Peter Spiegel

Juncker presents his €315bn investment plan to the European Parliament in Strasbourg

On the eve of two of the most momentous events of his young tenure as European Commission president – Thursday’s failed vote of no confidence against him in the European Parliament and Friday’s long-awaited decision on whether to sanction France or Italy for failing to comply with EU budget rules – Jean-Claude Juncker sat down for his first interview since assuming office with a small group of European newspapers in Strasbourg.

In addition to his just-unveiled €315bn plan to revive investment in the EU’s stagnating economy, the primary topics of the 70-minute interview were the ongoing controversy surrounding revelations that foreign companies were able to avoid large tax bills thanks to Luxembourg tax rulings, and how he intends to deal with the budgets from Rome and Paris. In addition to our story on the interview, we are publishing annotated excerpts online here.

The interview started with Juncker’s new investment plan and whether he had hoped there would be more public money in the programme. Under his proposal, the EU will contribute €21bn in guarantees, and all of the €315bn of investment would be private money, either raised by the European Investment Bank through issuing bonds or by finding private financiers to co-invest in new EU infrastructure projects:

I hadn’t a figure in mind as far as public money is concerned. I said in July this will be a combination of public money and private investment. We don’t have the money we need. We can’t spend money we don’t have. We took the money that was available, not without difficulty and without huge pedagogic efforts as far as the different commissioners involved in this financing structure.

 Read more

Peter Spiegel

Juncker speaks to the press at last week's Group of 20 meeting in Brisbane

Just how does Jean-Claude Juncker plan on getting to €300bn?

With the formal unveiling of his highly-anticipated plan to stimulate growth in the EU just days away – officials say the Commission will decide on it early next week – politicians both in Brussels and in national capitals are abuzz about whether the financial engineering involved will make the €300bn credible.

Emmanuel Macron, the influential French economy minister, has already expressed concern, and in a meeting with a small group of reporters ahead of today’s announcement of his own stimulus plan, Belgium’s Guy Verhofstadt, head of the European Parliament’s centrist Liberals, said he worried the programme would just move around existing funding.

As we reported earlier this week, the plan will take existing cash from the EU budget and the European Investment Bank and use it as seed money for new investment funds in order to attract private capital. The public money would act as a “first loss” tranche, taking the first hit if the investment goes bad, and giving private investors more senior status – something officials hope will “crowd in” all that private cash currently sitting on the sidelines.

The two questions that will be closely watched is just how much public money will be used – and how much new private capital the Commission will forecast coming in over the plan’s three-year period.

According to documents obtained by Brussels Blog, the answer to question one – how much public money will be used – will not only include EU budget and EIB money, but also funds committed by national governments. For instance, the €10bn in new public spending announced this month by Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance ministry, appears to be counted in the €300bn plan.

How the limited amount of public funding can be leveraged is far more complex. And by nearly all accounts, the public funding will indeed be limited: the plan is explicitly seeking to avoid any new public debt, and officials acknowledge a significant part of it will involve more efficient use of existing public resources and maximising already-approved instruments. Read more

Britain’s €2.1bn EU budget surcharge is a subject of mystifying, mind-bending complexity. Not even the people who are supposed to understand seem to understand. After days trying to solve the budget puzzle, the Brussels Blog is going to attempt to explain the numbers. Right or wrong, it should at least help to confuse matters further.

First the claims. Last week, George Osborne boldly said he halved the UK bill and achieved a “real win for British taxpayers”. EU officials say the British payments are rescheduled but benefit from no additional discount.

The truth, as we understand it, is even more bewildering:

– Britain is down to make a gross surcharge payment well in excess of €2.1bn, but at a different time than originally demanded.

– Britain will receive most of the money back by the end of 2015, but it doesn’t know precisely when, and it will only be thanks to two automatic rebates.

– Osborne requested a bigger discount and was denied, but he may get an EU Christmas present nonetheless.

Now for the details: Read more

Peter Spiegel

At a time when Mario Draghi’s style of running the European Central Bank is under question – there’s reportedly been grumbling he’s setting monetary policy in off-the-cuff public remarks rather than in consultation with the bank’s board members – it is easy to forget that Draghi’s most famous act as ECB chief was also an unscripted public utterance: “whatever it takes”.

The now-famous 2012 remark, which is widely credited with ending the hair-on-fire phase of the eurozone crisis by hinting the ECB would use its printing presses to buy up sovereign debt of besieged governments, has long been viewed as a masterstroke of market management, since the ECB has yet to spend a cent on such bond purchases.

