Banking union: A giant step for Europe?

French President Francois Hollande with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Vilnius EU summit, 29 November Much will depend on economic trust between France and Germany

Europe stands on the edge of taking one of the most controversial and far-reaching steps since creating the euro. On Wednesday this week European finance ministers will try to agree the details of a banking union. There are deep tensions between certain countries and a marathon meeting lies ahead.

At the most basic level the desire is to break the "doom loop" whereby bank failures are allowed to threaten the financial health of governments such as occurred in Ireland. The aim is that taxpayers should never again bail out the banks. Over the main years of the crisis, European governments risked a staggering 1.5tn euros (£1.3tn; $2tn) propping up the banks.

But the ambition is much broader than that. It is to give European authorities the power to supervise banks and wind them up. A banking union will involve giving up another chunk of sovereignty and, to a degree, sharing the risks of other countries' banks. It deepens economic and monetary union.

The easier part has already been agreed. By the end of 2014 the European Central Bank will have taken responsibility for supervising the eurozone's major banks. Over the next 12 months there will be a comprehensive stress test of the zone's top 130 lenders. The aim - after many half-hearted attempts - will be to discover the true health of Europe's banking system.

And then come the harder questions: who will decide a bank has to be wound up and, critically, who will pay?

Who pays?

Many smaller countries believe that the decision to wind up a failing bank should be taken by an EU-wide institution and that means the Commission. The Germans favour the decision being taken by finance ministers. There may be room for compromise but the British, who will not be part of this, are sceptical. One senior official said the plans were too complicated and underestimate what a resolution authority should entail. Decisions on winding up banks often have to be taken rapidly over a weekend.

Dominic Laurie demonstrates the progress of countries' economies since the start of the eurozone crisis

The most divisive issue is the question of who will pay. Very broadly the Germans envisage each country taking responsibility for its own failing banks. The French, on the other hand, support a single EU-wide rescue fund.

One principle has been agreed: that shareholders, bond holders and even large depositors will be first to lose money.

The plan envisages - certainly initially - home countries setting up a fund paid for out of fees from the banks. The idea is that these national funds would be merged into one Single Resolution Fund over ten years with a pot of 55bn euros. So gradually, over time, the risks would be mutualised and that would be a huge step for the eurozone.

Unresolved is what would happen in the short term whilst this fund was still being established. Where would be the back stop? Should governments, on behalf of failing banks, be able to tap the European Stability Mechanism, the zone's main bailout fund? The Germans are very reluctant to agree to that.

So the arguments over a common fund are far from settled. The Germans remain resistant to sharing the liabilities of other country's banks. They are wanting countries to accept economic "contracts" before signing off on a Single Resolution Mechanism.

And that brings us to politics and the big question of the day.

UK sidelined

Angela Merkel will be sworn in as chancellor on Tuesday having formed a coalition with the Social Democrats. The question is whether the Social Democrats will soften a third-term Merkel. The government in Paris desperately hopes so. It is gambling on Berlin showing more solidarity.

Never, in recent times, has Berlin been so pre-occupied with the performance of a French government. There is a lot of angst over whether the Hollande team is serious about deep reforms to the labour market. The tensions are real but there are large incentives to agree on a banking union.

Where does this leave the UK? On the sidelines. It will not pay into the resolution fund or be part of the banking union. But the UK will insist on equal treatment for insiders and outsiders. There is a lot of talk in London reminding the European Commission that it is the guardian of the treaties not just for the eurozone but for all 28 members. For the UK going forward there is a huge doubt that lies unanswered: can the UK guarantee equal treatment for itself when others are pushing for closer integration and are heading to a different destination?

Banking union underlines a lesson from the eurozone crisis, that in order to make a single currency work there will have to be closer integration, a further pooling of sovereignty and, to a degree, a sharing of risk, and countries like Germany taking on greater responsibility for the zone's weaker economies.

A final thought. Negotiations over the legal structures of a banking union have proved difficult and tortuous. But solving the eurozone's banking problems will also be a challenge. Take, for instance, the ambition to break the link between governments and their banks. During the past three years both Spain and Italy have been selling debt to their own banks. So Italian banks now hold over 400bn euros of eurozone debt compared with 250bn euros in late 2011. The link between governments and banks is far from being broken.

Gavin Hewitt Article written by Gavin Hewitt Gavin Hewitt Europe editor

Europe in 2014: Ghosts return

History came back to haunt Europe in 2014, not least with Russia's intervention in Ukraine, the BBC's Europe editor Gavin Hewitt writes.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 432.

    429 QOT"I never learn"

    I too gave up hope that you ever will...or can

    430 Putin's a liar.Offensive against whom, Russia?We don't need missiles in Europe to attack Russia.Who is the enemy then, Iran?No such luck.It doesn't look like we'll attack them and on the off chance they could retaliate against Europe why would we defend it?Only way to destroy Iran's ICBMs, massive US first strike.

  • rate this

    Comment number 431.

    422.margaret howard
    "The EU has a waiting list of countries wanting to join. Do you wonder why?"
    No, they're queueing for yours and mine money. It's a hammer and sickle economy with little to offer in return except iron ore and snow.

    "--I never learn"
    Now you know how Tom Cruise felt in Rainman.

