The European Commission can Contract Debt on behalf of the whole of the EU!!

I am godsmacked by my own ignorance! I had no idea about this but apparently the European Commission has been able to contract debt on behalf of all of its member states since 1988. This is heavily regulated, but has been brought forward as a reform channel now that the EU needs to set up an emergency fund to calm down the markets.

I came across it on this article by Mr Anthony Barber from the FT.

After researching a bit, these are the relevant sources that I found:

The relevant press release, which among other things gives info on the debt:

"The EC has carried out three euro bond issues since last year to finance a first instalment of €2 billion for Hungary (disbursed early December 2008), a second instalment also to Hungary and also of €2 billion (disbursed late March) as well as a first instalment of €1 billion to Latvia (paid in February). The last issue, placed on 17 March and due on 7 November 2014 (5-year maturity), was priced 3.25%."(implemented to help Hungary and Latvia).

Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 reforming the original 1988 regulation, forbiding its application to the Eurozone countries but allowing its use to non €zone countries. Also extending the fund to 25 Billion.

The original Council Regulation (EEC) No 1969/88 of 24 June 1988 establishing a single facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments.

More details on the implications soon to come, but for the time being I can think of this:

If the finance ministers intend to use this debt facility as a channel for dealing with and calming debt markets, then they will face 1 obvious hurdle and 2 potential problems. The obvious problem is that the regulation is very clear. This debt facility only applies to NON EUROZONE countries. At the very least they will have to pass another regulation by the end of the night in order to get it to also apply to Eurozone countries. Then there's the fact that I haven't et checked whether there's anything written about it in the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice or Lisbon treaty, that also specifies the scope of this regulation. If so it is an enormous problem, tantamount to requiring EU constitutional reform, which takes ages. Finally it is possible that the ECB may play a role in this and as such it would be interesting to see what obstacles it would pose to the expansion of this subreptitious European Monetary/Debt Fund.

Lagarde seems more enlightened...

The FT has a nice little report on David Cameron and the EU, here. Moreover, here's what Damian Chalmers has to say about selective EU law. How would he deal with the incentive for time inconsistent promises from the national council and the resulting conflict of interests. The problem is the same as the one face in the implementation of the SGP in the Eurozone: The people who are expected to carry the burden of rules (ie to be punished by them) should not, alone, be the ones expected to ensure that they are well implemented. If everybody can chose what they want, than everybody will be selective. If Damian Chalmers logic applied, the Single market agenda would have never gone forward. Trade-offs are the costs of functional coordination. Without the CAP and regional policy, there would not have been enough support for the single market. I believe however that Damian Chalmers does actually have a point, although the 15 meter rule about the fireworks is not a bad idea and would do a good job at protecting people, if people are stupid enough to want to violate it, then for god's sake, do it. There's just too much human stupidity for governments to contain. However if anyone is to decide which EU laws are constitutional or not, it should be the ECJ. My EU law is a bit rusty, to say the least, but doesn't the ECJ already do this, deriving its power from article 230 TEC? If so would it not be more appropriate to just add a provision in one of these treaties, stating that EU law is supreme over national law, except on those matters whereupon it affects aspects of national culture which do not disrupt higher goals of EU law, or something like this (what I mean is to make a law which would ensure that competition in the single market is not disrupted and that EU integration is not disrupted, but that if a silly amendment is included which disrupts national cultures, if these are harmless, where these national, cultural practices are harmless there is no reason to create conflict, and impose rule from above). Thus I propose that instead of Chalmers proposal for national EU law review councils (which FYI is what parliaments already are...) the ECJ ought to fulfil its role of judicial review, possibly aided by a treaty provision which ensures that harmless national cultural practices should not be disrupted. Then again blowing up in a fire work accident does seem harmful enough. Then again, what do I know... He's a EU law specialist! Finally, Christine Lagarde, French foreign minister has very interesting insights on the financial crisis, discretionary fiscal policy, automatic stabilizers, and on the effects of competition between China and the EU (although I assume competition of an economic nature, one is left to wonder whether her comments may also apply for foreign and military affairs) and how it may stimulate stronger cooperation between EU member states.