Lord Hill is the EU's new financial services Commissioner - but what is his remit and who does he report to?

With the future of the UK seemingly hanging by a thread it is understandable that events north of the border are dominating attention, but today's announcement of the new European Commission also has far-reaching consequences for the future of the UK's EU membership and the EU itself.

As we set out in our flash analysis, the appointment of Lord Hill to the key financial services portfolio (pending approval by MEPs) is a win for the UK, and the general reformist outlook of the Commission, with other crucial posts (Internal Market and Competition) held by liberal, pro-free trade, non-eurozone countries, provides grounds for cautious optimism.

What will Lord Hill's portfolio include?

• Overseeing the creation of the banking union – a crucial policy for the eurozone but also one which threatens to split the EU into euro-ins and outs. In his new role, Lord Hill can ensure this does not happen. That being said, this is a very tricky role to manage (with numerous competing interests), especially for a non-eurozone country.
• Power to review the role of the European supervisory authorities, institutions which have been controversial in the UK since their creation.
• Responsibility for a 'Capital Markets Union'. While this remains vague it could be a good initiative for the UK since London is already the centre of European capital markets. Lord Hill can base the union around the single market rather than the eurozone.

As the charts below show, the Commission has also been re-organised with a series of policy clusters, with the UK being at the heart of all the major decisions relating to the single market, jobs and growth and the Eurozone. Each 'cluster' will be headed by a Vice-President, previously a largely meaningless role but now with additional agenda setting powers and the ability to stop legislative proposals from other Commissioners.

Lord Hill will 'report' to two Vice Presidents who will "steer and co-ordinate" depending on the issue at hand - the new "Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness" VP Jyrki Katainen and the "Euro and Social Dialogue" VP Valdis Dombrovskis (both of whom are former PMs). In terms of the two VPs, Dombrovskis is likely to supervise the banking union aspects of Lord Hill's post while Katainen will oversee the more single market aspects, although even here, there is plenty of scope for overlap.

Lord Hill's portfolio also has some overlap (and therefore potential conflict) with France's new Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici .The potential for Anglo-French clashes within the Commission is relatively limited since Moscovici will be primarily tasked with macroeconomic eurozone policies rather than financial markets, but one potentially fraught area could the be Financial Transaction Tax or a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. Juncker has asked Moscovici to finalise negotiations over both.

It remains to be seen how the relationship between VPs and different clusters will work in practice, especially as Juncker himself has insisted that "In the new Commission, there are no first or second-class Commissioners", and since decisions in the College of Commissioners have traditionally been taken by a majority of all Commissioners in a secret vote. However, Juncker also made clear that the Vice-Presidents “can stop any initiative, including legislative initiatives” of other commissioners – effectively acting as “a filter”.

Time will tell how potential disputes play out or are resolved and to what extent the VPs can truly veto proposals. What is clear is that the relationship between these four men could be crucially important.

Swedish and Dutch patience running out over proposed FTT?

EU finance ministers met today, with the financial transaction tax (FTT) once again topping the agenda.

They were presented with a new proposal or brief under which the 11 countries pursuing the FTT under enhanced cooperation could move forward. The plan involved significantly amended terms and (again) suffered from a significant lack of detail:

• The scope will be “limited” to “shares and some derivatives”, according to German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble – suggesting bond markets and probably repo markets will be exempt. The level of the tax on shares could be cut from 0.1% to 0.01%.
• This will form part of a “step by step approach”, suggesting the tax will be expanded in the future.
• Non-participating countries will be fully informed on all future FTT discussions.
• The FTT will not be introduced until January 2016.
• It is unclear whether Slovenia will participate in the FTT anymore, given that it did not sign the recent statement on the issue due to domestic problems and uncertainty around its government.
• Reuters reports that the revenue from the adjusted tax is expected to be about a tenth of the original forecasts – putting it at €3.5bn.

Those outside the proposed FTT zone showed quite significant hostility to the process of enhanced cooperation (as it has been conducted in this case) and continued to warn of legal action. UK Chancellor George Osborne said:

“The FTT that people have talked about is not a tax on bankers, it’s a tax on jobs, investment and people’s pensions.”

“Here we have a situation where 11 member states are working up their proposals largely in secret, I do not know how involved the Commission is in this or not. Then as we start our discussions here we get a piece of paper handed to us all by the 11 member states saying this is what we have agreed.”

“We will wait to see the final text of the proposal, but we will not hesitate to [legally] challenge an FTT which has extraterritorial impacts, that damages other member states, including the UK, or that damages the single market.”

Osborne was notably annoyed by the fact that the one page sheet on the new proposal was presented to the other EU ministers only five minutes before the meeting. His position was strongly backed by Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, who said:

“Even if this is a rather narrow proposal, there is a clear risk of a slippery slope toward a broader proposal with much more harmful effects on growth, and particularly on the capital markets.”

“The burden of proof is on the countries that want to enter the enhanced cooperation to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those not participating are not harmed by this measure.”

“We did not support the U.K. when they started this legal case; we are much closer to doing that, because the process has not been satisfactory during these last few months…I’m very disappointed in the process.”

While even Eurogroup Chief and Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem warned:

“The impression I get is that, you [meaning the 11 FTT countries] have found a very, very small common ground, which is still very vague on the basis for the tax, when it will actually take place, on what products etc. but you have decided we must come out with something before the elections. That’s fine, but please also respect that we’d like to know a little more.”

“I don’t think that there is any basis at the moment for the Dutch government to consider joining, certainly not on what we have here… I’m a little disappointed in the way the process is going at the moment.”

All in all then, while there is talk of progress on the FTT, its scope has been slashed as expected, while the time line has been pushed into the long(er) grass. The process under enhanced cooperation has taken a public hammering, while it remains clear that those involved are struggling to find any clear agreement.

However, the fact that the Swedes and Dutch have expressed their anger so openly highlights that this will continue to be politically fraught. In addition, that the 11 countries seemingly want to reserve the right to expand the FTT in future, means this still has a way to run and future legal challenges are a genuine possibility.

ECJ throws out UK's FTT challenge, raising questions about whether it can be trusted to police the EU treaties

This morning’s ECJ judgement that the UK’s legal challenge against a proposed Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) is premature was what many had expected. The UK had challenged the decision to authorise the use of so-called ‘enhanced cooperation’ (where a smaller group of EU members can move ahead with legislation even if it does not have broader EU support) for the FTT. For the UK Government, today’s result is not what it had hoped for (an annulment of the decision to authorise enhanced cooperation), but neither is it the worst outcome.

