether the UK will stay in the EU. This will be decided at an EU summit on 17th June. 
3. The other portfolios in the European Commission and who will become the UK’s candidate. Surely, Cameron must now respond by sending a big hitter to secure a top job?

The stakes are raised: Will Renzi and Hollande back Juncker even absent more lenient eurozone fiscal rules?

As we anticipated on our blog last week, the discussion over Jean-Claude Juncker's appointment as next European Commission President has in part turned into a debate over whether the EU's fiscal rules - enshrined in the Stability and Growth Pact - should be applied in a more 'flexible' way.

France and Italy are making their support for Juncker conditional on the new European Commission granting them more budget leeway while they push ahead with structural reforms, and Germany is reluctant to make concessions.

This also matters for David Cameron's battle against Juncker, as an increasing number of Germans now see what can happen when Britain gets isolated and Berlin is left facing a Mediterranean bloc, armed with Qualified Majority Voting. It may be too late in the day for Merkel to U-turn, but it will definitely serve to focus minds in Berlin following this episode. But could Cameron hold out hope for Italy and France?

Renegotiating the Stability and Growth Pact seems off the table, and neither French President François Hollande nor Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi are actively calling for changes to the rules. The key is what each country means by 'flexibility'. Renzi wants to exclude a number of 'strategic' investments from EU deficit calculations. Hollande wants more time to cut France's deficit. And Merkel wants things to stay just as they are, because she thinks that the existing rules are flexible enough.

As a result, things may just be squaring up for a stand-off at this week's European Council. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble told ARD yesterday that he opposes any "re-interpretation" of EU fiscal rules, and added:

"More debt only leads to a deepening of the problems instead of solving them."

In an interview with La Repubblica, Italian Europe Minister Sandro Gozi hit back:

"It is for [EU] leaders to discuss a new course for Europe. Therefore, we are not concerned about declarations by this or that minister, even if from an important country."

Meanwhile, Hollande yesterday circulated a paper outlining France's priorities for the new European Commission. The document, seen by Le Monde, calls for "an application of [EU] budgetary rules that favours investment and growth", while taking into account "the reforms undertaken by countries and their economic situation".

However, Merkel doesn't sound prepared to back down. She told the Bundestag this morning:

"[EU fiscal rules offer] clear guard rails and limits on the one hand, and a lot of instruments allowing flexibility on the other. We must use both just as they have been used in the past."

If a vote on Juncker eventually takes place at this week's European Council, Hollande and Renzi will have to abandon their convenient 'priorities first, names later' line and make a clear choice. Then the key question will be: do they think they have been given sufficient guarantees that their requests will be taken on board by the next European Commission? If the answer is 'No', Juncker's candidacy could still be struck down.

It is going to be interesting but it'll take a major turn of events for Juncker to be dropped now.  

Names are a consequence of things: Renzi outlines his own road map for the next European Commission

Nomina sunt consequentia rerum. Names are a consequence of things. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi quotes Emperor Giustiniano and Dante Alighieri to open the paper he wrote together with Europe Minister Sandro Gozi, outlining Italy's priorities for the next European Commission.

The document has been published by Europa, an Italian daily close to Renzi's Democratic Party. And it's in English, so you can read it in full here.  

Here are some interesting bits:

The election to the European Parliament, the constitution of the new Commission, the designation of the new President of the European Council mark the beginning of a new political cycle. We can turn it into a fresh start for Europe. Nothing could be worse than [to] roll out with an inter-institutional wrangle over the top European jobs. This would be utterly incomprehensible to European public and irresponsible in the light of the huge challenges ahead. 

Therefore, as we already wrote on this blog, Italy is not keen to start its rotating EU Presidency with a big fight on top jobs.

On eurozone fiscal rules and structural reform, Italy's position should be clear by now: more flexibility on deficit and debt reduction to facilitate the reform process. The document says:

Fiscal consolidation is still challenging in spite of the unprecedented efforts, because of subdued growth and very low inflation...Benefits from reforms in terms of growth and jobs take time to materialise...The European economic framework should back reforms agendas in member states and strengthen incentives for reforms.

On growth and competitiveness, Renzi sounds very sympathetic to the UK's position:

The full potential of the internal market also needs to be exploited, including in the field of services and energy. We should move towards a real single market for electronic communications and on-line services. Improve the quality of EU legislation, reducing EU regulatory burden...More generally, the implications for growth should be factored-in in all legislative proposals and discussions.