But as the FT and other news organisations have reported, many on the ECB governing council were taken aback by the remarks because the issue wasn’t discussed more widely before Draghi declared it as ECB policy.

The Brussels Blog recently got its hands on yet more evidence that Draghi’s remarks – made at a conference in London in July 2012 – were inserted at the last minute without wider consultation: raw transcripts of discussions with Timothy Geithner, who was US treasury secretary at the time, about the eurozone crisis.

The 100 pages of transcripts we obtained are of interviews Geithner gave to assistants preparing his book, Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises, which was published in May. Many of the recollections also appear in the book, but Geithner provides more detail and more bluntness – including a fondness for the f-word – in the pages we obtained.

This is particularly the case for the “whatever it takes” speech. In his book, Geithner mentions the remark was impromptu. But in the transcript, Geithner reveals his source for that passage: Draghi himself, who told Geithner he had decided to insert the words into his address after meeting with London financiers who were convinced the eurozone was on the brink of implosion. Here’s the section of the transcript relating to Draghi’s speech: Read more

Peter Spiegel

David Cameron, with his Finnish counterpart Alex Stubb, at a summit in Helsinki Thursday

The much-anticipated “emergency meeting” of EU finance ministers David Cameron demanded last month to discuss the €2.1bn surcharge Brussels has levied on Britain begins today – though it is less “emergency” than Cameron may have hoped, since it’s actually finance ministers’ regularly-scheduled November meeting.

As we reported in today’s dead-tree edition of the Financial Times, Italy, the holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, will table a compromise plan at the meeting which would allow Britain – and the Netherlands, which has the second-highest bill, with €643m due at the end of the month – to pay the new EU tab in instalments.

This is unlikely to be enough for the UK, which is seeking both a delay in the due date and a reduction in the bill, but there are growing signs that its allies in the fight, including the Dutch, are inclined to support the plan.

Ahead of the meeting, Brussels Blog obtained a copy of the two-paragraph Italian proposal, and we’ve posted it here. The measure asks the European Commission to come back with an amendment to existing EU rules for paying such bills that would in “exceptional circumstances” allow countries to pay their surcharge in tranches instead of all at once on the December 1 due date. Here’s the key section: Read more

Peter Spiegel

Renzi arrives at the EU summit in Brussels on Thursday and quickly took issue with Barroso

If you read the EU’s budget rules, it appears to be a cut and dried affair: if the European Commission has concerns that a eurozone country’s budget is in “particularly serious non-compliance” with deficit or debt limits, it has to inform the government of its concerns within one week of the budget’s submission. Such contact is the first step towards sending the budget back entirely for revision.

As the FT was the first to report this week, the Commission decided to notify five countries – Italy, France, Austria, Slovenia and Malta – that their budgets may be problematic on Wednesday. Helpfully, the Italian government posted the “strictly confidential” letter it received from the Commission’s economic chief, Jyrki Katainen, on its website today.

But at day one of the EU summit in Brussels, the letter – and Italy’s decision to post it – suddenly became the subject of a very public tit-for-tat between José Manuel Barroso, the outgoing Commission president, and Matteo Renzi, the Italian prime minster.

Barroso fired the first shot at a pre-summit news conference, expressing surprise and annoyance that Renzi’s government had decided to make the letter public. For good measure, he took a pop at the Italian press, which in recent days has been reporting that Barroso was the one pushing for a hard line against Rome, and implying he was motivated by his desire to score political points back home in Portugal, where he has long been rumoured as a potential presidential candidate after leaving the Commission:

The first thing I will say is this: If you look at the Italian press, if you look at most of what is reported about what I’ve said or what the Commission has said, most of this news is absolutely false, surreal, having nothing to do with reality. And if they coincide with reality, I think it’s by chance.

 Read more

Peter Spiegel

Juncker addresses the European Parliament before the vote approving his new Commission

It started out as an internecine turf war within the incoming regime of Jean-Claude Juncker. But it is quickly metastasising into what could be one of the first international policy fights of the Juncker Commission.

The dispute centres on a previously obscure trade arbitration system that allows companies that believe they can’t get a fair hearing in front of national courts to appeal to an international dispute resolution panel known as ISDS, for investor-state dispute settlement.

The systems have become relatively commonplace in international investment treaties, but they suddenly – and to the surprise of many advocates – have become the single biggest bone of contention among opponents of the world’s biggest trade deal, the pact currently being negotiated between the US and EU.

Opposition from social democrats in Germany, the country where ISDS was ironically invented, has put ISDS on the front-burner politically, and Juncker – urged on, officials say, by his powerful chief of staff, German lawyer Martin Selmayr – has clearly sided with the sceptics. The stance has led to an open confrontation with Cecilia Malmström, his incoming trade commissioner who supported a similar ISDS system in the just-completed EU trade deal with Canada.

