Episode 30 · 2020-08-06 · 39:35 · Original in Finnish
The EU recovery fund and fiscal transfers | Tuomas Malinen | Negotiator 30
Originally published as “Tuomas Malinen Kaadetaan EU:n tulonsiirtorahasto! #neuvottelija 30”
Tuomas Malinen of GnS Economics walks through the structure of the EU recovery fund and argues it is a permanent transfer mechanism rather than a one-off crisis measure: the allocation criteria do not correlate with Covid, the EU borrows directly into member-state budgets for the first time, and the balanced-budget requirement of Article 310 is bypassed. The conversation covers the German constitutional court's ultra vires ruling, the scale of Italy's debt, the arithmetic of Finland's negotiated outcome, and the case for a referendum.
Watch and listen
Key moments
- 00:00 — Why the fund should be put to a referendum
- 02:00 — Cheaper credit was available: the ESM and market rates
- 04:00 — Allocation criteria and the Article 310 balance requirement
- 06:00 — Is this a fiscal transfer or not — Article 125
- 08:00 — The leverage mechanism and the missing federal structure
- 10:00 — Downplaying the scale of the debt in public debate
- 12:00 — Rating agency warnings and Italy's retirement age
- 14:00 — Italy's refinancing needs and the banks' position
- 16:00 — The fund as a bribe for staying in the euro
- 18:00 — The German constitutional court and ultra vires
- 20:00 — Why the 'exceptional circumstances' argument fails
- 22:00 — The arithmetic of Finland's negotiated outcome
- 24:00 — One-off as a promise — what Macron actually said
- 26:00 — Dismantling the welfare state as an optimal strategy
- 28:00 — Political backbone and the constitutional law committee
- 30:00 — On whose mandate does Finland defer to Brussels
- 32:00 — A referendum and what would follow from it
- 34:00 — The citizens' initiative as leverage
- 36:00 — Becoming a guarantor of the EU budget — the only exit is leaving
- 38:00 — Sweden and Denmark are in: this is no longer only a euro problem
Summary
Tuomas Malinen of GnS Economics walks through the structure of the EU recovery fund and argues it is a permanent transfer mechanism rather than a one-off crisis measure: the allocation criteria do not correlate with Covid, the EU borrows directly into member-state budgets for the first time, and the balanced-budget requirement of Article 310 is bypassed. The conversation covers the German constitutional court’s ultra vires ruling, the scale of Italy’s debt, the arithmetic of Finland’s negotiated outcome, and the case for a referendum.
Chapters
- 00:00 — Why the fund should be put to a referendum
- 02:00 — Cheaper credit was available: the ESM and market rates
- 04:00 — Allocation criteria and the Article 310 balance requirement
- 06:00 — Is this a fiscal transfer or not — Article 125
- 08:00 — The leverage mechanism and the missing federal structure
- 10:00 — Downplaying the scale of the debt in public debate
- 12:00 — Rating agency warnings and Italy’s retirement age
- 14:00 — Italy’s refinancing needs and the banks’ position
- 16:00 — The fund as a bribe for staying in the euro
- 18:00 — The German constitutional court and ultra vires
- 20:00 — Why the ‘exceptional circumstances’ argument fails
- 22:00 — The arithmetic of Finland’s negotiated outcome
- 24:00 — One-off as a promise — what Macron actually said
- 26:00 — Dismantling the welfare state as an optimal strategy
- 28:00 — Political backbone and the constitutional law committee
- 30:00 — On whose mandate does Finland defer to Brussels
- 32:00 — A referendum and what would follow from it
- 34:00 — The citizens’ initiative as leverage
- 36:00 — Becoming a guarantor of the EU budget — the only exit is leaving
- 38:00 — Sweden and Denmark are in: this is no longer only a euro problem
Watch
The recording lives on the Neuvottelija channel: Tuomas Malinen Kaadetaan EU:n tulonsiirtorahasto! #neuvottelija 30. A Finnish edition of this episode is published at www.neuvottelija.fi.
People and topics
Guests: Tuomas Malinen
Topics: Finnish Economy & Policy