The Italian Prime Minister also has a few ideas on how to reconcile voters with the EU:

We need to give a better sense that the EU institutional setup is at the service of European citizens' needs...EU institutions can already adopt some practical arrangements to improve their capacity to deliver. In this respect, the possibility of creating clusters of Commissioners, one for each European priority, should be seriously taken into consideration. 

And then on EU migration policy, another big priority for Italy:

We need to promote a more proactive role of the EU and more integrated policies in the fields where they have a clear added value. Immigration and asylum is clearly one of those fields, In one word, we need to promote an authentic Common European Migration Policy.

Therefore, the bottom line of Renzi's road map is:

The job description for the EU top jobs stems from this outline. Italy will support leaders that share our views on the future of Europe and are determined to foster the above priorities. 

As we previously noted, Italy can play a key role in the appointment of the next European Commission President - especially if EU leaders hold a vote at this week's European Council. Renzi is not against the principle of Spitzenkandidaten being chosen by the main pan-European political families, and has never given signs of having a 'personality problem' with Jean-Claude Juncker. Therefore, the key will be whether the Italian Prime Minister considers Herman Van Rompuy's vague list of priorities and Angela Merkel's very timid 'opening' on eurozone fiscal rules as a sufficient guarantee that Italy's concerns and requests will be taken into account by the next European Commission.

Renzi has now set out a pragmatic negotiating stance ahead of complex discussions. He has also produced a clear metric by which to judge his success or failure. Even if you do not agree with everything he is calling for, such clarity is welcome. 

Juncker's appointment would bolster the Outist line that EU is unreformable

In a letter to the Telegraph today, Open Europe's Chairman Lord Leach notes:

This dispute is largely the product of the wording of the Lisbon Treaty. One part states that the election of the Commission President is the joint responsibility of the European Parliament and the European Council; another that the European Council shall “propose” a candidate to the parliament for election.  

David Cameron was entitled to take seriously the widespread support on the Continent for his speech last year in which he spelled out the need for EU reform. He was also entitled to assume that the selection process would be led by elected leaders of member states, rather than dictated by the largest “political group” in the European Parliament. The absurd portrayal of Mr Juncker as the champion of pan-European democracy is a cloak for German indecision and the failure of nerve of several EU leaders in the face of the European Parliament’s ambition to replace national democracies with its own ersatz alternative. Mr Juncker’s appointment would be a bitter blow to the pro-European cause in Britain, bolstering the Outists’ line that the EU is unreformable.

Renzi: Italy won't support Juncker if EU policies don't change

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has invited Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Mark Rutte to his summer retreat in Harpsund to discuss the future of the EU and, most likely, the appointment of the next European Commission President. The two-day meeting has already been branded by the German media der anti-Juncker Gipfel (the anti-Juncker summit).

Meanwhile, at the opposite end of Europe, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has made his clearest statement to date on Jean-Claude Juncker as the next European Commission President.

He told a conference in Naples yesterday:

"The EPP wants to put forward Juncker? Fine. What is Juncker planning to do over the next five years? Someone who wants to continue with the policies of the past few years will not have our consent."

During his election campaign, Juncker has made clear he is not keen to relax budget discipline. And he has backtracked on Eurobonds, of which he used to be a warm supporter. In other words, not your ideal candidate if you're sitting in Rome (or Paris, we would add).

Even more so for someone like Renzi, who has built up a reputation as 'il rottamatore' - the 'demolition man' of the old political establishment. Now, Juncker can be described in many different ways, but 'new' is definitely not one of them.

Italy is also due to take over the rotating EU Presidency on 1 July. Therefore, Renzi may want to avoid pulling his weight behind a candidate that would not be able to gather consensus in the European Council of EU leaders.  

True, we shouldn't see yesterday's remarks as a definitive 'No' to Juncker from Renzi. The priority for the Italian Prime Minister is to make sure the next European Commission changes its tone on economic policies and grants his government some budget leeway to continue the reform process.

However, this remains a very interesting development. Remember: UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Hungary and Italy could constitute a 'blocking minority' in the European Council...

What happens next after the European elections? Get ready for a royal punch-up...

With the European elections taking place on Thursday through to Sunday this week, it is worth considering what happens next. The proposed Spitzenkandidaten or European Parliamentary families’ candidates for European Commission President is set to make the post-election horse-trading and politicking more fraught than usual. As we warn into today’s Times this could have huge implications for the future of the EU and David Cameron’s reform agenda.And it will be nothing short of a royal punch-up.