But as we reported in today’s dead-tree edition of the FT, free-trading countries are fighting back. A letter signed by ministers from 14 member states – including Britain, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and the Czech Republic – pointedly reminds Juncker that ISDS was included in the negotiating mandate that all 27 member states gave to the Commission last year. We’ve posted a copy of the letter hereRead more

Peter Spiegel

Having trouble following the fight over the EU’s budget rules? You’re not alone. They are fiendishly complicated, particularly since nearly every eurozone country is at risk of violating a different part of them.

Is your deficit over 3 per cent of economic output? Then you’re in the “excessive deficit procedure”. Is your deficit under 3 per cent but at risk of going over? Then you’re in the “preventative arm”. What if your deficit is under 3 per cent, but your national debt is over 60 per cent of gross domestic product? Well, you can still be in an “excessive deficit procedure” if you don’t cut the debt fast enough.

There are so many iterations that the European Commission has an entire 115-page “vade mecum” – fancy Latin for “guidebook” – for those trying to figure out how they work.

The complexity of the rules has made it particularly difficult to judge the new Italian budget, submitted – along with all other eurozone countries, save bailout countries Greece and Cyprus – to the European Commission on Wednesday. Read more

Peter Spiegel

Latvia's Valdis Dombrovskis was heckled by some MEPs at his hearing on Monday.

After six hours of testimony over the last week between Pierre Moscovici and Valdis Dombrovskis, some MEPs are still fuming that they have no idea which one will be in charge of ruling on national budgets as part of the EU’s annual review process.

Moscovici, the former French finance minister, has been nominated economics commissioner and is seen by centre-right MEPs as too lax on fiscal matters; Dombrovskis, a former Latvian prime minister, will be vice-president for the euro and seen by the centre-left as a disciple of the EU’s austerity school of economics.

As we reported last week, going into their confirmation hearings it looked like the two men would basically share the role. But neither gave clear answers of how their division of labour would work at their hearings, leading French MEP Sylvie Goulard, the top Liberal on the economics committee, to heckle Dombrovskis: “So we don’t know?” she shouted after he failed to explain who would represent the eurozone at international fora like the IMF and G-20.

In an effort to gain clarity, the economic committee leadership on Monday sent a letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, the incoming commission president, asking for further clarification. We’ve obtained his response, and posted it here. It doesn’t provide a huge amount of additional clarity. Read more

Christian Oliver

Hyon Hak Bong presenting his credentials to Queen Elizabeth two years ago

Hyon Hak Bong, North Korea’s envoy to the EU, has his work cut out.

The instructions from Pyongyang are clear: re-open a dialogue on human rights with the EU that was suspended in 2003. That’s a tall order in itself, but it is made even more difficult by the fact that he must simultaneously reassure sceptical Europeans that camps for political prisoners simply do not exist in North Korea.

Speaking to the Financial Times on a mission to Brussels, it was clear that the London-based ambassador was part of a broader Pyongyang charm offensive towards the EU. Last month, Kang Sok Ju, one of the supremos in the ruling Workers’ party, visited Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy.

Currently seen as a destination for only the hardiest foreign investors, the impoverished nation of 25m would benefit from some more business with Europe (and the access to hard currency that brings). Real progress on that prickly human rights dossier would certainly help “develop relations further”, as Mr Hyon puts it.

North Korea wants the EU to stop co-sponsoring UN resolutions against Pyongyang’s human rights record, but Mr Hyon may find Brussels bureaucrats ever-so-fussy about those infuriating details – like the penal system. Europeans will be focusing on the testimonies of North Korean defectors, who describe the horrific conditions in the country’s gulags, telling of rape, summary executions, starvation and back-breaking labour in penal mines.

According to Mr Hyon, this is all a fiction. He said that the EU needed to understand who the defectors were: “These are the riff-raff who have escaped through fear of the legal treatment they will receive for their crimes. So they attack North Korea and take money to do so…. We do not have political prisons. We have prisons like those in Belgium and the UK, where prisoners are being educated.” Read more

Peter Spiegel

Pierre Moscovici arrives in Paris for the government's confidence vote earlier this month.

One of the most highly anticipated confirmation hearings in the European Parliament this week will be that of Pierre Moscovici, the former French finance minister tapped to be the European Commission’s new economic chief, who will appear before the economic affairs committee on Thursday morning.