Today’s ruling effectively said that the court could not rule on the UK’s substantive objections to the FTT since the final shape of the tax is unknown and subject to further negotiation between those taking part. This does not prejudice the UK’s ability to mount a second challenge once the final FTT has been agreed and its implications are clearer.

The ECJ judgement (in full here) said:

“It is clear that the objective of the contested decision is to authorise 11 Member States to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the establishment of a common system of FTT with due regard to the relevant provisions of the Treaties. The principles of taxation challenged by the United Kingdom are, however, not in any way constituent elements of that decision.”

“The two pleas in law relied on by the United Kingdom in support of its action must be rejected and, accordingly, that the action must be dismissed.”

“Those effects are dependent on the adoption of ‘the counterparty principle’ and the ‘issuance principle’, which are however not constituent elements of the contested decision, as stated in paragraph 36 of this judgement.”

“That review should not be confused with the review which may be undertaken, in the context of a subsequent action for annulment, of a measure adopted for the purposes of the implementation of the authorised enhanced cooperation.”

However, while the UK will get a second stab at challenging the FTT, today’s ruling poses major questions about how ‘enhanced cooperation’ works and how it is used in the future. The EU Treaties stipulate that authorisation of enhanced cooperation (which is given by a qualified majority vote of all EU member states) is conditional on the proposed legislation respecting the integrity of the single market and not impacting on those not taking part – this is meant to be a legally enforceable safeguard for those countries not participating.

Enhanced cooperation is a relatively new phenomenon that has only been used twice before (for a European Patent Office and divorce law), but it could have huge implications for the future of the EU and Britain’s place within it. In an increasingly multi-tier EU, enhanced cooperation may be used more often by countries that want to integrate further. For those that don’t wish to follow suit, it is vital that their rights in the single market are respected.

Let us start with an analogy. Imagine you had agreed to let your neighbour build a new house based on a certain agreement and set of plans. Halfway through building it becomes clear that he has adopted a new plan which will hamper your view or infringe on your land. You appeal to the council but they rule that it is too soon to tell where the house will end up and that they can only rule when the house is built. Tearing down a house is much messier and more costly than stopping one being built in the first place. Hardly seems efficient or fair, does it?

Yet, in this case, this seems to be what the ECJ has done. It has effectively decided that it could not decide whether the decision to authorise the FTT proposal does respect the rights of those not taking part because the final outcome of the FTT negotiations cannot be known now. This is strange because this is by definition true in pretty much all cases of enhanced cooperation, since the countries involved negotiate the finer points of the legislation amongst themselves after getting approval to go ahead.

While this may seem legalistic and technical it raises a fundamental question: are the authorisation criteria for enhanced cooperation worth anything? Surely, any decision on the use of enhanced cooperation should be made on the basis of the proposal that is on the table, irrespective of whether it might change (for the better or worse) by the time it is finally agreed as a legal act, which could still be challenged in any case. The potential spill-overs should be examined before those member states not involved give those involved the go ahead. Otherwise they are ultimately authorising an unknown piece of legislation, which once it has built up a political head of steam could be much harder to challenge later on.

By its very nature, enhanced cooperation will be used for controversial proposals but today’s ECJ judgement has increased uncertainty surrounding this procedure (it was already uncertain) and undermines the logic of the process for authorising its use. We cannot know what the long term implications of this will be for the EU and the UK but they could be important.

As for the FTT, the UK will have another chance to challenge the final legislation (which may end up being watered down anyway due to concerns from those taking part) but by the time it gets to that point, there will be so much political capital invested in it, it may make it harder for the court to strike it down, even if the UK has good legal grounds.

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?

The EU’s zombie tax

Back in September, we wrote on this blog that the EU’s Financial Transaction Tax was “dying a death of a thousand cuts”.

However, following that opinion of the EU Council of Ministers' legal service, the European Commission has hit back with its own legal opinion. We have got our hands on the full text, which can be seen here (thanks to Italian magazine Valori for posting it on its website). 

Despite this, we stick with our statement. For all intents and purposes, the extensive FTT that was initially proposed by the Commission seems to be dead as a policy. Indeed, it remains part of a rather heated technical discussion within the EU institutions - but we have already noted the likelihood of it returning in a much watered down version to save face of those invested in the idea.

It is, therefore, a living dead policy – a 'zombie tax' if you will.

The Commission’s counter arguments are very specific to those put forward by the Council’s legal service – itself setting up an interesting head on clash between the two bodies – the main points of which are:

• The Council does not present any legal basis for its argument that the FTT breaches international law. The Commission stresses that the issue of “more relevant” right to impose taxes is not legally defined.
• The Commission essentially argues that its FTT proposal does present enough of a nexus between the state and the transactions to allow for taxation – specifically that the counterparty principle fits with international law.
• That the FTT does fit with the enhanced cooperation procedure since it does not stop non–participating member states from pursuing their own financial taxes.
• “What the Council LS perceives as discrimination is in reality nothing but a disparity between different national tax regimes.”

The first thing that is clear, is that this is beginning to become an intensely theoretical legal discussion. It remains important, but the practical and political aspects should not be forgotten.

As we highlighted along with our exclusive release of internal documents earlier this year, one of the key reasons behind the loss of enthusiasm for the FTT was the economic impact. It became clear it is not practically workable in many cases, particularly due to its impact on repo markets as well as government and corporate bond markets.

We also still strongly agree with the Council’s take. While in legal terms the impact on non-participating states can be fiddled, in real terms there will be a sizeable impact on the financial sectors of states explicitly opposed to the tax – something which remains politically explosive in terms of EU precedent.

Again, with the FTT now slowly ambling along in zombie mode we’re sure this is not the last we have heard of it.

The FTT is dying a death of a thousand cuts – this could be the final one

The EU’s Financial Transaction Tax has taken another big blow today – possibly a fatal one.

A leaked legal opinion by the European Council’s legal service has warned that the current set up of the FTT pursued by 11 member states “infringes” on and “is not compatible” with the current EU treaties (the FT’s Brussels blog has posted the full text and done a good round up of the issues at play).

