Brussels, 18/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - Tactical manoeuvring or a genuine desire for progress? On Wednesday 19 March, MEPs were still pointing the finger at the differences between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers over the bank resolution mechanism (SRM) within the eurozone.
A few minutes before entering trilogue talks on the SRM (the second arm of Banking Union), Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany) said he did not expect agreement to be reached that day. Noting the meeting of minds among pro-European groups at the Parliament, he listed the areas over which the Parliament disagreed with the member states - governance of the SRM, on which the most controversial question was the fact, he said, that the Parliament wants to de-politicise governance as far as possible by restricting possibilities for political interference; the speed at which the resolution fund (SRF) is to be mutualised, where the Council of Ministers is suggesting eight years and the Parliament three; details about the backstop that will allow the SRF to be able to intervene right from the start; and how exactly banks are to pay into the fund.
Giegold said agreement was not on the cards over the next few days, unless the finance ministers further adjusted their offering, which has not changed since the last ECOFIN Council (see EUROPE 11037). This means it does not seem crucial for the member states and, at the end of the day, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to intervene if necessary to deal with the results of the asset assessment for banks being carried out by the European Central Bank and the stress tests carried out by the European Banking Authority. The results are due to be released in October.
Corien Wortmann-Kool (EPP, the Netherlands) says the same hot potatoes are still on the negotiating table, namely the ability of decide over the course of a weekend that a bank has to be wound up, and the need for the SRF to be credible from day one in 2016. She told EUROPE that agreement would be possible if the member states kept their promise to make substantial adjustments. Sylvie Goulard (ALDE, France) said the Council of Ministers was trying to pressurise MEPs into accepting a virtually unchanged compromise position, but by a huge majority, the Parliament has voted through a stricter system and there was no reason to give in on points of principle. She added in a column in Le Monde on Wednesday that it was better to do something well rather than come up with a botch job that would fail at the first hurdle.
At the Parliament on Tuesday, Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier repeated the Commission's views, which are similar to those of the Parliament, but he called for the negotiations to be concluded in the general European interest. He said all the elements for agreement were at hand and there would not be any new element in the autumn. He warned that the credibility of Banking Union was at stake. (MB)