Members of the parliament’s centre-right grouping, the European People’s party, have vowed to give him a grilling on whether he will vigorously enforce the EU’s tough budget rules – particularly since he comes from a French Socialist government that has advocated more flexibility in the rules.

As we reported in today’s dead-tree edition of the FT, Jean-Claude Juncker, the incoming Commission president, took the unusual step of issuing a legal decision that spells out in black and white Moscovici’s relationship with the Commission’s new vice president in charge of the euro, Valdis Dombrovskis, a former Latvian prime minister with a reputation as a deficit hawk. Here’s the relevant paragraph:



We have posted the entire 6-page document here. Most of it is unsurprising boilerplate – though there is a somewhat intriguing US-style line of succession among the vice presidents on page 2, which ranks Dutchman Frans Timmermans first and Finland’s Jyrki Katainen last. Read more

Peter Spiegel

Malmstrom makes a point during her unexpectedly contentious hearing on Monday

It is rare that an obscure bit of international trade arcana turns into a major political kafuffle, but that’s just what appears to have happened on Monday over a relatively obscure arbitration system proposed for a new EU-US trade pact.

Although there is much substance behind the dispute, what really has Brussels insiders buzzing is the role played by Martin Selmayr, the increasingly powerful head of Jean-Claude Juncker’s transition team.

According to several EU officials, Selmayr – a workaholic German lawyer who is expected to become Juncker’s chief of staff when the Luxembourger assumes the European Commission presidency – changed the written testimony of Cecilia Malmström, the incoming trade commissioner, before it was submitted to the European parliament without her knowledge.

Dutch Liberal Marietje Schaake, a rising star within the European parliament, first made the accusation publicly during Malmström’s confirmation hearing on Monday afternoon (a video of her revelation can be seen here).

Schaake’s allegation is supported by a copy of the commissioner’s final testimony obtained by Brussels Blog and posted here. The document shows dozens of edits made by Selmayr that were recorded by the word processing programme’s track changes at 8:38am on Sunday. MEPs say the testimony landed in their in-box less than 20 minutes later. Read more

Duncan Robinson

Lord Hill says that there will be no exceptions for member states who fail to jump into line on banker bonuses. Read more

Duncan Robinson

Commission nominee Phil Hogan, left, with Irish prime minister Enda Kenny

Much of the back-room plotting ahead of next week’s European Parliament confirmation hearings for the new European Commission has focused on four controversial nominees who are likely to face a tough grilling: Britain’s Jonathan Hill, Hungary’s Tibor Navracsics, Slovenia’s Alenka Bratusek and Spain’s Miguel Arias Cañete.

But suddenly Ireland’s Phil Hogan has moved into a strange spotlight.

The incoming agriculture commissioner has threatened Irish MEP Nessa Childers with legal action over a letter she sent to fellow parliamentarians opposing his appointment as commissioner.

In the letter (which we have posted here), Childers alleges that Hogan, while a member of the Irish parliament, agreed to try to prevent a “Traveller family” from moving into public housing in his constituency. Childers argues this makes him an unsuitable nominee.

Hogan has responded by sending some letters of his own: legal threats from his lawyers at Mason Hayes & Curran, alleging that Childers’ claims were untrue and defamatory. We have those three letters, labeled “strictly private & confidential”, here, here and hereRead more

Peter Spiegel

Juncker's "key political challenges" session will feature Ukraine, EU-US trade and budget rules

Fresh with their newly-minted portfolios in hand, the 28 members of the incoming Juncker commission headed off for an “informal seminar” on the outskirts of Brussels by bus Thursday morning for a bit of team-building.

As we reported in this morning’s dead-tree edition of the FT, one of the highlights of the two day gathering will be a debate this afternoon on the EU’s budget rules between the new economic affairs commissioner, France’s Pierre Moscovici, and one of the new economic vice presidents, Finland’s Jykri Katainen.

According to a copy of the agenda for the two-day event, which Brussels Blog got its hands on and has posted here, the budget rules are one of three “key political challenges” that will be debated in a two-hour session after lunch. The other two are Ukraine and the increasingly controversial EU-US trade agreement. Read more

Peter Spiegel

Russian president Vladimir Putin visits a Rosneft oil refinery on the Black Sea last year

EU ambassadors head into yet another meeting Friday afternoon to hammer out the latest round of sanctions against Russia. Their bosses have promised to get things done by the end of the week, but there’s still a lot of work to do, so it’s not entirely clear whether a deal can be reached. Also, the on-again, off-again Ukrainian ceasefire could slow things down, though allies don’t appear to be giving much credibility to the Kremlin’s protestations that they are working towards a truce.