The legal service was asked to look specifically into whether the FTT’s counterparty principle (taxation based on where the counterparty of the transaction is based) infringed on the right of member states which are not taking part in enhanced cooperation policy not to be affected by said policy (Article 327 TFEU).

The criticism is very much in line with complaints raised by the UK as well as by previous leaked documents (which we exclusively published) which showed growing concerns over the extraterritoriality of the FTT and that it may be discriminatory against non-participating members:

“Concerning the deemed establishment based on the counterparty principle, raises issues of extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction, disrespect of non-participating Member States' rights under the Treaty, and compatibility with the principles of free movement of capital and non-discrimination.”

“[The counterparty principle] would constitute the exercise of jurisdiction over entities located outside the geographical area concerned by the legislation adopted under the enhanced cooperation.”

“The FTT proposed will be levied not only on risky activities but to a large extent also on activities with a genuine economic substance that are not liable to contribute to systemic risk and which are indispensable for the activities of non-financial business entities. Where activities are covered that can indeed be considered to be liable to contribute to financial markets' risk, it has not been demonstrated that the interests of Member States' are endangered to a point that the Union should divert from its attitude in principle of restraint as to extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction.”

Those are just a few of the very clear and strongly worded arguments put forth by the legal service. Given the clarity and depth of the arguments presented it is hard not to see this as the final nail in the coffin for this (much maligned) proposal for the FTT.

Given the politics of this, there will have to be some form of 'financial transaction tax'. But, this is now likely to amount to a significantly watered down tax, possibly focused solely on equities and levied at a much lower rate only on those specifically trading the products (similar to the UK's stamp duty).

In any case, this is a big win for the UK – although how much credit it can take for it is unclear. In the end the combination of legal overstretch as well as the potential to inflict significant financial damage on fragile eurozone states has undermined the FTT. Equally this is a blow to the Commission and the European Parliament which have pushed hard and invested a lot of time resources into getting this version of the FTT through.

That said, the Commission has remained unsurprisingly steadfast, suggesting that it rejects the legal opinion and believes the current set up is compatible with the EU treaties. The German government has also suggested it will continue to pursue the FTT, but has said that it will seek to iron out all legal uncertainties first (though some in Germany have previously raised concerns about the substance of tax).

Ultimately, this may have to be decided in court. But the case for the FTT has certainly taken another hefty blow.

When ideology meets economic reality (part III): Germany squabbles over the Financial Transaction Tax

The Bundesbank, The Deutscher Aktieninstitute (DAI), and even EU civil servants from the 11 participating countries have all warned against the FTT in its current form.

Today saw yet another German voice raised again the tax – this time from the very party that is meant to be its greatest champion. Nils Schmid, Baden-Württemberg's Minister of Finance – from the German social democrats (SPD)— wrote a letter to German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble condemning the FTT in its current form as “rubbish.” Ouch.

Schmid’s intervention, says that "If the financial transaction tax is implemented as is currently planned, initial estimates show that it is likely to have a serious impact on certain segments of the market (money and capital)." He then calls for a “proper configuration” of the FTT.

So why is this important? Twofold:  first, it shows that in light of the overwhelming evidence of the negative economic impact of the FTT in its current form, the support for the proposal is quickly evaporating.

This now extends to the German political parties that have strongly endorsed it. Remember, the FTT is one of the SPD’s main campaigning issues, and served as the party’s quid pro quo for accepting the EU fiscal treaty. Although Schmid caveated his position, saying that he is not opposed to the idea of a FTT in theory, the point has most definitely been made.

Secondly, the FTT controversy has legs to become battleground ahead of the German elections in September. It is an issue that may split politics, both, within the parties and on a national level.

Officially, Schmid’s letter was met with a standard diplomatic line from the German Finance Ministry – which says it is taking concerns raised by Schmid and German banks “seriously.” They won’t say so in public, but the German finance ministry was most likely nodding approvingly…

Meanwhile, deputy chairman of the FDP parliamentary group ,Volker Wissing, saw his opportunity to strike – and took it, saying that Schmid's letter shows with which "naivety" and "rose-tinted blindness", the SPD had driven the demand for a financial transaction tax.

So far the SPD have remained stumm on Schmid’s intervention. But watch this space. If influential figures within SPD are the latest to start make noises about this, then surely, the Commission’s proposal cannot stand?

"If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher" - The Commission utterly fails to address flaws in the financial transaction tax

There's an old Latin saying, "If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher." Reading the Commission's defence of its proposed EU financial transaction tax (FTT), that phrase immediately sprung to mind. It's not the strongest piece, to say the least.

In our continuing quest for transparency, we have published the Commission’s direct response to the concerns raised by the 11 participating FTT member states (docs which we exclusively published last month).

The Commission's response ranges from weak to capricious to outright ridiculous. For example, when it says that "we're not aware of any credit crunch" in Europe. Right...

Arguably the most worrying part of this response is the tone. The Commission is essentially saying ‘we know better’ than financial markets. For example, in dealing with concerns over the impact of the FTT on short term trading, it suggests much short term trading is often “myopic” and that asset managers which trade predominantly in the short term should be subject to less investor demand in transparent markets, despite the success of money market funds and their importance for liquidity.

Now, 'financial markets' are diverse, far from perfect and certainly not always right. However, the Commission would be remiss to just dismiss concerns raised by governments inside and outside the FTT zone - but also actors from across the business and manufacturing community (in addition to virtually every bank in Europe).

We have long suggested that there are three key areas of concern which will have to be addressed before the FTT can even hope of being implemented without huge market distortions – the extraterritoriality, the impact on repo markets and the impact on government (and corporate) bond markets.

Many of the concerns raised by the 11 FTT states - and the Commission's response - related to these issues. Sorry in advance for the length of this post but here are the key points:

Extraterritoriality

As reported this morning, the Commission argues that a “business case” can be created for enforcing the FTT outside the FTT zone. Essentially, exchanges and clearing houses will be responsible for collecting the tax and if they don’t,  the firms in the FTT zone will not want to trade with them.