  • rate this

    Comment number 430.

    sieuarlu @ 421:
    "..Neither Russia nor the US can thwart a deliberate thermonuclear strike from the other.Neither has reason to launch one. The missile shield is no threat to Russia and they know it"

    Putin said: “We are well aware of the fact that the missile defense system is only defensive in name, whereas in reality it is an essential element of a strategic offensive potential”

  • rate this

    Comment number 429.

    #428 sieu

    Yet another waste of time reading and answering your contributions ?

    --I never learn .

  • rate this

    Comment number 428.

    The reason the cold war ended was because USSR went broke, period.Europeans who loved the USSR and hoped they'd win the cold war and enslave the whole world have never acknowledged the US wiped them away and have never forgiven the US for doing it.With USSR gone, they're hoping to create an EUSSR.That is becoming bankrupt without fighting a cold war with the US.It's at war with itself and losing

  • Comment number 427.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 426.

    If EU member states were building from a strong base then such a move would be sensible.

    But looking into the future with existing (secondary) members hanging-on by a thread and more recent Eastern European members looking for massive support then it's hard to predict the outcome.

    The stupidity of the EU's stance over Ukraine demonstrates a lack of clear thinking and servitude to the US.

  • rate this

    Comment number 425.

    420. margaret howard

    I have tended to mostly focus on breaking the soviets by the US ruining them.Your closer observation on the actual bravery & resistance of ordinary folk on the wrong side of that iron curtain is worthy of study.As you said "Anything else is an insult to them".

  • rate this

    Comment number 424.

    Ukraine should hold out on Russia for elimination all 17bn gas debt and all future gas needs met by Russia for free.Ukraine's economy is a loser, its politics corrupt.It's a lead ball and chain on anyone it's associated with.It's products are suitable to low standards of Russia's market, can't compete with EU standards on an equal footing.A deal with Russia is better for everyone except Russia.

  • rate this

    Comment number 423.

    #421 sieu

    Believe what you want --the facts are otherwise.

    ´Senators McCain, Murphy join massive Ukraine anti-government protest, threaten sanctions´

    Obama-- UK should remain in EU.

    The bastardization of the EU for warmongering has been long underway by the US and UK.

  • rate this

    Comment number 422.

    414 correct

    "force Ukraine to choose EU over Russia"

    The people in the streets don't seem to need much forcing facing appalling weather to protest against Russian meddling

    People moaning about the EU don't know what conditions these countries lived in before they joined. Britain itself was on its uppers

    The EU has a waiting list of countries wanting to join. Do you wonder why?

  • rate this

    Comment number 421.

    419 If the US "eliminated" Iran's military threat as it should have long ago there would be no need for a missile shield because they'd have no missiles and no nuclear weapons.Russia is either playing a game or is insane.Neither Russia nor the US can thwart a deliberate thermonuclear strike from the other.Neither has reason to launch one. The missile shield is no threat to Russia and they know it

  • rate this

    Comment number 420.

    409 Phfft

    "your version of events was only then, able to unfold"

    I'm not underestimating the importance of the military power game. But long before that it was individuals like the E Germans who risked their lives digging tunnels or building contraptions to flee to escape

    Drip drip drip until the whole edifice crumbled. We shall have to wait until we hear their voices in the future

  • rate this

    Comment number 419.

    #414 kane

    NATO started this (US and UK) when the ´wall´ fell.

    The EU was ´logically´ the next move in the continuing ´Cold War´-- that in many countries was no longer ´Cold´.

    The War must go on.

    #418 sieu

    "Don't know how cold war relates to EU "

    --now you do !

    ´Kaliningrad: European fears over Russian missiles´

  • rate this

    Comment number 418.

    Don't know how cold war relates to EU but Reagan won it by turning a political/military war West was losing into an economic war by ramping up the nuclear arms race.MX missiles, Pershing II in Europe, Ohio class subs, more nuclear carriers, 600 ship navy, stealth fighters and bombers, star wars.USSR generals demanded the same.It bankrupted both govts.USSR govt = 100% of the economy, US govt=20%.

  • rate this

    Comment number 417.

    #416 Phffft

    I can agree with you about internal paranoia -- should not be ignored. Knew it from DDR. The CCTV I find also insidious. When the UK police had the right to ´stop and search´school kids (long Hair) --the writing was clearly on the wall.

    Dixon of Dock Green had died.

  • rate this

    Comment number 416.

    412. quietoaktree

    Recently watched documentary on BBC IPlayer episode 1 was the better but both worth watching.To wards the end of episode 2 it stated Soviet arm spend was 40 % of its GDP US in low single figures.May be this along with internal paranoia broke the system.!/

  • rate this

    Comment number 415.

    How much of an enemy was the USSR after Stalin? How much did both sides make each other the enemy through unreasoned fear?

    Should we look closer to home for the real threats to our freedom? To Bilderberg and the like?

  • rate this

    Comment number 414.

    but the EU is the bully, pitting both nations against each other,then trying to force Ukraine to choose EU over Russia.From the outset EU negotiators went out of their way to turn Union association into a loyaltytest.instead of highlighting the values that would have honoured Ukraine Slavic Euro id,the EU promoted the notion that accession was a“civilizational choice”between Russia&EU.

  • rate this

    Comment number 413.

    I see a picture of Monsieur Clouseau, sorry Monsieur Holland in the article. Says it all really.


Page 1 of 22



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.