As we wrote in today’s dead-tree edition of the FT, we got a leaked copy of the draft legislation approved by the European Commission on Wednesday and sent to national capitals for today’s deliberations. The 18-page text is filled with a lot of jargon and technicalities, but because they could directly affect financial markets, the details matter.

For that reason, we are offering Brussels Blog readers more detail here. Remember: the EU ambassadors could still change much of the wording in their negotiations – though if the July sanctions are any indication, the changes are likely to be on the margins. Read more

Peter Spiegel

There is only one topic in the brasseries of Brussels, at least among the EU crowd: Which portfolios will President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker give to his 27 incoming commissioners? Which is why we here at Brussels Blog were rather pleased when the organisation chart above purporting to show where the negotiations stood last Saturday landed in our in-box.

We had no obvious reason to doubt its authenticity when we got it. Such leaks are commonplace in Brussels, and are occasionally a lubricant for political negotiations. Without going into too much detail, it was realistic to conclude the document was being worked on by Juncker’s inner circle.

But once we took a closer look at the line-up, we began to scratch our heads. The negotiations are fluid and the document is three days old, so there would naturally be changes. But it went beyond that. After a call to several trusted sources involved in the talks, it quickly became clear that something strange was afoot. The chart includes glaring inconsistencies, unbelievable political gambles and factual inaccuracies – all set amidst a few things that ring absolutely true.

At the FT, we’ve had a long discussion about how to handle this leak. We’ve decided to publish the chart with a serious health warning, as well as a guide to what is wrong and what may be correct (whether by accident or design). We leave the rest to the Poirots of Brussels, who seem to like nothing more than chewing over what Juncker may decide. Can Brussels survive another week of this speculation-fest? Read more

Peter Spiegel

Russia's Vladimir Putin, right, talks to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton last month in Minsk

As we reported in today’s dead-tree edition of the FT, we got our hands on the three-page Russia sanctions options paper circulated by the European Commission and the EU’s diplomatic corps to national delegations yesterday that, for the first time, raised the spectre of boycotting the 2018 World Cup, to be hosted by Moscow.

But the meat of the document is the actual sanctions that are likely to be agreed this week; the World Cup suspension is clearly mentioned as something that only would be considered in the future. So as is our tradition here at the Brussels Blog, we thought we’d provide readers a bit more detail, including excerpts from the document itself.

First, though, here’s the language on the World Cup, which also includes a mention of UEFA, the Union of European Football Associations which organises and runs all international competitions for European soccer clubs – including Russia’s. Read more

Peter Spiegel

Italy's Mogherini, the likely next EU foreign policy chief, arrives at a meeting with her counterparts

If EU leaders are going move forward with additional sanctions against Russia for its increasingly aggressive stance in Ukraine, they have a bit of work to do. The current draft of Saturday’s summit conclusions (we’ve posted a copy we got our hands on here) has very little to say on the topic.

Right now, the operative paragraph on sanctions reads like this:

The European Council remains engaged in the monitoring and assessment of the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union and stands ready to consider further steps, in light of the evolution of the situation on the ground.

Not particularly stirring stuff.

One other point to note in the draft: not only will the summit choose a new EU foreign policy chief (in all likelihood Italian foreign minister Federica Mogherini) and a new president of the European Council (either Polish prime minister Donald Tusk or Danish premier Helle Thorning-Schmidt), but they also must choose someone to head eurozone summits. Read more

Peter Spiegel

Moghadam, left, with his deputy director Poul Thomsen during a meeting in Brussels

As the eurozone crisis slowly fades into history, many of its most prominent players are moving on as well. On Wednesday, Reza Moghadam, head of the European department at the International Monetary Fund and arguably the fund’s most influential official during the crisis, announced his departure to take a top job at Morgan Stanley in London.

According to officials close to Moghadam, part of his reason for leaving is because he held several of the IMF’s most senior posts over his 22 year career and now could only move laterally to other director positions. In addition, those who have spoken to him said most of his family – including his mother and adult children – now live in the UK and he was eager to return to Britain after more than two decades in Washington.

“Leaving the fund has not been an easy decision and I go with a heavy heart,” Moghadam said in a statement released by the IMF. “But I look forward to a new chapter in my life and a new career, and to being back home in the UK with my family.”

At Morgan Stanley, Moghadam will be vice chairman of the global capital markets group, where he will continue to deal with public finance issues, including working with governments seeking advice on debt or fiscal issues. Because he’s moving into a private-sector job that overlaps with his current duties, he will give up his IMF responsibilities immediately and won’t begin his job in London until October or November. Read more