This is concerning development for a number of reasons:

• First, it will increase tensions and splits within the single market. Financial firms are unlikely to just roll over and accept this. In fact, given the size of the market outside the FTT zone, they could validly refuse to trade with those inside the FTT zone. In any case, the prospects of a scenario similar to that of escalating protectionism in trade dispute cannot be ruled out.
• It also seems very punitive, using alterations in the legislation (the joint and several liability) to enforce it in areas where the tax has already been rejected.
• This also assumes firms do not move out of the FTT zone to escape the tax. This seems unlikely in the first instance, while not being able to trade with those outside the FTT zone if they do not pay the tax (or having to pay their share yourself) seems to make staying inside even less appealing.

The Commission also accepts that double taxation is a concern. However, the proposed solution of setting up agreements on where the tax will fall, seems unlikely especially in the UK’s case since it has launched a legal challenge against the tax.

Impact on government and corporate debt

The Commission also fails to provide much comfort on the impact of the FTT on national debt and borrowing costs. It admits it has been unable to estimate the impact due to lack of info, but further accepts that “Member States might be better placed to have access to such information.”

This raises two questions:

• First, surely legislating on such a sensitive issue without fully knowing the costs on a key area, with many of countries involved in the midst of an economic crisis, is nothing short of negligent.
• Second, if member states are better placed to judge these issues, why does the Commission and the EU need to take the lead and push such a tax in the first place?

Furthermore, we doubt the concerns over ‘redistribution’ will have been assuaged as the Commission accepts that some money from the trading of government bonds will not go to the country that issued them.

This could be of concern for countries such as Spain, Italy or even France which have huge debt markets but whose debt is widely traded around the world and the EU but international firms. It also seems to punish small countries with less developed financial sectors, since the tax will be paid where the bond is traded firstly with the residence principle only kicking in afterwards.

Possibly more worrying is the response to concerns over the corporate debt market. The Commission seems to brush this off, adding that it is “not aware of any credit crunch” with regards to borrowing for businesses. This is despite the clear survey results showing businesses struggle to access credit in many European countries and the many, many press stories on the issue. It surely cannot argue that given the state of the economy, now is the best time to implement the tax.

Repo markets

As we have highlighted this is an area of serious concern. Unfortunately, the Commission continues to persist with a weak counter-argument insisting that repo markets can be easily replaced by secured loans or lending by central banks (while accepting the short term repo market will be all but destroyed by the tax).

This argument is flawed for numerous reasons:

• The market has access to these other instruments but see repo as preferable, the Commission still insists, however, that it knows better.
• Moving more lending to central banks is not desirable! European policy makers are working hard to restore usual financial markets and move lending off central bank balance sheets.
• Without normal functioning markets, monetary policy cannot have an effective impact, while in the eurozone money will not flow cross border and imbalances will continue to build up (any hope of an integrated banking union would be dead).
• Furthermore, all the risks will be taken onto the central banks’ taxpayer-backed balance sheet – surely this is a terrible form of risk being socialised but profit privatised.
• Secured loans do not provide the same level of legal protection as repos. Since collateral is purchased under a repo, if there is a default the collateral has already changed hands. However, under secured loans the claim would go back into normal (lengthy and costly) insolvency proceedings.

The Commission does raise the point that Repos can hurt financial stability, but surely this is more a case for effective supervision and regulation than taxing the market out of existence.

With widespread talk of the FTT being shelved for at least another year, perhaps it's time for the Commission to just admit defeat?

When ideology meets economic reality (Part III): Opposition to the FTT grows at the heart of Europe

As we noted recently with the exclusive release of  internal documents on the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), even amongst those who are championing the proposal, there are a huge number of concerns. Well, those concerns are growing by the week, it seems. The last few days have seen several new interventions. 

First, there is a report from the Deutscher Aktieninstitute (DAI), an organisation representing German listed companies and investors, which warns that the FTT will cost German companies up to €1.5 billion per year. Blue-chip companies, including Siemens and Bayer, say they will face tens of millions of euros of additional cost from the tax due transactions they make to hedge currency and other risks.

What makes this intervention to significant is that we're talking wholesome, exporting German businesses - in the German public mind the very opposite to ‘speculative’ finance. As DAI chief-executive Christine Bortenlaenger put it, the tax is “a direct strike against the export-oriented German economy”.

This comes not long after the important intervention by Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann where he warned, as we did a few days before, that the FTT could impact monetary policy. With the German elections only a few months away, these concerns will be hard to dismiss.

Secondly, the Dutch Central Bank has issued a warning that the tax will cost the Netherlands a minimum of €500m, half of which will be paid by its large pension fund sector. This is all despite the country not taking part in the FTT directly. Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem hinted that the country is looking for a change in the way that the tax is structured so that it does not impact those not directly taking part.

Lastly, Financial News notes that MEPs – who have generally been the most stringent defenders of the tax – may be changing their minds somewhat. Over 100 amendments have been submitted to the current FTT proposal in the European Parliament. Changes include exemptions for pension funds and repo markets as well as calls for a more extensive cost benefit analysis of the impact of the tax  (though the EP doesn't have a binding vote on the FTT, it's still politically signifcant).

This cacophony of voices are strengthened by the fact that many of the concerns raised fall on the same points again and again – the impact on repo markets, the cost to pension funds, the knock on costs for retail borrowers and the reduction in lending to the real economy.

As we have long expected, there seems to be a growing feeling that the FTT will need to be watered down or altered in places if it is to come into force and not have a huge negative impact. The populist rhetoric of the tax seems to be finally butting up against the economic and financial realities which many long warned about.

When ideology meets economic reality (Part II): Bundesbank says EU financial transaction tax could make banks more reliant on cheap ECB money

As was made evident by the internal memo about the EU financial transaction tax (FTT) - that we exclusively published yesterday - there are plenty of concerns amongst the supposed champions of the idea.

Today, another heavyweight institution raised the alarm: Die Bundesbank.

This could come across as a niche issue, as with most central banking issues. But as with most central banking issues it could also be of vital political importance in Germany.

As we noted in our flash analysis on the UK’s FTT challenge last Friday, the proposal could have a worrying impact on ECB monetary policy:

Increasing banks’ reliance on cheap ECB cash: With central bank lending exempt from the FTT but the market channels to obtain liquidity hit hard, the FTT actually provides a perverse incentive for banks to borrow cheap money from the ECB and central banks. This runs completely contrary to efforts in the Eurozone to get banks off ECB liquidity and could instead further entrench market fragmentation.