The EU treaties are ambiguous about exactly how the next Commission President should be selected, but the Lisbon Treaty states that EU leaders must for the first time take “into account” the result of the European elections when proposing the new European Commission President. Ultimately, EU leaders retain the power to reach a compromise candidate among themselves, but the EP’s veto over the appointment could lead to a stand-off between governments and MEPs.

Here is a quick timeline to keep in mind – in effect there will be a three round selection process:

ROUND 1 – 22-25 May 2014: election days

27 May: Martin Schulz (currently European Parliament President and the Socialists’ Spitzenkandidaten), Jean-Claude Juncker, the centre-right EPP candidate, meet the other candidates over breakfast to discuss outcome of elections – presumably to put pressure on national leaders who will meet for dinner later the same day to appoint one of the MEPs' chosen men.

ROUND 2 – 27 May: EU leaders meet for dinner to discuss outcome of the elections – they will no doubt discuss whether to opt for a Spitzenkandidat or propose another candidate. Whether an alternative candidate would come from either the centre-left or centre-right will likely to depend on the outcome of the elections. However, it is unlikely EU leaders will be able to publicly select their candidate before the distribution of the political groups is known (see below).

June: formation of European Parliament political groups – this could be important because the post-election jockeying will determine the political groups’ distribution in the new parliament. If the result between the centre-right EPP and centre-left S&D is tight, as it is looking, picking up a few MEPs here and there from other groups could be vital in becoming the largest group.

The focus will also be on whether Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders manage to put together a new far-right grouping and what the post-election scramble might mean for other groups such as UKIP’s EFD and even the Conservatives’ ECR group. To get the formal status of a political group it must consist of at least 25 MEPs, elected in at least one-quarter of the Member States (i.e. at least 7).

ROUND 2a – 26-27 June: EU leaders meet at European Council meeting. When the European Council has made its proposal for the Commission President, a period of negotiations with the Parliament on his/her political priorities and programme could take place.

1-3 July: EP constitutive session: MEPs officially take up their seats in the Parliament. Election of EP President (not to be confused with the Commission President), vice-presidents and quaestors

7-10 July: official EP political group meetings

ROUND 3 – 14-17 July: session of the Parliament – election of Commission President by a majority of MEPs. Should EU leaders’ candidate be rejected, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, has one month to propose a new candidate.

Once the Commission President has been elected, the Council, in agreement with the Commission President-elect, adopts the list of commissioners designated (i.e. proposed Commissioners from each member state are assigned a portfolio).

September: hearings of designated European Commissioners. The Commissioners-designate appear before the parliamentary committee(s) relevant to their prospective fields of responsibility. MEPs do not have the power to reject individual Commissioners but, in the past, these hearings have led to candidate commissioners withdrawing or having their portfolio changed.

October (tbc): Vote on the full European Commission. The new European Commission must be approved en masse by a majority of MEPs.

So, given that both parts have an effective veto - echoing the Italian parliamentary system (that great constitutional model for getting stuff done) - this stand-off can last for a long time.

Regardless, it won't be pretty. 

Judgement day for the EU FTT: Will the ECJ rule in favour of taxation without representation?

There has been an important development brewing in the UK’s flagship case against the EU's proposed Financial Transaction Tax (FTT). We've known for some time that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will take a shortened proceeding and rule on the case on the 30 April – this has now become public, as European Voice reported this morning. A ruling hadn't originally been expected until 2015. We expect the ECJ to either throw out the case or rule against the UK - which is problematic for numerous reasons.

We have covered the FTT extensively and the court case is an important marker for the UK’s place in the EU.

The UK claims that the use of enhanced cooperation here is fundamentally against the EU treaties as it imposes costs on those outside the FTT-zone. If the ECJ rules against the UK, it could become a wide-ranging precedent with three key effects:

• Allowing for the broader use of enhanced cooperation (even with extraterritorial impacts) including for eurozone integration
• Making it more difficult for the UK to employ a veto over further EU integration it's not part of 
• Undermining trust in the ECJ as a fair, impartial arbiter and guardian of the single market

However, it's important not to be too alarmist about this. While the ruling looks unlikely to go in the UK's favour (but it still could) it seems more likely to be dismissed on grounds of the UK's challenge being premature (given that the proposal is yet to be finalised) rather than being outright wrong. So the UK will have another shot at challenging the final decision.

