Carl B Hamilton writes that Sweden should be in the banking union and said that I was wrong when I some time ago wrote to Sweden without the euro ”should not abstain from the Swedish control of the Swedish banking market in times of crisis”.
The reasons that Hamilton believes makes it more important than in the past to be in the banking union is about penningtvättskandalen at Swedbank and he believes that we would then be better equipped to combat money laundering. I am hesitant to because the laws and rules that apply in the banking union also applies in Sweden. Namely, it is common EU legislation.
Since the question of what the banking union is sometimes unclear, there may be reason to sort the concepts for an important debate on the development in Sweden as a member of the EU.
A base for the banking union is bankkrislagstiftningen which I have been responsible for the step-by-step ago 2014. The agreement on the development of bankkrislagstiftningen by the rules if the increased förlusttäckande tax year, which I achieved with the council of ministers before christmas was for the banking union is a prerequisite for further decisions on a common backstop for banks ‘ liabilities.
Next week we shall decide definitively in the european Parliament two parallel jurisdiction and law for bankkrishantering, one of which is a regulation for the euro-zone and the other a directive transformed in national law in the other countries. It means new and extensive demands on top of capital, in order to further discourage banks should be forced to request state aid. It is a law that reinforces the redande existing bankkrislagstiftningen and the like, as well as a third law of skuldhierarki and seniority, I was responsible for.
the same applies for the laws and rules governing banks ‘ capital adequacy. Where the requirements have gradually been tightened for banks since the financial crisis. These rules apply for Sweden and for bankunionens members. The same applies to the legislation regarding supervisory authorities and resolutionsmyndigheter – which in Sweden is the Swedish national debt office and their independence. Legislation on money laundering is the same for all member states and is not related to the banking union.
as long As we do not have the benefit of the stability of the euro would membership just mean that we put to Swedish banks during the other authorities who have other considerations to take than the stability of the Swedish economy and financial markets.
What distinguishes Sweden from bankunionens members is that we do not have the eurozone authorities that make decisions on the Swedish banks, and we have obtained the possibility, I myself and ran through it – to be able to set a higher capital requirement than what the common law requires, and to set higher requirements on contributions to the funds shall be used at the bankrishantering.
They actually have the banks who are guilty of money laundering has been the subject of the banking supervision Carl B Hamilton believe that we would achieve by being with in the banking union, at the same time that they are subject to the same rules in Sweden and in the baltic states. It is therefore difficult to argue that the membership in the banking union itself is a powerful instrument against money laundering, or that it gives a better protection than the Swedish authorities. It has happened in banks as ABLV in Latvia and Deutsche Bank underlines that the banking union does not make any difference against money laundering.
It would be a bit backwards to join the banking union, which is based on the euro as a currency, but to have the euro.
as long As we do not have the benefit of the stability of the euro would membership just mean that we put to Swedish banks during the other authorities who have other considerations to take than the stability of the Swedish economy and financial markets. This without we get the benefits of the wider economy and the joint stability.
Until we are in the euro, I believe that we should strive for a hybrid solution, where the supervisory and resolutionskollegier get a clearer regulation, where Sweden can pay a part of the resolutionsavgifterna to the common fund and in return receive support when the crisis goes over a certain size at the same time as we can get observationsmedlemskap in bankunionens resolutionsmyndighet and board of supervisors.
Sweden’s membership of the euro would be good for the Swedish economy’s competitiveness, investment and the internal market. It would give us more political influence over the eurofrågor that still affect us and it would mean that, after Brexit does not belong to a small minority with declining political influence on the basis of our exclusion.
It had been better exportförutsättningar then and not now made us poorer and more vulnerable for the purchase of the Swedish company at cheap rate.
There are two timing forward that can be crucial. The eurozone itself must meet the stability requirements as fully or as well as Sweden does. After the next crisis, I think there is an awareness that the euro gives a greater sense of security. When should a Swedish government to revitalize the issue and allow parliament to take a stand for forms when and how.
We need a european Magnitskijlag in order to prevent the washing money earned in the lawlessness of Russia do not receive protection in European states governed by law.
When it comes to the former, we have already the common rules that Hamilton calls for. We also have a comprehensive common EU-legislation on money laundering. However, we need at the european level, a common institution which unites intelligence agencies, the financial supervisory authorities and banks ‘ internal control activities to meet the purpose of money laundering. Money laundering requires more than financial supervision and can no longer be only a national responsibility.
We need a european Magnitskijlag in order to prevent the washing money earned in the lawlessness of Russia do not receive protection in European states governed by law.
It underlines the importance of nordic banks in the baltic states. Russian påverkanspolitik must be cut off from their funding. Then turn the man against the påverkanspolitiken, crime, money laundering, and the banks laxity. Such legislation must, for obvious reasons, apply to all members of the EU, banking union or not. It will force banks to realize that they are a part of the battlefield against påverkanspolitik and that they need to keep it clean against money laundering.