This is a point which has been rarely made in the FTT debate but whose implications for Germany - already deeply worried about weak banks over-reliance on cheap ECB funding - could be huge. Sure enough, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann today raised concerns over this very issue. In a speech in Dresden, he said:

The introduction of the tax has basically been decided but the unintended side effects could be considerable: In its currently envisaged form, the tax will cover asset-backed money market funds, so-called repo firms, and significantly damage the repo market. However, the repo market has a central role in ensuring the equalisation of liquidity between commercial banks.

If it does not function correctly, the corresponding institutions are diverted onto the Eurosystem, and the Central Banks remain massively and permanently involved in the liquidity equalisation between the Banks.

From a monetary policy perspective, the financial transactions tax in its current form is therefore to be viewed very critically, and it shows how important it is to precisely test a regulatory scheme before its introduction. This however takes a bit of time.

Exactly as we warned. More banks - particularly in the southern eurozone - borrowing from the ECB would not only increase German exposure to the crisis (ultimately, the ECB is taxpayer-backed). But it also negatively impacts the independence of ECB monetary policy since it will hamper the central bank's ability to exit its abnormal liquidity operations and therefore impact its ability to control policy.

This also gets to the heart of what we (and others) have been saying about the FTT.  Although the headline goals and figures look nice, the multitude of side effects (for financial markets, for pensions and even for central banks) mean the real impact of the FTT is far beyond what is envisaged or what can be effectively managed by the regulation.

Watch this space. This could become a big issue in Germany.

EXCLUSIVE: Internal documents reveal countries' concerns with FTT proposal (or when ideology meets economic reality)

The European Commission, of course, doesn't get what the fuss is about, but some countries that are meant to participate in the much-criticised EU financial transaction tax now seem to be going very cold on the idea. Or at least on the way the tax is drafted at the moment.

We have got our hands on the memo from the eleven countries that under "enhanced cooperation" have signed up to the tax - reported in yesterday's press summary - which raises a series of concerns about the Commission's draft. Exclusively, we today publish the full six-page memo here.

The memo, which in painful EU-jargon is known as a "non-paper", was last week discussed amongst civil servants from EU member states, at a meeting behind behind closed doors. So this isn't reflecting any final position on behalf of the eleven (who disagree amongst themselves on a number of issues). 

However, this is revealing stuff - it's clear that though several countries are supportive of the FTT in public, they have a whole host of concerns in private.  The document is desperately looking for answers on how the Tobin tax would work in practice. This is, of course, in addition to the more fundamental objections to the FTT raised by the UK's ECJ legal challenge, now also supported by Luxembourg, which we have analysed here.

You can read the whole thing here, but the key points that struck us are outlined below:

• There are calls to clarify how collection of revenues would work in practice.

• The countries complain that the European Commission’s impact assessment “is not fully clear on how the taxation on government bonds would interact with the cost of national debt” and whether an increase in the cost “could be counterbalanced by the revenues of the FTT.”

• In addition, there are concerns about the impact on repurchase operations on sovereign bonds. "The tax will induce an additional cost that is not sustainable for the market participants,” according to the document. “Repo operations are very useful for managing the treasury liquidity, and the disappearance of this market combined with the lack of viable alternatives will induce serious problems about risk management.” Ever so worried about skyrocketing government borrowing costs, Italy seems particularly worried about this.

• Given the way ‘territoriality’ works under the Commission proposal in particular, each member state would not be allowed “to collect the whole EU FTT paid on the bonds issued by the same member state. As a result, the increase of cost of government debt…would not necessarily be compensated by the collection of the tax on the same instruments.” This sort of links to UK concerns that the tax would hit a firm based in one country, but be collected by (and therefore the revenue will be enjoyed by) a government in another. Taxation without representation some would say.

• The rate levied is also an issue: “The 0.1% uniform tax rate proposed by the Commission might create an inappropriate burden on short-term bonds…compared to long-term bonds.”

• And the concerns are not only limited to government bonds. The countries note that, “Businesses have expressed worries that the same effect described above for government bonds would replicate on the corporate issuers, with negative effects on the financing capability of companies.” As we've argued repeatedly, this is the risk that the tax will hit business at a time when these are already struggling to balance their books (and are facing particularly high borrowing costs in the south).

• Uncertainty over the impact of the FTT on high-frequency trading.

• The member states also ask the Commission to clarify a number of definitions in its proposal (e.g. ‘purchase and sale of a financial instrument’, ‘cancellation or rectification of a financial transaction’, and so forth).

In other words, even among its supposed champions, the potential impact and practicality of the FTT are shrouded in uncertainty and a lot of concerns, particularly when it comes to effects on the real economy at a time when the eurozone is desperate looking for growth.

For anyone with an ounce of grasp of economics, this internal memo strongly supports the accusation that the FTT has a lot more to do with politics than evidence-based policy.

When ideology meets economic reality.

Game on - UK Government launches legal challenge against controversial EU Financial Transaction Tax

It has just been announced that at midnight last night the UK government submitted a challenge against the financial transaction tax to the European Court of Justice. The ground being that it impacts (taxes) firms and individuals located in the UK outside the FTT zone.

We’ve put together a very comprehensive analysis on what this challenge means and what could happen next. Read it here.

Here’s the summary of the key points:

Summary: The UK has today announced a legal challenge at the European Court of Justice against the EU’s controversial financial transaction tax (FTT). Despite the British Government having chosen not to participate in the measure, UK financial firms that trade with an institution in a country that does participate will still be taxed. This, the UK claims, violates EU law and is inconsistent with international tax norms.

The economic, legal and political implications of this move for future EU-UK relations are huge. As currently drafted, the tax could cost fund managers (UCITS) based outside the FTT-zone around €5.6bn while one third of all derivatives trades in the UK could be caught by the tax. Legally, it could set out the parameters for how a “flexible Europe” involving different levels of participation in the EU – which Prime Minister David Cameron has said he champions – will be governed. Politically, it’s a test of the extent to which the UK – as a non-eurozone member - can halt or change EU measures with a profound impact on its national interest. Therefore, it will be a key issue in the on-going debate about the UK’s continued EU membership, though other EU countries have also expressed concerns about the impact of the tax.

The Financial Transaction Tax: Who will pay, will it work?

The FTT: Who will pay?

