A guest post by Hugo Dixon, one of the architects of the Ukraine reparation loan plan, on why he rates last week's EU deal as only 6 out of 10 - and why still holds out hope of getting to 10 out of 10
You're right, Hugo, but it doesn't fix that sense of unmet hopes and expectations the EU seems so prone to generate in recent years (or perhaps decades). This is probably what it would be like to be an Everton FC fan. Even when victory seems within reach, the capacity for disappointment seems unlimited.
Solid analysis on the political economy angle. The leverage point about tranche-based disbursement from Russian assets is underused in policy debates, would've created real negotiating pressure on Putin that borrowing doesn't. The Merz-Macron rift seems like an unforced error that'll matter more down the line. I dunno if shifting to a new jurisdiction solves the Belgium vulner ability entirely, but at least it breaks the single point of failure problem.
Macron during his tenure as President of France never had in Germany a pan-European leader capable of reforming the EU. Now that we have a pro active Merz in place, it's Macron that is faltering.
France has great ideas for Europe, twice it almost got us into becoming a federal organisation, but due to infighting the same France spoiled it all.
Europe must be one of the three global players to keep our way of live, and the planet needs a sane voice in a major player.
As a committed EU citizen and supporter of the institution (warts and all) I found Mr. Dixon's ideas to be spot on. How disappointed many of us citizens were by the seeming pusillanimity of our European leaders and the bureaucratic blockage of Belgian Bookkeeper, Bart de Wever, who sees the small print but not the big existential threat to the collective. So Hugo's suggestion to relocate the frozen assets to a new, and presumably safer (for Belgium) and more pliable (for the EU) jurisdiction and safer haven is one I hope our dear leaders will implement. As for the 'opt out' sought by the EU's bloody minded Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs, I do hope Ursula and her clever advisors find a way to penalize their lack of team spirit and participation. Hit them in the wallet. Putin fan boy Orban in particular needs to be de-throned in Hungary's 2026 elections.
Bart De Wever, the Belgian P< said after the October European Council that he wants to get rid of the Russian account from Belgium. His exact comments were:
“If there is somebody who wants to take the entire Euroclear balance…. and will sign for all the risks, he can have it. That would be the happiest day – maybe not the happiest day of my career, but it would be a happy day to see that money leave Belgium. I want to get rid of it.”
Our plan does just that. It would take Euroclear out of a political knife fight.
Right. But it’s not for the PM of a country to decide. The government can change the law so that deposits are no longer allowed, but it’s then for the owner of the deposits to move them. My point: It still requires extrajudicial intervention. (Which, to be clear, I have no problem with given the scale of Russian crimes.)
The EU can direct Euroclear to shift the Russian account to another jurisdiction - just as it directed Euroclear to freeze the Russian account. I'm not sure why you want to use the term "extrajudicial" in either case. That implies that the directives would not be legally authorised when exactly the opposite would be the case.
I know we disagree on this, but my reservation has always been based on the issues of legality. In my book, Russia forfeited its rights to its assets by when it broke all international laws and treaties by invading Ukraine. So, let’s just take the money to pay for reparation of their crimes. Freezing the money is one mini-step in this direction.
As I understand you, you say something like “maybe true, but the political reality is that EU won’t do that, so I have a scheme which mobilises the assets without breaking any laws”.
My view is that we should choose the practical option that has the best overall beneficial impact. So I exclude politically impractical options such as your favoured one - confiscating the assets. Then I look at the other options and I’m guided mainly by what has the best chance of getting a goodish solution to the war - but I also take into account issues such as legal solidity, fiscal sustainability and the risk of populist backlashes in EU countries. What the EU decided last week wasn’t bad, but we can do quite a lot better.
You're right, Hugo, but it doesn't fix that sense of unmet hopes and expectations the EU seems so prone to generate in recent years (or perhaps decades). This is probably what it would be like to be an Everton FC fan. Even when victory seems within reach, the capacity for disappointment seems unlimited.
Solid analysis on the political economy angle. The leverage point about tranche-based disbursement from Russian assets is underused in policy debates, would've created real negotiating pressure on Putin that borrowing doesn't. The Merz-Macron rift seems like an unforced error that'll matter more down the line. I dunno if shifting to a new jurisdiction solves the Belgium vulner ability entirely, but at least it breaks the single point of failure problem.
Macron during his tenure as President of France never had in Germany a pan-European leader capable of reforming the EU. Now that we have a pro active Merz in place, it's Macron that is faltering.
France has great ideas for Europe, twice it almost got us into becoming a federal organisation, but due to infighting the same France spoiled it all.
Europe must be one of the three global players to keep our way of live, and the planet needs a sane voice in a major player.
As a committed EU citizen and supporter of the institution (warts and all) I found Mr. Dixon's ideas to be spot on. How disappointed many of us citizens were by the seeming pusillanimity of our European leaders and the bureaucratic blockage of Belgian Bookkeeper, Bart de Wever, who sees the small print but not the big existential threat to the collective. So Hugo's suggestion to relocate the frozen assets to a new, and presumably safer (for Belgium) and more pliable (for the EU) jurisdiction and safer haven is one I hope our dear leaders will implement. As for the 'opt out' sought by the EU's bloody minded Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs, I do hope Ursula and her clever advisors find a way to penalize their lack of team spirit and participation. Hit them in the wallet. Putin fan boy Orban in particular needs to be de-throned in Hungary's 2026 elections.
I’m not clear how Belgium’s concerns would be addressed by taking the asset out of its jurisdiction?
Bart De Wever, the Belgian P< said after the October European Council that he wants to get rid of the Russian account from Belgium. His exact comments were:
“If there is somebody who wants to take the entire Euroclear balance…. and will sign for all the risks, he can have it. That would be the happiest day – maybe not the happiest day of my career, but it would be a happy day to see that money leave Belgium. I want to get rid of it.”
Our plan does just that. It would take Euroclear out of a political knife fight.
Right. But it’s not for the PM of a country to decide. The government can change the law so that deposits are no longer allowed, but it’s then for the owner of the deposits to move them. My point: It still requires extrajudicial intervention. (Which, to be clear, I have no problem with given the scale of Russian crimes.)
The EU can direct Euroclear to shift the Russian account to another jurisdiction - just as it directed Euroclear to freeze the Russian account. I'm not sure why you want to use the term "extrajudicial" in either case. That implies that the directives would not be legally authorised when exactly the opposite would be the case.
I know we disagree on this, but my reservation has always been based on the issues of legality. In my book, Russia forfeited its rights to its assets by when it broke all international laws and treaties by invading Ukraine. So, let’s just take the money to pay for reparation of their crimes. Freezing the money is one mini-step in this direction.
As I understand you, you say something like “maybe true, but the political reality is that EU won’t do that, so I have a scheme which mobilises the assets without breaking any laws”.
My view is that we should choose the practical option that has the best overall beneficial impact. So I exclude politically impractical options such as your favoured one - confiscating the assets. Then I look at the other options and I’m guided mainly by what has the best chance of getting a goodish solution to the war - but I also take into account issues such as legal solidity, fiscal sustainability and the risk of populist backlashes in EU countries. What the EU decided last week wasn’t bad, but we can do quite a lot better.