An unexpected blow to the ECB

by
Claudio Grass
My articles My booksMy videos
Follow on:TwitterLinkedIN

Since the beginning of the year, the corona crisis has come to monopolize the news coverage to the extent that a lot of very important stories and developments either went underreported or were ignored altogether. One such example was the very surprising ruling out of the German Constitutional Court in early May, that challenged the actions and remit of the ECB. This decision could have severe repercussions if it were to be held up, but the reactions to it were arguably even more consequential and telling of the ECB’s and the EU’s stance on national sovereignty, on respecting member-states’ own laws and on their own expansive powers.

ECB “went too far”

In essence, the court’s decision made it clear that the ECB’s QE program did not respect the “principle of proportionality”, abused its mandate, while the German government failed to challenge the bank’s policies as it should have. The ruling also mentioned the side effects of the program and of the ECB’s overall ultra-loose policy direction, such as penalizing savers and pensioners. As was highlighted in the official decision, “the ECB fails to conduct the necessary balancing of the monetary policy objective against the economic policy effects arising from the program. Therefore, the decisions at issue… exceed the monetary policy mandate of the ECB.” As a result, the court issued an ultimatum and directly asked the Bundesbank to comply with its ruling and therefore to stop buying government bonds under the ECB’s QE program in the next three months.

This decision, which was largely unexpected, has once again reignited serious concerns over the stability of the euro area. It also brought to the surface existing frictions not just over monetary policy, but over the legal standing of the ECB, the EU and their relationship with member states. Serious questions over sovereignty, national law, and institutional overreach were once again raised, as did challenges to the legitimacy of centralized EU authority and institutions.

Given the severity of these challenges, especially in a time like this of great uncertainty and increasing public discontent, it is not surprising that those institutions wasted no time in responding to the German court’s decision. Chief ECB Economist Philip Lane directly contradicted the court, claiming that the QE program is indeed “proportionate” to the economic situation, while President Lagarde, appeared unflinching in her stance, declaring that the ECB is “undeterred” in the face of the decision.

The European Court of Justice also appeared dismissive of the ruling, reiterating that it was the bloc’s judicial authority and that it alone has jurisdiction to decide whether EU bodies are breaking EU law. This stance was made even more plain by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who in her official statement on the matter highlighted in no uncertain terms that “EU law has primacy over national law”.

Momentous implications

There are two important takeaways from this legal challenge, or more accurately, from the response to it. For one thing, the core principle that was reflected in the ECJ’s reaction, namely that only the European Court can decide if EU institutions are breaking EU laws is deeply, seriously troubling to begin with. Admitting that member states get no say in any of this is problematic enough, but the idea of concentrating power and legal authority to this incestuous degree is plainly an affront not just to western justice principles, but also to common sense.

There is a reason for the separation of powers and in a rough analogy, it is clear why the duties of the lawmaker, the judge, jury and executioner cannot be all be assigned to the same person. This basic commonsensical idea about fairness, that even children understand in their playground disputes, is frequently stepped upon by any kind of state or “public” court of course, as the concept of impartiality often goes out the door, especially when the state is responsible for adjudicating cases against itself.

The same principle applies in this case: It is simply ridiculous to have the same group of technocrats, bureaucrats and functionaries, who are largely unelected and unaccountable to the citizens they rule over in any real way, control all the levels of legislation, governance and justice. In other words, not only do they get to write the rules and enforce them, but they also police themselves, check each other’s work and then deliver “justice”, without any interference or argument by the representatives of those who are directly affected by their actions. Member states are entirely excluded from the process, even those whose citizens are forced to pay the bill for all the generous programs and ambitious initiatives.

Such a perverse construct is not only abominable in terms of fairness and transparency, but it is also entirely unsustainable. The nonchalant dismissiveness of Ms. Lagarde and Ms. Von der Leyen might make for good PR and their efforts to exude confidence in their institutions is certainly necessary in their respective positions, however, they both probably understand the hollowness and limitations of this kind of blasé stance, as does everybody else. Not being worried over a legal challenge out of Greece or Italy, or any other highly dependent net-receiver out of the bloc would be understandable. Not so with Germany.

