The Event will be live streamed on this page
What has been the position of Europe’s leading financial centres, its ‘financial capitals’, since the globalisation of the early twentieth century? Financial centres are the nerve centres of international finance, a source of wealth and power. Over the last hundred years, most leading international financial centres have been located in Europe –within a changing international balance of power. This paper considers the development of Europe’s international financial position, from the height of the pre-1914 days, when it was the ‘banker of the world’; to the lows of the late 1940s, when it required American assistance; and to the resurgence of its financial power at the turn of twenty-first century in an increasingly multipolar financial environment. The paper addresses three main issues. First: how to explain the rise, persistence and fall of Europe’s financial capitals? Second: what has been the degree of competition, cooperation and integration of Europe’s financial capitals, at both global and European levels? And third, what can the past tell us about the future of Europe’s financial position in the twenty-first century?
The Schuman Centre honours its first Director, Yves Mény, with its annual lecture to mark the beginning of the academic year and to launch the RSCAS Seminar Series. This second Yves Mény Annual Lecture will be given by Youssef Cassis, Professor of Economic History and Joint Chair RSCAS/History and Civilization Department.
Organise: Brigid Laffan – EUI – Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and Global Governance Programme
Speaker: Youssef Cassis
The depth of the economic and financial crisis and its long-lasting impact highlight fundamental unresolved issues related to the incompleteness of the Economic and Monetary Union, despite important steps forward made in response to the crisis. In addition, disaffection in the European project is widespread among citizens and it is leading to the rise of populist political forces. The current upswing in growth rates, albeit modest, is likely to trigger complacency in national governments and European institutions with the risk of deepening the divide with citizens still heavily affected by the legacy of the crisis in terms of unemployment, poverty and rising inequalities.
Against this background, the Union is at a crossroad between muddling through and facing with determination the new challenges: restore growth potential, foster a job-rich sustained growth in a stable macroeconomic environment and rebuild the relationship between European institutions and European citizens. The launch by the Commission of a multi-annual European investment plan and the definition of adequate incentives for investment and reforms are positive important steps in this direction, especially in the framework of a growth-friendly fiscal policy. However, the urgency and complexity of the issues at stake call for a more ambitious policy mix involving fiscal, structural, social and monetary policies.
Marco Piantini, adviser for European Affairs to the Italian Prime Minister, recently acted as coordinator of the Italian position on the crisis of the Eurozone and other institutional matters. He is a former adviser to President Napolitano and a staff member at the European Parliament.
Organiser: Brigid Laffan – EUI – Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and Global Governance Programme
Speaker: Marco Piantini
Professors Claire KILPATRICK and Giorgio MONTI
An intensive workshop on October 22 and 23 2015 with three hour sessions on each of the following four themes.
- Conditions posed to legal change in reaction to the Eurozone crisis at both EU and national level (such as competence constraints, fundamental rights limits)
- Legal aspects of the overall new EMU package (e.g. Macro-economic Imbalance Procedure, Excessive Deficit Procedure, Broad Economic Policy Guidelines)
- Legal aspects of risk-sharing mechanisms (e.g. European Stability Mechanism, prospects for Euro-bonds)
- Legal aspects of banking union (emphasis on: Single Supervisory Mechanism, Single Resolution Mechanism, deposit insurance)
Participants will explore issues of EU legal and institutional design within the specific and dynamic area of EMU and the closely related area of banking union. Sessions on each of the four themes will be moderated by a mixture of invited externals and EUI Faculty. Materials will be circulated by Thursday 1 October to allow time to have thoroughly read and prepared in advance of the intensive seminar. A key goal is to clearly understand and articulate how legal design issues interact with EU economic and monetary policy objectives. To this end each seminar participant will prepare a brief (5 page) policy statement which sets out the legal issues of one of the four issues above in ways comprehensible to non-lawyers. This will be submitted by Tuesday 3 November at midday to Laurence.email@example.com. Feedback will be provided on each seminar participant’s policy statement.
This seminar forms part of an EUI-led project on A Dynamic Economic and Monetary Union involving the Law and Economics Departments and funded by Horizon 2020. Policy statements will be presented by Law Faculty to Economists participating in the project on Friday 11 and Saturday 12 December 2015. Seminar participants are welcome to attend.
Each day of the seminar will be comprised of two sessions: from 9:00 to 12:30 and from 14:00 to 17:00 hours.
Workshop materials (stand by for updates):
The objective of the training seminar is to improve participants’ knowledge of the latest regulatory developments, both at Basel and EU levels, in the area of Market Risk, CVA and Market Infrastructure. The seminar is organised by the EBA jointly with the Florence School of Banking and Finance (European University Institute). Apart from the Regulator’s point of view on these topics, the seminar will also provide the Academic and Industry perspective on CVA and Market Infrastructure regulatory developments.
The purpose of this workshop is to begin discussions on four key areas in which actual or proposed changes to EMU can meet with legal and institutional constraints or raise important issues of design and effectiveness. Policy briefs which have been prepared by legal scholars in the project will be discussed in a shared meeting of legal scholars and economists. The discussion aims to deepen understanding as to how an effective and desirable EMU might be achieved and how, if at all, legal and normative difficulties that arise could be resolved.
Organisers: Professor Claire Kilpatrick, Professor Giorgio Monti (Department of Law, European University Institute)
9.30 – 11.00 Conditions posed to legal change in reaction to the Eurozone crisis at both EU and national level
11.00 – 11.30 Coffee Break
11.30 – 13.00 Exploring the new E in EMU: constraints and effectiveness
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
14.00 – 15.30 Legal aspects of risk-sharing mechanisms
15.30 – 16.00 Coffee Break
16.00 – 18.00 Legal aspects of banking union | Follow-up discussion
As part of this year’s State of the Union conference in Florence, a workshop will discuss the stability of the banking system. The event will be hosted by Professor Richard Portes. He will be joined by the Florence School of Banking and Finance’s director Professor Elena Carletti. The event will conclude with a speech by Ignazio Visco, Governor of the Bank of Italy.
After two years of existence, it is time to focus on what happened in practice for the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), i.e. in the core of the Banking Union, in Member States and beyond the EU. The workshop gathers as broad a range of perspectives as possible with a variety of countries (ins and outs, including non-participating Member States and third countries, crisis and non-crisis countries), levels (national, supra- and international), and backgrounds (academic and supervisory practice).
A good range of the most important issues will be discussed, namely: to what extent does the regulatory framework under the Single Rulebook assist or hinder centralized decision-making? Have the Joint Supervisory Teams (JST) proven to be a tool to have both a sufficiently high information basis on the local level of the banks supervised and robust enough a membership to avoid capture? Has the split of supervisory competences in the SSM created problems or can it be seen as a sensible scheme?
But also, if the purpose of the SRM, as part of the Banking Union project, is to centralize resolution decision-making, to what extent does discretion remain within the national authorities? To what extent should all classes of retail financial services be exempted from bail-in? To what extent does Minimum Requirement for own funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) under the BRRD framework and the Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard developed by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) give raise to a one size fits all approach to resolution?