En cas de crise, les banques pourront prélever les dépôts des épargnants

image

Les représentants de l’Union européenne ont décidé de mettre à contribution les épargnants à partir de 2016.

Après la ponction des épargnants chypriotes cette année et l’idée émise par le FMI d’une supertaxe de 10% sur le patrimoine, l’Europe vient d’entériner la participation des déposants au renflouement des banques en cas de crise grave. L’accord, scellé mercredi 11 décembre, est passé relativement inaperçu, alors qu’il pourrait être d’une importance capitale pour les épargnants.

Les Européens se sont mis d’accord sur une loi prévoyant des règles de renflouement interne des banques, ou “bail-in”, afin d’éviter de faire participer les Etats au sauvetage des établissements financiers.

“Grand pas franchi ce soir: accord #BRRD pour 28”, a écrit sur son compte twitter le commissaire européen chargé des Services financiers, Michel Barnier, en référence à la directive sur le sauvetage des banques. “Contribuables ne seront plus premiers à payer pour erreurs des banques”, a-t-il ajouté.

“C’est un pas fondamental vers la réalisation de l’union bancaire”, a assuré Michel Barnier dans un communiqué.

Des représentants du Parlement européen, du Conseil qui représente les Etats, et de la Commission européenne se sont mis d’accord au cours d’un “trilogue” sur ce texte, qui s’appliquera aux 28 Etats membres.

Cette nouvelle directive s’articulera avec le Mécanisme unique européen de résolution des banques, qui fait toujours l’objet de difficiles négociations au niveau des ministres, et destiné lui à la seule zone euro. Les ministres des Finances doivent se retrouver mercredi prochain pour tenter de finaliser un accord sur ce sujet.

Dépôts garantis jusqu’à 100.000 euros

Selon la directive, lorsqu’une banque sera en difficulté, les autorités nationales pourront intervenir pour l’empêcher de sombrer. De source européenne, on a indiqué qu’une “recapitalisation préventive et des instruments publics de stabilisation” étaient prévus “sous de strictes conditions”.

La recapitalisation ne concernera ainsi “que les banques solvables qui doivent être recapitalisées en cas de faiblesses identifiées par les tests de résistance”.

Si une banque est proche de la faillite, le renflouement interne ou “bail-in” s’appliquera, par opposition au “bail-out” privilégié pendant la crise et qui faisait appel à l’argent public, creusant ainsi les déficits.

Les premiers à payer seront les actionnaires et les créditeurs (autrement dit les épargnants qui disposent de fonds sur leurs comptes), qui devront couvrir au minimum 8% des pertes de la banque avant que l’on puisse faire appel à des fonds nationaux de résolution, abondés par le secteur bancaire.

Les dépôts seront garantis jusqu’à 100.000 euros. Au-dessus de cette somme, les personnes physiques et des petites et moyennes entreprises bénéficieront d’un traitement préférentiel par rapport aux autres créanciers.

Transparence des banques

Chaque Etat membre devra mettre en place des fonds de résolution nationaux qui devront atteindre un niveau de 1% des dépôts couverts dans les 10 ans.

“Toutes les banques devront contribuer à ces fonds mais les contributions seront plus importantes pour les banques qui prennent plus de risques”, a dit Michel Barnier.

Les banques devront mettre des “réserves de côté pour les temps difficiles”, afin de “rendre le secteur financier plus robuste pour qu’il prête à l’économie réelle”, a-t-il commenté sur twitter.

Ces règles du “bail-in” entreront en vigueur au 1er janvier 2016. La Commission avait d’abord prévu une application à partir de 2018, mais la Banque centrale européenne avait fait part de ses inquiétudes pour la période intermédiaire, craignant que le Mécanisme de résolution unique de la zone euro n’ait à régler le sort de certaines banques sans disposer de cet outil.

Jusqu’ici, ce sont les Etats, avec l’argent des contribuables, qui renflouaient les banques (un “bail out”). Ce renversement pose un certain nombre de questions, notamment sur la transparence de la gestion des banques pour les épargnants. Les informations disponibles pour les clients sont souvent très compliquées à décrypter pour juger de la santé financière de leur établissement bancaire. En outre, cela assure les banques de ne pas faire faillite, ce qui pourrait les inciter à être moins prudentes sur les marchés.

Source: Challenges

Advertisements

Congress may vote ‘No’ on Syria attack

20130906-084428.jpg
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/AFP

RT

While President Barack Obama attempts to drum up support overseas for a potential strike against Syria, lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives appear not all that likely to authorize the use of military force.

Obama is currently meeting with international leaders in Russia at the annual G-20 meeting, where he is reportedly lobbying foreign representatives to rally behind a US-led strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad. As American politicians prepare to vote on whether or not they should authorize such an attack, however, Obama’s cause is quickly losing support in Congress.

According to analysis conducted Think Progress, lawmakers in the House are leaning towards a “no” vote with regards to approving a strike against Assad to retaliate against his alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilian last month outside of Damascus.