The European Commission has now tabled its proposal for a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) applying to the eleven EU states who so far have said they're willing to go ahead. Arguably, the proposal throws up more questions than answers - here are some of the main ones:

Q: Will non-FTT states get caught up in the tax? 

This is a crucial question and one the proposal does not shed that much light on. The proposal says the FTT will apply  

"on the condition that at least one party to the transaction is established in the territory of a participating Member State and that a financial institution established in the territory of a participating Member State is party to the transaction."

So if one party is not in a FTT state they would still have to pay if their partner in the trade is. This could mean occasions where people end up paying twice, i.e UK stamp Duty and the FTT. But what does "established" mean? Particularly since most large financial institutions have multiple subsidiaries and passports.

Q: Is that why some in the US are concerned?

A group of US business groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, has written to the European Commission objecting to its proposal raising similar questions. The letter claims the tax overreaches borders, breaks international treaties and amounts to a “unilateral” imposition of a global FTT. A spokeswoman for the US Treasury also warned that the current plans would “harm” US investors.

Q: Who will collect it?

One of the major omissions in the proposal is an explanation as to who will collect the tax if the transaction takes place outside the FTT area. In the FTT states the exchanges will undoubtedly be expected to collect it (which is why some are upset), but what if a security is traded on an exchange outside the FTT area? There is a provision to make each party "jointly and severally liable" but how would it be collected and how would they pay?

Q: Would it be possible to avoid it?

The Commission has come up with a number of anti-avoidance measures including its own brand of extra-territoriality - the "issuance principle" - that would allow it to tax all transactions of instruments originating in an FTT state. For example, a government bond issued by an FTT country would be taxed no matter where it was traded or by whom. Another issue tackled is "depository receipts", again there is an anti-avoidance measure but how in practice would you outlaw the creation of UK depository receipts or for that matter already existing American Depository Receipts (which have previously been used to avoid paying UK stamp duty).

Q: Is it legal?

According to a study by Clifford Chance there is a danger that the FTT could violate the single market by distorting the free movement of capital and competition between states - though the Commission will have gone to great lengths to make sure the proposal stand up at a potential case at the ECJ. There are also questions about the compatibility with international tax agreements and a range of complex issues surrounding extra-territoriality. Whatever the final answer it could potentially lead to years of litigation.

Q: Will it have a knock on effect on ordinary individuals?

Those in favour of the tax hope this will be seen as a tax on the financial services industry. However it is difficult to see how this will not affect the wider economy or individuals. Every security bought by a pension fund will be taxed and so will reduce someone's pension, likewise taking funds out of the economy through taxation is often inefficient and could hamper economic growth. But the tax is pretty minor in terms of absolute amounts.

Q: Will companies be forced to leave FTT-land?


FTT states in red

The Commission hopes that they have cast the net so wide and set the tax at such a low level that it would not be worth an organisation leaving the FTT states. This seems optimistic as the proposal seems to create incentives not to issue securities within the FTT states. The Commission itself accepts that derivatives trade will likely fall by 75% in the FTT area - it is not clear if this trade is expected to be eradicated or simply move elsewhere.

Q: Will it ever be brought in?

The Commission is hopeful saying:  

"The proposed Directive will now be discussed by Member States, with a view to its implementation under enhanced cooperation. All 27 Member States may participate in the discussions on this proposal. However, only the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation will have a vote."

Under the treaties the measure will need at least nine states to agree the final proposal and there is still a possibility that some of the eleven states will read the detail and change their minds. Interestingly it also remains unclear at what stage a state can still decide to drop out.


Q: What would happen to the proceeds?

The proposal mentions some states using the revenues to pay their EU budget contributions. They would be free to do so but at various times, proponents of the tax have also wanted to spend it on projects such as international development and job creation.

The FTT debate rumbles on...

The FT reported today on the latest draft proposals for the EU financial transactions tax (FTT), which is proceeding under enhanced cooperation with 11 countries taking part. These are the highlights from the FT's report (since we are yet to get our hands on the draft proposal):

• The FTT is expected to raise up to €35bn.
• It will apply to any share, bond or derivative issued within the participating area or "with a clear connection to a participating member state" in an attempt to restrict relocation to avoid the tax.
• Target introduction date of January 2014.

Although the basic structure is the same, the most potentially controversial element is the extension of the scope of the FTT to apply to any share, bond or derivative "with a clear connection to a participating member state." This means that financial instruments which are traded outside of the participating countries could still be caught by the tax. This throws up a number of important questions and potential problems:

• This could ultimately result in participating governments imposing taxes within other government’s jurisdictions. This goes further than just other EU countries.
• It is not clear to where the revenue would flow (to the government where the trade is located or back to the FTT participants?) or how it would be enforced at a global or EU level. (This also seems to add massively to the complexity, a reduction of which is a cited benefit of the FTT).
• Surely, there are questions regarding how this cuts across the single market. As the press release on enhanced cooperation notes, the FTT will “respect the rights, competences and obligations of non-participating Member States” – stepping on the rights of non-participating government to determine which taxes are applied in their sovereign territory does not seem to fit this description. Some of the non-participating members could certainly be unpleasantly surprised and may well have some complaints to lodge.
• The new clause (to stop capital from flowing outside the FTT zone) seems to go against the key EU principle of free movement of capital in spirit, if not in law.
• For those involved, the tax will likely have some impact on their borrowing costs (for both governments and firms based in these countries). It will also increase the cost of instruments used to hedge against risk in these countries (certain derivatives). This may not be massive but will come at a time when it is not needed.

We do not know what form the final proposal will take but, if the reports are accurate, this FTT could not only pose practical difficulties of enforcement but also cut across the single market.

Update - 18:07 30/01/13:
 The FT has flagged up to us that, under latest proposal, the rules will only apply to exchange traded derivatives rather than all (over the counter) derivatives. This certainly makes the collection and policing of the tax easier and may limit any distortion on derivatives market somewhat. We'd note though that the general enforcement of the tax across borders and particularly outside the EU will remain tricky.

EU Summit: Everyone is a winner... for now

As is traditional, a leaked copy of the next EU Summit Conclusions has already been making its way around the media long before the summit has even commenced (due on 17-18 October).

