Affichage des articles dont le libellé est E.U.. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est E.U.. Afficher tous les articles

2014/03/06

Russia, the Budapest memorandum, and the crisis of representativeness


Steven Blockmans published today a short commentary on Russia and the Budapest Memorandum. It is an assault against Russia foreign politics, and he wrote in his conclusion:
"So far, the Kremlin has not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the US and the EU that it has violated the terms of the Budapest memorandum.

More worryingly, the Moscow allows itself to be inconsistent with its own commitments and is reneging its own words.

This has all the trappings of a panicking dictatorship, which crushes dissent at home and portrays confidence in winning a great battle with the enemy abroad. How can anybody trust what Putin’s Russia says or commits to in the future?"
My comments:

1) As a Professor of Law, he started with the Budapest Memorandum, but he failed to discuss the Helsinki CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE (CSCE) Final Act mentioned in Article 1. This one states:
The participating States [...] Have adopted the following:
I Prior notification of major military manoeuvres They will notify their major military manoeuvres to all other participating States through usual diplomatic channels in accordance with the following provisions:
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres exceeding a total of 25,000 troops, independently or combined with any possible air or naval components (in this context the word "troops" includes amphibious and airborne troops). In the case of independent manoeuvres of amphibious or airborne troops, or of combined manoeuvres involving them, these troops will be included in this total. Furthermore, in the case of combined manoeuvres which do not reach the above total but which involve land forces together with significant numbers of either amphibious or airborne troops, or both, notification can also be given.
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres which take place on the territory, in Europe, of any participating State as well as, if applicable, in the adjoining sea area and air space.
You read correctly: no notification are required below 25,000 troops. 16,000 is lower.

More: Because of the agreement signed on 21 April 2010 between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents, Russia is allowed to maintain thousands of troops in Crimea, without mentioning others in surrounding coasts (Gudauta, Krasnodar Kra).

2) Professor of Law Steven Blockmans failed to mention that M. Yanukovich has not resigned, is still alive and is still constitutionally the current legitimately elected Ukraine President, whatever Kiev may claim. No current power in Kiev is legitimate. Thus, they cannot claim themselves to be "the Ukraine government" and claim from this position that Russia has invaded Crimea. Moreover, Crimea is an autonomous republic within Ukraine, electing its own parliament. Crimea political representatives have not claimed to be invaded by Russia.

There was an armed seizure of power in Kiev and a legitimately elected president was overthrown. This was a violation of Ukraine’s constitution. Who cannot agree with this fact? 

3) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that Leaked EU Phone Call Suggests Kiev Snipers Were Hired by Opposition Coalition not former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich (read this news thread in the comments section of this article). He would have remarked that Ms Ashton did not express any human sentiment whatsoever about 94 persons killed at Maidan events by neo-nazis and that she failed so far to report this publicly since this phone call 26 February, and to call for an international investigation about these crimes. 
Steven Blockmans, this is the most important international law and you failed to protect it. It is justified to say that human rights and fundamental freedoms were violated by fascists and neo-nazis in Kiev which seized power by unconstitutional means.

4) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that US department of State supported the ukrainian opposition, the ones who killed innocents and accused Yanukovich, with "more than $5 billion" during years as claimed by Ms Nuland on a leaked phone call (1, 2).

5) Steven Blockmans failed to mention the fascist way of doing politics the ukrainian opposition leaders nowadays (3, 4). Who does he really want to protect with his comments in Law: ukrainian citizens or fascists, terrorists and neo-nazis? 

6) Steven Blockmans failed to mention how Klitschko betrayed Ukraine for money to NATO (5, 6)

Conclusion at this step:

Thus, if the international community, and Western in particular, is encouraging those acts, who is going to protect the rule of law? What does it means for Western citizens?

So far, the US and the EU representatives have not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the Kremlin that ukrainian opposition has violated the ukrainian Constitution and human rights.

More worryingly, the US and the EU allow themselves to be inconsistent with their own commitments and are reneging their own words.

This has all the trappings of panicking dictatorships, which crush dissent at home and abroad and portrays confidence in willing to support the citizens' fascist enemy abroad. How can thus anybody trust what the US and the EU representatives say or commit to in the future?


Europeans citizens, our political and civil society representatives who supports the Kiev neo-nazi coup are all attempting to violate our deepest and most honorable values. Will you let them do that there and inevitably after in your country by your own government (the same who declare to support the Kiev coup)? Don't you understand not only the historical shame for us but the deadly path for our societies on this road

Without common values there is no trust, no society. No european spirit whatsoever would remain for a long time: it would be split.