Also, the FTT is likely to be substantially watered down so the actual effect might be far less damaging than the Commission proposal pursued under enhanced cooperation. As a key proponent of a watered down FTT, the UK is already to a large extent a winner. Finally, this is a different sub-set to the eurozone (with Ireland and the Netherlands outside).

Below is a Q&A on the issue - pardon the length of it.

What are the UK’s objections?
As a recap, the UK has called for the decision authorising the use of ‘enhanced cooperation’ for the FTT to be annulled. As such it is not directly challenging the measure itself. The key reasons for the UK’s challenge are (as published by the ECJ):

1. The FTT is not compatible with Article 327 of EU Treaties which states that any member states not participating under enhanced cooperation must not feel any impact. The FTT will hit UK firms if there are any transactions with those inside the FTT zone.
2. There is no basis in international tax law which justifies imposing taxes on a sovereign state which does not wish to be part of said tax regime. Adopting a law with extraterritorial effects does not fit with the code of international tax law.
3. The tax will be distortionary and impact competition across the EU. Rather than improving the single market it could fragment it.
4. The FTT is not compatible with Article 332 of the EU treaties which states that any expenditure from enhanced cooperation will come from those directly involved. Given that taxes will be raised from UK and other countries not involved, this has been breached. The UK would also likely be directly responsible for collecting and enforcing this tax due to rules on mutual assistance, producing a further burden.

What are the potential outcomes from the ruling?

1. The ECJ rules in favour of the UK – seems very unlikely, but not impossible. In this case the Council would be forced to reconsider the FTT. It would need to adjust the details of the FTT to fit with the ECJ’s ruling and then get renewed support for enhanced cooperation.
2. The ECJ rules against the UK and dismisses some or all of its claims – possible. This could amount to the ECJ ruling that the FTT does not have any extraterritorial effects nor that it cuts across the single market. This would not only set a worrying precedent for any future challenge against the specific nature of the FTT itself but also for the UK’s position in the EU more generally, weakening its ability to bloc future eurozone integration with a direct or indirect impact on the UK. Combine this with the growing use of intergovernmental agreements and using the single market legal base for eurozone integration and it's clear the net effect is reduced UK leverage in Europe. 
3. The ECJ deems the challenge premature or unwarranted – likely. Given that the FTT is still a work in progress and the final proposal remains uncertain, the ECJ could throw the complaint out on technical grounds. This would not be too detrimental to the UK, although it would still be a blow as the UK was hoping to stop the FTT as soon as possible. It would also mean that, out of four key legal challenges on financial services at the ECJ (short selling, FTT, bankers bonus cap and ECB location policy) the UK is now at 0/2 - not exactly an encouraging score.

Usually, ECJ cases take a minimum of 16 months to work their way through the process of deciding a case. This has taken around 12 months.Written proceedings and arguments were concluded in January this year, normally the case would then move onto a hearing and an Advocate General would present an opinion before the final ruling. The fact that the ECJ has effectively skipped two steps and moved straight to the ruling. This could suggest that the ECJ considers it a straightforward case, which is unlikely to have been the case if the ECJ ruled against the European Commission (always very controversial).

Does this mean the UK was wrong to launch its challenge?

• In the end, we still think it was the right thing for the UK to do. It seems clear to most that there are numerous negative side-effects from the FTT, many of which seem to break rules enshrined in the EU treaties. The broader point is that the UK is right to establish the boundaries of what the EU can do and what enhanced cooperation can be used for. 
• The one caveat in this instance is that, given the large and growing concerns about the FTT, it has floundered and stalled on its own to a large extent, suggesting the legal challenge may not have been necessary. This would especially be true if it ends up going against the UK and setting the precedent described above.

Is this the end of the story?

If the ECJ rules in favour of the UK, the European Commission will need to table a new proposal. If the challenge is either thrown out or goes against the UK, the Government can still challenge the final legislation (as opposed to the decision to authorise enhanced cooperation). 

If the ECJ does end up throwing out the challenge for being premature, then the process has taught us little and the final result remains to be seen. It does raise the question though: why was authorisation given for enhanced cooperation before the final make-up of the proposal was known?

As discussions stall, leaked docs show divergent plans for bank bail-in and resolution from EU institutions

The Times’ Juliet Samuel has an interesting story today looking at the progress on bank bail-in rules and resolution funds at the EU level (via some leaked docs relating to the EU's Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive).