As it is still an early draft, little can be drawn from these 'conlcusions' but so far the officials charged with drawing them up seem to have dropped in something for everyone:

France, has received a mention of an EU Financial Transaction Tax despite, as we reported yesterday morning, it still being far short of the nine states needed for the project to get off the ground.

Germany, has received an assurance that there will remain a "clear separation" between the ECB's monetary policy and its new supervisory functions - another clear hat tip to Bundesbank demands that price stability (inflation) remains the ECB's primary focus.

The UK and other non-euro states, have recieved an assurance that there will be a "level-playing field" (an English expression) in the new supervisory structures under the proposed eurozone banking union and that the "integrity of the single market" will be preserved for financial services.

The UK has also managed to insert a phrase regarding the "voting modalities" in the European Banking Authority, which the document suggests will be looked at to ensure non-eurozone countries will not be prejudiced by a Eurozone caucus.

The MEPs, often an obstacle when it comes to financial regulation, have been promised that the ECB will have "appropriate accountability" in its newly widened role. This is unlikely to placate their desire for new powers but might buy some peace.

Spain, has received wording designed to calm its bond market by raising the prospect of ESM direct bank recapitalisation including 'legacy assets' (i.e. bank bailouts which have already taken place being shifted onto the ESM books). The draft wording calls on the Eurogroup (read Germany, Finland and the Netherlands) to "agree on the exact operational criteria that will guide bank recapitalisation by the ESM in full respect of the 29 June Euro Area Statement". This could still go either way, but Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has made it clear that he wants Germany to stick to the plan as was originally envisioned/interpreted.

This is, of course, all well and good, but we find it hard to imagine that the final conclusions will be able to maintain what everyone wants. There are likely to be some fights along the way (not least over the last point), lets hope the UK Government is ready to ensure its needs remain included.

The EU's Big Five (& Austria): where are they at ahead of tonight's summit?

The 'growth dinner' of EU leaders is about to start. No big decisions are expected (this is a meeting of EU leaders after all) but here's an overview of where the different big countries are at:

Germany

Berlin  remains fiercely opposed to Eurobonds, but interestingly, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger - a fellow member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party - argues in an interview in today's Handelsblatt:

"Eurobonds are a matter of timing. I advice all participants not to position themselves inherently against them."

Similarly, Rainer Brüderle, the parliamentary leader of the FDP (Merkel's junior coalition partner) told German radio Deutschlandfunk that if structural reforms and budgetary discipline were implemented, Germany should not rule out the introduction of Eurobonds “at a later stage".

It won't touch Merkel for now, but an indication that Germany is set for a long, grinding and existential (in the euro sense of the word at least) debate on this issue.

Austria

It looks like Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann is on a different wavelength to his Finance Minister Maria Fekter. The latter is opposed to the idea of debt-financed growth à la Hollande, while Faymann told Kleine Zeitung in an interview that he "fully supports" Hollande in wanting to discuss Eurobonds at tonight's meeting. However, the Austrian Chancellor made clear that Eurobonds are "a long-term project that cannot be realised in the next two or three years" while stressing the need to also have strong mechanisms to ensure that budget discipline is "an absolute prerequisite" for the proposal to be implemented.

France

French President François Hollande held a joint press conference with Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy earlier today. Nothing new came out of it and France's focus at the tonight's summit remains:

• Fiscal stimulus is necessary to achieve deficit and debt reduction; 

• Greece must remain in the eurozone, and its partners need to do more to help the country return to growth. However, previous commitments must be respected;

• No taboos on Eurobonds - they must be discussed. Their main purpose is to cut the financing costs of struggling eurozone countries.

We can't help noting how Hollande of late stropped referring to the fiscal treaty as frequently, instead stressing the 'growth pact' for the eurozone.

Spain

In his joint press conference with Hollande, Rajoy simply reaffirmed Spain's priorities for tonight's meeting (and the near future), saying that "financing" of states and banks was "the most urgent" of all the issues:

• Immediate action is needed to keep borrowing costs at sustainable levels for Spain and other peripheral eurozone countries. Rajoy stopped short of mentioning the ECB during the press conference, but a new round of ECB bond purchases is clearly on his wish list

• Eurobonds are not a priority, but could be discussed as part of a broader, long-term debate on  deepening European integration;

• He also said that the EU need "certainties" including that "the euro will exist for ever and no country will default [on its debt]." The EU institutions should start sending clear messages on these points. Okay, Rajoy...

Italy

Staying true to his style, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti has kept awfully quiet, although he has warned that trying to isolate Merkel tonight would be "impractical and counterproductive" (no kidding). Monti and his cabinet are presumably doing a lot of work behind the scenes, based on a couple of specific proposals (which we mentioned here and here).

The Italian government yesterday adopted plans to unblock between €20bn and €30bn by the end of the year to make overdue payments to private firms that have supplied goods or services to the public administrations. Could this be a sign that Monti's proposal to temporarily exempt overdue payments to businesses from the EU's deficit and debt rules is gaining ground in Berlin? Possibly...

UK

The UK will continue to voice its opposition to a financial transactions tax (the Commission STILL has not given up on this proposal and will apparently present a massaged impact assessment tonight showing that the negative effect on EU GDP is not bad at all, never mind what it said initially). Cameron will also, rightly, push for various pro single market measures. It will be interesting to see how the UK responds to ideas for 'project bonds' and topping up the European Investment Bank. Cameron will also urge "decisive action" over Greece/the euro and may also provide some (largely irrelevant) advice on how the Greeks should vote in the forthcoming elections and the Germans should respond to proposals for Eurobonds.

In any case, as always, EU leaders will have a lot to talk about.

How real is Hollande's veto threat?

As has been widely reported, Francois Hollande - the socialist contender for the French Presidency - gave a major speech yesterday. Unsurprisingly, there were a few points thrown in that won't go down particularly well in Berlin or Frankfurt. Perhaps most interestingly, in reply to a journalist’s question on the EU fiscal treaty, Hollande answered,

“Ireland is about to have a referendum on the treaty, we are not sure what the result will be. We are all aware that Ireland is capable of saying no. So there will be some form of renegotiation. Will the treaty be modified? I hope so. Will another treaty be drafted? That’s part of negotiation. But the treaty in its current state will not be ratified by France”.