2013/01/17

Stop the European bankers who are very reluctant to follow the new fixings regulation


Let's summarize the facts :
"Euribor-EBF believes that the Euribor benchmark should be run by an independent, non-profit driven structure, with the introduction of public supervision. [...] Euribor-EBF supports the introduction of European public supervision on benchmarks. Supervision should also apply before and after the fixing delivery."
"The European Commission [...] wish[es] to have the Euribor panel as large as possible in order to enhance the credibility of the benchmark. Therefore, they are considering making mandatory for banks with a significant turnover in the money markets to be part of the panel."
"Euribor-EBF agrees with the agencies that more specific controls have to be in place and that banks have to implement strictly the Code of Conduct they subscribe to when contributing to Euribor."
"[...] we are closely following the developments taking place as regards the shrinking number of panel members for establishing EURIBOR and EONIA rates. Given the authorities’ commitment to addressing the shortcomings revealed in the rate-setting process, it is in the interest of markets that banks remain in the panel while the regulatory framework is being amended and behave as responsible market participants, thus preventing potential disruption in the functioning of an important financial market segment."

One bank withdrew from the Euribor panel and four from the Eurepo panel between July and end November 2012. But the list of reluctant bankers is still growing :
  • Dec. 2012: HSBC ceases contributing to the Eurepo Index after 7 December 2012 
  • Dec. 2012: Rabobank stops contributing to the Eurepo & Eonia Swap Index on 11 December 2012 
  • Dec. 2012: DZ Bank stops contributing to the USD Euribor and Eonia Swap Index on 1 January 2013 
  • Jan. 2013: BayernLB has stopped contributing to the Euribor-Eonia, USD Euribor and Eurepo Indexes on 1 January 
  • Jan. 2013: Helaba Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen ceased contributing to the USD Euribor Index on 2 January 2013 
  • Jan. 2013: Banque et Caisse d'Epargne de l'Etat (Luxembourg) will stop contributing to Eurepo after 4 January 2013 
  • Jan. 2013: Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) will stop contributing to Euribor, Eonia, USD Euribor and Eurepo on 15 January 
  • Jan. 2013: Société Générale will stop contributing to the Eonia Swap Index after 15 January
  • Jan. 2013: Citigroup will cease contributing to the Eurepo Index as of 1 February 2013
These banks are clearly defying the regulators and the European Commission, hence harming the EU financial stability and our common interest. This is irresponsible. As citizens, we can boycott these banks. But we can also collectively ask to the european banking regulators to withdraw their banking licences, if the European Commission do not make them mandatory quickly to be part of the panel. If players do not want to play the new rules, they are not the players any more.

Euribor-EBF current Panel Banks
  • Euribor® Panel Banks : here
  • Eonia® Panel Banks : here
  • Eurepo® Panel Banks : here
  • Eoniaswap® Panel Banks : here

Update 02/08/2013 : citizens have been listened by EC 
"The Governing Council of the European Central Bank welcomes the European Commission’s intention to introduce further legislation regulating systemically important reference rates. [...]
The Eurosystem notes the recent decisions of some banks to withdraw from the Euribor panel. [...]
For such rates to remain representative, it is essential that there is an appropriate level of bank participation in the respective panels. The Eurosystem therefore welcomes the Commission’s intention to also include in its legislative proposal the power to compel mandatory submissions for systemically important reference rates, in order to prevent disruptions to their production process."
Source: ECB press release

"The Commission is considering a legal obligation for banks to participate in Euribor. Euribor-EBF considers this as a sensible precautionary measure against which there can be no objection."
Source: Euribor-EBF


Update 02/18/2013 : too-big-to-be-ruled banks (or thinking so) are still defying the EC and Euribor-EBF
  • Feb. 2013: Barclays will cease contributing to the Eurepo Index as of 18 February 2013
  • Feb. 2013: Deutsche Bank will stop contributing to the Eurepo and Eonia Swap Indexes as of 18 February 2013

Update 04/6/2013 : in March others too-big-to-be-ruled banks (or thinking so) again defied the EC and Euribor-EBF, but in April the institutions reacted: the operators of the transactions have to be located in EU or EFTA, targeting international banks. 
  • Feb. 2013: LBBW will cease contributing to the Eurepo and USD Euribor on 22 February
  • Feb. 2013: JP Morgan will cease contributing to the Eurepo Index as of 1 March
  • March 2013: Credit Suisse will stop contributing to the Eurepo Index as of 8 March
  • March 2013: Svenska Handelsbanken will cease contributing to the Euribor-Eonia panel as of 20 March
  • March 2013: UBS will stop contributing to the Euribor-Eonia panel after 28 March

"Eonia is computed as a weighted average of all overnight unsecured lending transactions in the interbank market, undertaken in the European Union and European Free Trade Association  (EFTA) countries by the Panel Banks."
The EFTA countries list is: Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

The Euribor reform will be implemented by mid-June 2013.