The second lesson out of this confrontation was best summed up by an unlikely supporter of the ECB in this fight. Former German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, a vocal critic of QE and of the bank’s loose policies in general, appeared to be displeased by the court ruling, but for very interesting and clearly articulated reasons. As he put it, “It’s very possible that the existence of the euro is now put into question in other European Union member states, because every national constitutional court can decide for itself. This situation makes nobody happy”.

In even clearer terms, what the former Minister actually seems to lament, is the fact that there is an albeit remote possibility that member states might get a say in monetary policy decisions. The floodgates could open and every country could conceivably decide for itself, not just on the currency they use, but also on how to use it, according to its own specific needs and economic realities. What Mr. Schaeuble and his peers appear to be dreading is the idea of decentralization.

In the upcoming second part, we look into the implications of the corona-crisis on this issue and how the timing of the ruling factors into a wider economic and political shift that’s underway.

Claudio Grass, Hünenberg See, Switzerland

This article has been published in the Newsroom of pro aurum, the leading precious metals company in Europe with an independent subsidiary in Switzerland.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Source: Pixabay

You Might Also Like

Hard talk with Václav Klaus: “The people should say NO to all of it.”

As we get deeper into this crisis and we get used to our “new normal”, it’s easy to focus on the daily corona-horror stories in the media or the latest shocking unemployment numbers, and lose track of the bigger picture and of what is really, fundamentally important. Even as the lockdown measures begin to get phased out, the scale of the economic damage is unimaginable and the idea of returning to “business as usual” is no longer tenable.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste – Part I

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” -Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff from 2009 to 2010. Only a couple of weeks ago, if anyone told you that your entire country would be basically shutting down, that events and public gatherings would be outlawed, that you’d be looking at empty shelves in your local supermarket and that the global stock market would be on the brink of collapse, you’d never have believed them.

Nothing Is What It Seems

My latest interview about Corona, Liberty, Private Property, Authoritarism, and a fear-mongering global media campaign, which I call borderline criminal

[embedded content]

“We are expecting a new wave and we’re prepared for it.”

Interview with Robert Hartmann, Co-Owner ProAurum, Over the last couple of months, we’ve witnessed unprecedented changes in the global economy, in the markets and in our societies. The corona crisis and the governmental measures that were introduced had a dramatic and direct effect on all of us, as investors and as citizens. 

Modern Monetary Theory is an old Marxist Idea

Modern Monetary Theory, or “MMT”, has been getting a lot of attention lately, often celebrated as a revolutionary breakthrough. However, there is absolutely nothing new about it. The very basis of the theory, the idea that governments can finance their expenditures themselves and therefore deficits don’t matter, actually goes back to the Polish Marxist economist, Michael Kalecki (1899 – 1970). 

The destruction of civilization – implications of extreme monetary interventions

When I was asked to write an article about the impact of negative interest rates and negative yielding bonds, I thought this is a chance to look at the topic from a broader perspective. There have been lots of articles speculating about the possible implications and focusing on their impact in the short run, but it’s not very often that an analysis looks a bit further into the future, trying to connect money and its effect on society itself. 

Investing in crypto the sound way!

I have long been fascinated by the far-reaching consequences and the great potential of the wave of new technologies and ideas that emerged with the crypto revolution. While most of us first came into contact with these concepts in 2017, this tectonic shift that is only just beginning has been in the making for nearly a decade. Now, we begin to see the basic ideas and tools take shape and give rise to endless exciting possibilities that can affect multiple sectors.

Gold is the 7th sense of financial markets

Claudio Grass (CG): Looking at the interest rate policy of the last years, it would seem that central banks are backed into a corner. They cannot hike borrowing costs without risking a domino effect, as both government and corporate debt have reached record highs, encouraged by the central banks’ own NIRP and ZIRP policies. In your view, is there a “safe” way out of this vicious circle?