Brussels, 09/01/2014 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 9 January, the European Parliament representatives for the interinstitutional negotiations on the single resolution mechanism (SRM) attended, as bitter observers, the intergovernmental conference which was organised to decide on the details of the single resolution fund. During an initial trialogue the previous day, which was described as difficult, they expressed their criticism of the general approach agreed by the EU finance ministers in December (see EUROPE 10988).
“We come with a constructive approach and to explain our position, but our presence does not signal support for this intergovernmental process”, said the MEPs in charge of the negotiations in a joint press release. Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany) quoted Sharon Bowles, the chair of the Parliament's economic committee, on his Twitter account, telling the Council that this intergovernmental conference on the SRM was “potentially illegal”. Giegold also expressed his disagreement with this intergovernmental process at the trialogue on Wednesday evening. The rapporteur on this file, Elisa Ferreira (S&D, Portugal), had said that a resolution fund must be completely European. The Parliament's economics committee had backed this position in December (see EUROPE 10986).
In the Council's general approach, the ministers adopted the idea of using an intergovernmental agreement. Some details on the fund would fall under the control of this agreement, thus sidelining the Parliament. The leader of the Parliament's S&D Group, Hannes Swoboda (Austria), set the pace on Thursday by stating that, if the Council “does not improve its offer”, given the choice between a greater or a lesser evil - a bad deal or no deal, the MEPS would choose the lesser evil - in other words, no deal “because a bad agreement would be worse in the long term”. On the EPP Group side, the group's vice chair and shadow rapporteur, Corien Wortmann-Kool (Netherlands), expressed her concern, highlighting the fact that “this proposal is too important to let it slip through our fingers. The Council has invented too complex and fragile a procedure for failing banks”. Among the weaknesses of the ministers' approach, she revealed the number of people able to be involved in the decision-making on the fate of a failing bank (up to 100 people). “It seems impossible to act decisively” with so many people involved, she stated. She then highlighted the fact that 18 ministers could meet to discuss the fate of a bank - a solution which is “too time-consuming and complex” at a time when history has shown that it is necessary to act quickly in cases of bank crisis.
Swoboda's opinion on this issue is also along the same lines. “When there is a fire, firefighters don't have to go ask the mayor for permission and the neighbours for water to put it out”, he said, adding that it is necessary to take quick action to avoid the spread “of hysteria, uncertainty and contagion”. He also looked unfavourably on certain arrangements agreed by the Council on the single fund, which in his opinion are of a nature to make it ineffective and pointlessly complex.
The Parliament is not giving up on this and wants to push ahead in a substantive debate. The Greek Presidency of the Council of the EU has a little under four months to bring these interinstitutional negotiations to a successful conclusion before the end of the parliamentary term. The next trialogues are due to take place on 15 and 29 January. The intergovernmental conference should give rise to an agreement for March 2014. (EL/transl.fl)