Update 05/14/2013 :
  • April 2013: Citibank ceased contributing to the Eonia Swap Index panel as for 16 April
  • May 2013: LandesBank Berlin ceased contributing to Euribor- Eonia and USD Euribor panels on 1 May

Update 05/29/2013 :
  • May 2013: Bank of Ireland will stop contributing to the Eurepo after 31 May
  • May 2013: LBBW will cease contributing to Euribor after 31 May
  • May 2013: Helaba will cease contributing to Euribor after 31 May

Update 06/02/2013 : Euribor and Eonia panels to be differentiated as of 1 June 2013; whatever banks may believe,  or the current practices in other part of the world, they simply cannot win their fight against public regulation in Europe.
"Euribor-EBF takes this opportunity to invite former panel banks to re-join either the Eonia or the Euribor panel of contributing banks. As publicly stated by Commissioner Barnier, the forthcoming European Commission’s proposal on benchmarks will indeed include the power to impose mandatory submissions on banks." 
Source: Euribor-EBF and ECB 

    Update 06/20/2013 :
    • June 2013: ING ceased contributing to the Eurepo after 7 June

    Update 07/06/2013 :
    • June 2013: Allied Irish Bank (AIB) ceased contributing to the Euribor, Eonia and Eurepo fixings after 28 June
    • June 2013: Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (NordLB) ceased contributing to Euribor and USD Euribor after 28 June

    Update 07/23/2013 :
    • July 2013: Credit Agricole ceased contributing to Eurepo as of 1 July 2013 
    • July 2013: HSBC France ceased contributing to the Eonia Swap Index after 12 July 
    • July 2013: Commerzbank ceased contributing to USD Euribor after 19 July 
    • July 2013: Natixis ceased contributing to the USD Euribor as of 5 July 
    • July 2013: Danske Bank ceased contributing to Eonia as of 15 July

    Update 08/23/2013 :
    • August 2013: BNP Paribas will cease to contribute to the Eurepo and Eonia Swap indexes as of 12 August

    Update 09/20/2013 :
    • Sept. 2013: Credit Agricole and Credit Suisse have ceased contributing to the Eonia Swap Index as of 18 September 2013
    09/18/2013: "Euribor-EBF welcomes the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts. The possibility for supervisors to impose mandatory contributions is a positive measure. Until it is in place, it will hopefully lead panel banks and authorities alike to take their responsibilities and ensure that Euribor is not discontinued."

    Update 10/07/2013 :
    • 10/1/2013 : publication and of the new Euribor Code of Conduct, immediately in vigor. The highest possible sanction in case of misconduct is a permanent exclusion from the Euribor panel. 

    Update 10/23/2013 :
    • Oct. 2013 : Erste Group ceased contributing to the Euribor and Eurepo indexes after 11 October 2013.

    Update 11/20/2013 :
    • Oct. 2013 : RBS will ceased contributing to the Eonia Swap Index after 31 October 2013.

    Update 12/15/2013 :
    • Nov. 2013 : KBC has ceased contributing to the Eurepo index as of 13 December 2013.

    Final update 01/7/2014 :
    • list of Euribor panel banks and rates since 2004, by month

    2012/06/29

    How long does it take to build federalism ?


     A brief reminder about U.S. history  teachs us building federalism took 14 years, with a military war as a booster for this process :

    Tensions between American colonials and the British during the revolutionary period : 1760s and early 1770s.

    American Revolutionary War : 1775 to 1781. 
    • The Continental Congress established a Continental Army under the command of George Washington : June 14, 1775
    • The Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence : July 4, 1776.
    • After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French and Spanish, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States: 1781

    The Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated from 1777 until 1789.

    Those wishing to establish a strong federal government with powers of taxation organized a constitutional convention in 1787. 

    The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788.

    The new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president —George Washington— took office in 1789.

    These steps and speed have to be compared with similar current EU federalism process and speed, with currently a monetary war as a booster. This process is the birth of the new Euroland sovereign. Humans are not born in a single minute, and a new sovereign entity is not born in a single year, even taking into account the pregnancy or gestation period.