Despite another round of meetings little progress seems to have been made in finalising the format of the resolution authority or the fund it would use to aid banks, i.e. the creation of the second pillar of the banking union – although there does seem to be a move to increasing the direct involvement of national authorities. Germany also looks to have conceded somewhat on using the ESM, the eurozone bailout fund, to aid banks as agreed over the summer. But given that this will still require a change in German law and approval in the Bundestag to activate it, the hurdles remain very high.

See here for a recap of the country differences on bail-in plans, here for a recap of our take on the plans as they stand and here for our view of the banking union so far.

With this in mind the internal Commission assessment (which can be found in full here) raises some interesting points (it's worth keeping in mind the the bail-in plans and banking union are separate but very closely related when it comes to questions of aiding banks). The paper essentially provides a comparison of the different bail-in approaches favoured by the European Commission (EC), the Council and the European Parliament (EP). The EC proposal sees a very strict bail-in structure with all levels of investors and uninsured depositors facing losses before resolution funds are tapped. The Council waters this down slightly, with some use of resolution funds at different stages. The EP goes further with greater protection of depositors and therefore more use of resolution funds (see graph below for a useful graphic on all this).

Although the analysis is significantly limited by numerous assumptions and data constraints, some interesting points can be gleaned, which we outline below:

Greater flexibility, leads to greater use of funds: The key point seems to be that any flexibility introduced into the bail-in system will significantly increase the level of resolution funds needed. Broadly, under the Council proposal this could reach €70bn under a 25% loss scenario. Under the EP structure the figure could top €200bn if there was a systemic crisis. These are rough figures gleaned from the numerous scenarios, but the message is a clear warning to the Council and Parliament about allowing too much flexibility from the planned bail-in rules.

Where would these funds come from? This is the obvious follow up. No plan is presented in the paper and the general idea is that they would be built up over time from taxes on the financial sector. But under the current plans this could take up to 10 years, from a start in 2018. What happens in between? There seems little choice but to infer that national taxpayer funds would be tapped if another crisis hit.

Bank investors and even depositors lined up to take big hits under bail-in: Another key feature of this paper is that, for the first time, it highlights the type of losses investors and depositors will face if a crisis hit under the bail-in rules. In nearly all scenarios, albeit to varying degrees, even senior debtors and uninsured depositors take large hits. As these discussions develop and the final structure becomes clearer the market will begin to reassess the pricing of different instruments – whether deposits, debt or other instruments are favoured could well affect bank funding structures.

Beyond these points there is little more significant to draw from the paper. It debatably raises as many questions as it answers – what will the final format be? When will it be introduced? How will any resolution funds be funded? Will this be done at the EU or eurozone level?

The motivation behind the paper is also worth considering. It’s clear the Commission is trying to send a bit of a message here, warning the Council and EP against watering down the bail-in plans too much – at least if they don’t want to put up significant resolution funds. Whether or not this will be taken to heart remains to be seen.

European Council draft conclusions: have Merkel's 'reform contracts' made a comeback?

As we noted in our previous blog post - and as we predicted in our briefing trailing the German elections - Angela Merkel could now well be pushing for so-called 'reform contracts' or 'competitiveness pacts' (which is what they're called in the CDU/CSU manifesto). The idea involves trading exceptionally strong reform commitments in the eurozone periphery in return for German cash.

We've managed to get our hands on an updated version of the draft European Council conclusions (which is doing the rounds in Brussels) ahead of the meeting of EU leaders later this week.

And what do you know, the following paragraphs have made it in (our emphasis):

"The Commission will provide a first overview of the implementation of country-specific recommendations that will be a basis for the monitoring of their implementation. This will also assess growth and jobs enhancing policies and measures, including the performance of labour and product markets, the efficiency of public service, as well as education and innovation in the Euro area.

On this basis, work will be carried forward to strengthen economic policy coordination, including on the main features of contractual arrangements and of associated solidarity mechanisms."

It's a vague formulation - and hard to know exactly what it means - but we think it's at least fair to assume that the idea is back on the agenda (our view is it never quite went away). As we've argued repeatedly, the kind of beefed-up supervision and enforcement that the Germans have in mind would most likely require EU treaty change. The nature, scope and timing of such a Treaty change is anyone's guess at the moment, however.