Compared to earlier in the week, lawmakers in the House are now more likely to vote against authorizing a strike. The website reported Thursday morning that 199 US representatives are expected to shut-down any strike against Syria, with 49 lawmakers in the House looking towards voting yes.

20130906-084549.jpg

Image from thinkprogress.org

Think Progress says their latest research reveals a drastic change that has occurred literally overnight. According to their reporters, 30 new lawmakers are now likely to vote against a strike, while the group of those expected to approve military action has only accumulated three new representatives since the previous day.

Continue reading

UPDATE: Faut-il armer les terroristes en Syrie ? Continuons à voter

Capture d’écran 2013-03-16 à 12.37.46

Dites au talmudo-sioniste reconnu coupable dans l’affaire du sang contaminé, Laurent Fabius, que nous ne voulons pas de ses “actions humanitaires” terroristes visant à détruire la Syrie !!!

UPDATE: Le vote continue. 1620 votants et 88% refusent la volonté destructrice de nos ministres illégitimes.

Continuez de voter. Ceci n’est aucunement un référendum, et n’aura certainement aucun impact sur la volonté de nos élites de ramener la Syrie à l’âge de pierre.

Il s’agit cependant de prouver que NOUS, le peuple, nous opposons aux politiques satanico-sionistes visant à imposer le chaos dans une région du monde sous le feu occidental depuis tant de siècles.

site public sénat pour voter

UNESCO Vote: Exposing America’s hypocrisy.

History was made at a UNESCO meeting on 31st October where members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) voted to admit Palestine as a full member of the organisation.

Palestine received 107 “yes” votes, 14 “no” votes and 52 members abstained from voting. Out of the 194 member states, 173 cast their votes.

Palestine needed a majority of 81 votes to be granted full membership. With an overwhelming majority of 107 votes, it was clear that Palestine had made the historic leap.

Riad Malki, foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority hailed it as “a really historic moment” while United States representative, Victoria Nuland called the decision “regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace [between Israel and Palestine].”

What is interesting to observe is the US’s reaction to the vote. They proceeded to act on a 1990s law requiring it to end payment to any UN body that admits Palestine. They cut £50m annual funding from the organisation in what can only be described as punishment for the way the member states voted.

Palestine’s admission into UNESCO is a step forward into their bid for full membership at the UN, which has been stalled for weeks by the Security Council. The bid will more than likely face veto from the US.

For a country that is supposed to be spearheading the move to peace between Israel and Palestine, the funding cuts imposed by the US exposes an agenda that is known to followers of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

As can be seen from the graph above, Palestine gained admission into UNESCO after a majority vote.  Shouldn’t the most democratic country in the world respect the democratic process through which Palestine was accepted?

What reasons does the US have to vote no against the bid? Surely any step that would lead to the acceptance of Palestine as an independent state is a step in the right direction for peace?

Essentially, America is hindering the peace process and looking more and more politically bias towards Israel.  It is clear from their actions after the decision was made that their alliance lay with the country that would politically and economically benefit them.

In her frantic efforts to explain why the US was cutting funding, Victoria Nuland failed to give a legitimate reason as to how Palestine’s membership would hinder the “establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.”

According to Nuland, the only way to achieve this Palestinian state is through “direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” If talks between the two parties had been never resulted in any productive solution in the past and have been stalled for over a year then the symbolic win of the bid should technically encourage both parties to continue negotiations.

The US advocates democracy in the very countries where they are trying to implement regime change. Yet when faced with the realities of democracy and the possibility that Palestine may lose the shackles of the illegal occupation, America turns its back on the first signs of successfully implementing a peaceful solution to the historical conflict.

UNESCO is losing 22% of its funding from America and Israel has stopped its 3% contribution to the organisation. They have vowed to continue developing the illegal settlement structures in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and are simultaneously freezing $100m of revenue for Palestinian Authority.

Without the funding how is the PA supposed to implement order in the already impoverished West Bank? The Gaza Strip is already under siege with millions of people living in sub-standard conditions with little medical care, high rates of unemployment and constant fear of attack.

This collective punishment of the Palestinians raises the question about the integrity of the parties involved in the so called “peace process.” Aid is stopped from reaching Gaza under the pretence that aid ships are carrying weapons to arm “terrorists” though this has never been proven by Israel. Israel participates in illegal acts of piracy in international waters against aid ships. Illegal settlements are built on stolen land and Israel is never punished for their actions. Yet when Palestine seeks to claim its legitimate right to exist they are punished and denied basic rights. All because of the vindictive actions of the worlds super power and its questionably controversial relationship with its oldest ally.

What is clear is that the UNESCO vote is merely a façade, a deception that is being used to maintain the illusion of hope within people for a peaceful resolution. UNESCO could have the potential to slow down the resistance against Israel’s occupation, which will ultimately be in favour of Israel as the threat is removed.  Who will resist Israel if essentially a Palestinian state is recognised? It will be argued that the need for a resistance movement is removed because Palestinians finally have a Palestine.

But what Palestine do we want to see? Are the people who have been fighting against the occupation ready to be bought with the 1967 borders? Anything less than pre-1948 borders would legitimise the theft of land that does not belong to Israel.