Skip to main content

EU debt reduction

 Brussels wants to give EU capitals extra time to curb their debts and create space for public investment as part of an overhaul of the EU’s deficit rules. The European Commission would table a proposal at the end of the month to reform the Stability and Growth Pact, under which it would work out multi-year, country-specific plans with capitals for getting their debt burdens under control, EU officials said. The proposals come as member states face mounting fiscal burdens as they spend hundreds of billions of euros sheltering businesses and households from the energy crisis. Under the new blueprint, the commission would propose a four- or five-year plan to an EU member state to get its public debt burden on a credible, downward trajectory, officials said.


The national fiscal plan would need to pass a debt sustainability analysis and be approved by the commission and EU council. The new regime would ditch an EU rule that requires a 1/20th a year reduction in debt ratios by member states with debt above the EU’s 60 per cent of gross domestic product ceiling. That requirement is widely recognised as being unrealistic given public debt ratios have shot up dramatically since the pandemic eased. The new rules would, however, retain the EU’s main reference values of a 3 per cent of GDP public deficit limit and 60 per cent of GDP debt ratio, both of which are mentioned in the EU treaty.

The commission wants to downgrade the use of hard to measure variables that attempt to correct for the economic cycle, focusing instead on a simple gauge of public spending. After agreeing a debt plan with a member state, there would be annual progress checks and the threat of enforcement procedures. Elements could face a frosty reception in hawkish member states such as Germany. «In addition to the gradual reduction of debt, we have to make room for investment growth».


Comments

Cloud Bookkeeping

HS2 cost cuts new routes and add delays.

 Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have begun work on «Project Sil­ver­light» sug­gest­ing the high­speed rail scheme might face four addi­tional years of delay. The planned High Speed 2 rail line faces fur­ther delays of up to four years and more cuts to the project under plans being drawn up by min­is­ters to rein in its bal­loon­ing costs. The extra delays to the coun­try’s biggest infra­struc­ture project would mean that it would not be com­pleted until as late as 2045 — 12 years after ori­gin­ally planned. «This is a func­tion of infla­tion; we are hav­ing to find huge sav­ings because the cost of everything the depart­ment is already doing will have become so much more expens­ive by then,» said one gov­ern­ment offi­cial. In Octo­ber, the FT repor­ted that the Treas­ury had asked HS2’s man­age­ment team to identify poten­tial cuts or «scope reduc­tions» to the high-speed line. Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have sub­sequently begun work on Project Sil­ver­light aimed at fi...

Doubt on CS's collateral.

  Credit Suisse provided an emergency $140mn loan to Greensill Capital based partly on invoices to companies that deny ever doing the business stated on the documents. The Swiss bank provided the loan in October 2020, less than five months before the collapse of Greensill, a supply chain finance firm that counted former British prime minister David Cameron as a senior adviser. Invoices issued by metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta’s Liberty Commodities and sold to Greensill formed part of the collateral for the loan, according to documents seen by the Financial Times and people familiar with the transaction. Yet several of the parties named on the invoices have told the FT they did no business with Liberty. GFG has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Credit Suisse’s loan had a clause dictating that the collateral value had to be equal to or greater than the $140mn borrowed. The terms of the debt agreement only allowed invoices on Green-sill’s balance sheet to count towards this tally if t...

Small business will be excluded from fraud law.

  Min­is­ters are plan­ning to exclude small busi­nesses from anti-fraud legis­la­tion by nar­row­ing the scope of a crim­inal offence tar­get­ing com­pan­ies that fail to pre­vent eco­nomic crimes. MPs and anti-cor­rup­tion cam­paign­ers had hoped the gov­ern­ment would seek to amend the eco­nomic crime and cor­por­ate trans­par­ency bill to ensure the new offence covered all com­pan­ies. The plans to limit the scope of the amend­ments will also dis­ap­point those who had hoped the legis­la­tion would remove key hurdles to the pro­sec­u­tion of white-col­lar crime. A new «fail­ure to pre­vent» offence for fraud would bring it in line with exist­ing sim­ilar cor­por­ate offences for bribery and tax eva­sion. At present, pro­sec­utors need only prove that organ­isa­tions lacked «reas­on­able» or «adequate» con­trols to pur­sue the offence in bribery and tax eva­sion cases. «It would be much more sens­ible for the gov­ern­ment to provide strong guid­ance for SMEs on what these pro­ce...