 So Hollande's veto-threat still stands. He also reiterated,

"[I am] not in favour of a constitutional golden rule. I’ve been saying it for months. So there will not be any changes to the French Constitution on this issue. However, if I am the next President, and the Parliament is in favour of this, there will be an organic law which will enable our budget to be rebalanced by 2017." 

In addition he tried to claim that the calls from ECB President Mario Draghi for a "growth pact" were in support of his own policy:

“The President of the ECB …has just said that the fiscal compact should be complemented by a growth pact. He even added that it would be useful to go back and prioritise education, research and big infrastructure. The ECB president will be useful to support growth through an interest rate policy. But he also adds support to… my announcement”

This is hardly how the matter was viewed in Berlin, where, in a veiled criticism of Hollande, Merkel said that "We need growth in the form of sustainable initiatives, not simply economic stimulus programmes that just increase government debt." This morning, Hollande also acknowledged on France Info that he didn't share the same "conception of growth" as Draghi, noting, "he calls for greater competitiveness, liberalisation and privatisation".

Yesterday, Hollande also laid out the content of his growth clause:

“The day after the second round, I will address a memorandum to all the European leaders and their governments on the renegotiation of the treaty. The letter will include four points. First, the creation of Eurobonds, not to mutualise debt, but to finance industrial infrastructure projects the size of which will be determined by the states. The second point will be to further liberalise the European Investment Bank’s financing opportunities, to enable a certain number of big projects already known to the bank to be financed. The third point will be the creation of a financial transactions tax, which will be determined by the states, and which will be set at a level to enable Europe to finance further development projects. Finally the fourth point will be to mobilise all the European structure fund leftovers, which are currently not being used, to finance States’ projects and help businesses." 

Of these four points, the creation of "eurobonds", which seems to build on the Commission's idea of 'project bonds' is by far the most interesting. The FTT proposal appears to be a rehash of Sarkozy's idea. It currently remains unclear whether Hollande would introduce it unilaterally, as Sarkozy is, when he encounters inevitable opposition from some EU member states. Nor is it clear at what rate he would set the tax, and which sectors he would target. Sarkozy's own version has been watered down since he made his pledge in December. Hollande's proposal for the use of unspent structural funds is hardly groundbreaking or exciting policy making. Nor does it necessarily help EU growth, as we have shown before.

The question now is whether Hollande will make agreement on these four policies a prerequisite for French ratification of the fiscal treaty. Of these four policies, eurobonds or 'project bonds' are supported by the Commission but could be difficult to get through national capitals, the FTT just won't happen at the EU-level while the two others are insufficiently interesting to warrant the renegotiation of a treaty (use of structural funds and EIB financing).  Our guess is that Hollande knows that his pledge to renegotiate the treaty comes at too great a political cost, and that he will settle for some mild language on these four areas in return for ratifying it.

Regardless, what France and Europe need now is to reassure the markets, and proceed with long-term reforms, rather than stillborn policies or palliatives to pre-existing problems.

Taxing unicorns

The European Commission continues to spend a huge amount of taxpayers’ time and money pushing around its proposal for an EU financial transaction tax (FTT), despite it by all accounts looking like a complete non-starter – something which even the German government, one of the instigators, has now implicitly admitted.

Following a barrage of criticism for its initial proposal, tabled in the autumn, the Commission is now desperately trying to brush up on its figures and presentation, to counter what it claims to be a series of “distortions” about the nature and impact of the tax. The aim is clearly to make the proposal more attractive in places like the UK and Sweden (good luck!). In this vein, EU Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandoski gave a lengthy presentation in the European Parliament yesterday highlighting the potential ‘savings’ which EU countries could make on their contributions to the EU budget if an FTT was introduced and then used to fund part of the EU budget.

This would have been a nice try had it not been for one small issue: the Commission’s polished figures and arguments are completely contradictory and illusory. In fact, Lewandowski’s presentation might as well have been about a proposal for a new tax on unicorns (we can already see the tabloid headlines).

The Commission’s “improved” case for the FTT, rests on one policy proposal and one assumption (p.10 in the presentation):

- Policy: All countries will contribute 2/3 of the nationally-collected revenue from an FTT to the EU budget, which will reduce the contribution for some member states

- Assumption: “Taxable transaction volume develops in proportion to nominal GNI” – this means that the potential revenue from the FTT (essentially the size of a countries’ financial service sector) is directly proportional to its nominal GNI

The Commission has even produced a graph showing how contributions from member states would change were an FTT used to fund the EU budget. Under this scenario, says the Commission, the FTT would be a ‘win-win’ for the UK because the Government would suddenly have a new stream of revenue – a third of which the Commission would kindly allow the UK could keep for itself, while the rest would fund the EU budget, replacing the current contribution.

It’s very difficult to take this seriously. Everyone knows that the assumption that countries’ financial services sectors are proportional to their GNI is fundamentally untrue. The UK financial services sector is huge and proportionately much bigger than the financial services sector in other EU countries. This also means that the actual policy proposal makes no sense whatsoever.

In the real world, the UK accounts for around 72% of all EU financial transactions. Any budget contributions from an EU wide FTT would need a complex burden sharing arrangement to even out the contributions across the EU – something which is just assumed away under this proposal but still remains a very real obstacle. If the assumption doesn’t hold then contributing 2/3 of the UK FTT revenues to the EU budget would probably radically increase the UK's EU budget contributions (hence the need for some form of burden sharing).

So fundamentally the figures and the graphical representation, although pretty, are totally incorrect.

These assumptions are also incompatible with the figures which were originally drawn from the Commission’s impact assessment on the proposed EU FTT. These figures were based on volumes of financial activity accurately measured around Europe, and therefore accepted that the UK is home to Europe’s largest financial centre.

The original European Commission proposal also accepted that 90% of derivatives transactions, along with many other financial services, could be displaced outside the EU as a result of a European FTT. Given the UK’s share of this market it would hit the economy and tax intake incredibly hard. The reality is that the cost of an EU-wide FTT to the UK economy as a whole would be huge, (see here, here and here for a full discussion of the FTT drawbacks for the UK and Europe).

There are plenty of other steps which need to be taken to improve regulation and oversight of financial services in the EU, not least on-going issues with bank capital levels. The Commission would be far better spending its time and taxpayers’ cash on these productive measures rather than defending Kafkaesque proposals with little chance of working in practice or being accepted.

At some point, you just have to admit defeat.