Why Barroso’s pessimism about achieving EU decentralisation is sort of irrelevant

The Open Europe team is back from the UK party conferences and, when it comes to the UK’s attempt to reach a new settlement in Europe, by far the most common comment we get is: “The EU Commission won’t allow it.” Particularly true amongst the Tory grassroots. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso’s interview today with the Telegraph will no doubt have served to reinforce this view.

He said the only way to reform the EU was to review the EU’s body of legislation, the acquis, on a case-by-case basis:

“The other one is to have a fundamental discussion about the competences of the EU, even in terms of renationalisation. I think the second approach is doomed to failure…Britain wants to again consider the option of opting out. Fine, let's discuss it but to put into question the whole acquis of Europe is not very reasonable…What is difficult, or even impossible, is if we go for the exercise of repatriation of competences because that means revising the treaties and revision means unanimity.”

Barroso is sort of misrepresenting the UK position - the debate has moved away from unilateral opt-outs, but let’s not split hairs. In addition to that, there are two reasons why you can take these comments with a pinch of salt: first, Barroso is gone in a year. Secondly, if it came to it, the Commission has a very limited role in the negotiations over brining powers back anyway.

The European Council has to “consult” the Commission and it also has limited representation in a so-called European Convention (needed for a full-scale treaty change, as opposed to a limited one), but that’s pretty much it. Still, it’s very good to have the Commission on-board of course, for a whole range of reasons (some of the stuff the UK wants outside EU treaty change will require a Commission proposal) but an antipathetic Commission is probably not a deal-breaker.

An antipathetic Barroso certainly isn't.

The EU budget: an updated break-down

With the Council side of the EU budget negotiations firmly wrapped up, we've updated our figures on the comparison of the current EU budget and the one proposed for the next seven year period - based on the final European Council agreement. We still say proposed since it of course still needs approval by the European Parliament...:

An untimely scandal in the making for Rajoy?

Spain's largest daily El País this morning splashed this and other pictures on its webpage (click to enlarge):

The paper claims it has seen hand-written accounting books held by Álvaro Lapuerta and Luis Bárcenas, who served as treasurers of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's Partido Popular (PP) between 1990 and 2009.

These books register donations made to the party by Spanish businesspeople. But most importantly, they seem to show that Rajoy himself and other senior members of PP were handed out sobresueldos (extra pay, bonuses) which were allegedly distributed in envelopes with cash - and therefore completely tax-free. According to the paper, Rajoy received sobresueldos regularly between 1997 and 2008.
 
Such allegations had already emerged earlier this year, and an internal investigation is currently under way. However, the documents published today could be the first concrete evidence of what may, if confirmed, trigger a big scandal in Spanish politics. The names in the books include not just Rajoy, but also, for example, Rodrigo Rato (former Finance Minister, who recently also appeared in court for the Bankia case).

The Secretary General of PP, María Dolores de Cospedal (whose name is also in the secret books) has just held a press conference from the party's headquarters in Madrid's Calle de Génova - perhaps to convey the message that this is a party, not a government issue. The gist of her declarations was: the documents are false, and we will take the necessary legal action to prove it.

Rajoy is not planning to speak to journalists for now. His first public appearance will therefore be on Monday, when a joint presser with Angela Merkel is scheduled. For the moment, a bit of background info could be useful for those who do not follow Spanish politics on a daily basis:

• Luis Bárcenas served as PP treasurer until July 2009.

• It emerged recently that he had up to €22 million deposited in various Swiss accounts. Reports in the Spanish press suggest that the money was moved from those accounts in 2009 (although to where exactly is still unclear), when Bárcenas was involved in another corruption scandal, the so-called Gürtel case.

• Bárcenas himself has now told Spanish prosecutors that he brought almost €11 million of that money back to Spain, through the 'tax amnesty' introduced by Rajoy's government. The opposition Socialist Party has obviously suggested that the amnesty was made precisely to cover Bárcenas and others. 

• When the fact that Bárcenas held bank accounts in Switzerland came in the public domain, sources close to him suggested that he knew enough to put several leading figures of PP into trouble. Interestingly, though, he has moved swiftly to make clear that he does not recognise the secret books published by El País and is considering taking the paper to court.

Very sensitive stuff. And rather untimely, given that Rajoy is about to meet his EU counterparts for key negotiations on the next long-term EU budget. The quicker the investigation, the better for the Spanish government and Spain as a whole.