After three 'trilogues', the inter-institutional negotiations on the reform of the European financial supervision architecture (see EUROPE 11864) has not made any significant progress. However, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU remain determined to complete the dossier before the end of Parliament's mandate, perhaps by 12 March next.
Contacted by EUROPE, Pervenche Berès (S&D, France), the Parliamentary co-rapporteur, acknowledged that there was still work to be done. But she considers that "it’s worth it", and she is determined to maintain a "determined optimism until the last moment".
The first two "trilogues" on 14 and 21 February focused on the "anti-money laundering" aspect. Some in the Council see securing at least that component - which has generated the most consensus - as a backup plan if negotiations on the whole reform cannot be completed in time.
But Parliament absolutely continues to oppose this option (see EUROPE 12173). “The EP negotiating team made clear to the Council that a deal on AML would not be acceptable and that a deal on the full text is still to be reached. However, this required more flexibility from the Council”, Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, Italy), Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, told his colleagues on Monday 4 March.
For Pervenche Berès, an agreement limited to the provisions relating to the fight against money laundering has been completely ruled out. Moreover, the position of the co-legislators on this issue has still not been stabilised.
One of the last issues to be resolved specifically concerns the provision requested by the Council on the prior consent of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) or the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) for decisions taken by the European Banking Authority (EBA) that concern institutions falling within the competence of these two authorities (see EUROPE 12161).
"The European supervisory authorities themselves did not ask for this”, Mrs Berès pointed out, yet the Council seems to be attached to it.
At the third 'trilogue', held on 27 February, negotiators discussed for the first time issues of competence, governance and financing. Once again, the divisions between the co-legislators were marked.
With regard to the direct supervisory powers of the three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) for finance and governance, the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU has extremely limited leeway (see EUROPE 12188), a European source reiterated.
Governance. Mrs Berès did not want to talk about a red line on the part of Parliament, but felt that the most important thing in terms of governance was that the solution should not be more "paralysing” than the current situation, and that this included the composition of the independent ‘management board’ set up in each of the ESAs, the exercise of its direct powers and the role of the President. “There still needs to be improvement”, she said.
According to the same source, the last meeting was less constructive than the two previous ones, with the European Parliament essentially defending its position. Everyone is therefore passing the buck, since within Parliament, the lack of progress is attributed to the Council of the EU's intransigence.
MEPs even reportedly threatened not to participate in other trilogues if the Romanian Presidency did not show flexibility, this source reported.
Parliament asked the Council of the EU to have a clear and realistic mandate, Ms Berès clarified. She also asserted that the discussion paper put forward by the European Commission constituted a "good basis for discussion", provided that there were “efforts from both sides”.
While the co-legislators are aiming for an agreement on 12 March, they nevertheless have room for manoeuvre until 15 March to reach an agreement. This week’s bilateral discussions will therefore be decisive. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)