Peter Kraneveld

The missing option is to move the pension scheme to Belgium. Supervision there is not rule-based but risk-based, so their argument that the young population requires a different reaction would get a proper hearing.

While Ambachtsheer makes some valid points, he overlooks a strong point against his action: the current government is led by a right-wing party (VVD) that has a long tradition of destroying pension capital for the sake of political dogma. The party knows about supply and demand, but not about market failure. It likes high finance, but dogmatically abhors social security. It has no knowledge of people's wishes to build up a good pension and inability to do so if left to their own devices. That probably sounds more normal in Canadian ears, but it is unbalanced in the long run, creating reforms that have to be repaired soon again.

Just to illustrate how superficial pension thinking is: IPE recently reported that at least one politician wants to reserve pension questions for the ministry of finance alone, shoving the ministry of social affairs away from decision making. If pensions are not a social service, why not privatise the sector and accept the ensuing poverty among the elderly as normal and unavoidable? In this climate and with such leaders, doing nothing is better than reform.

Anyone who states that quarterly reporting increases efficiency does not understand the first thing about finance in general and pension investments in particular. While part of the EU administration tries to promote long-term investing, EIOPA tries to hamper it. This is more prime evidence that EIOPA is unfit to cover pension funds. They should be covered be a separate body.

Commented on: 27 July 2017

EIOPA criticised over pension fund data consultation

The fear is justified. Only Ireland remains as a member-state with comparable pension interests. There are two decision procedures in the EU. Qualified majority and unanimity. Financial matters require a qualified majority. The Netherlands and Ireland cannot block unholy initiatives such as the financial transaction tax by themselves. Social matters need unanimity, but Brussels' practice is that isolated diplomats "seek new instructions". With Britain out, the road is open for a simple-minded destruction of the Dutch and Irish pension system by member-states who think differently.

The said, Brexit is unavoidable. The Dutch should construct a new alliance. France looks obvious, but will the twain ever meet?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Brexit was to a large degree decided on exactly the same xenophobia as Trump's election. That alone will preclude a shift of immigration from the US to the UK. There are similar sentiments in other European countries, but the crucial difference is that in those countries, xenophobia is not a government policy, as it is today in the US and the UK.

That said, it would be in everyone's interest if developing countries would develop and economic fugitives would stay home - something most of them would probably prefer. This is easily done. If developed countries would just give up protectionist trade policies, especially in the field of agriculture, the problem would be marginalised. According to the OECD, food prices consist of around 50% subsidies in the US, 65% in the EU and 85% in Japan. All this money protects the small and diminishing domestic agri sector and its powerful lobby machine. Therefore, the easy solution is politically impossible and the only other option is immigration. OECD countries can keep out developing countries' goods or developing countries' people, but not both.

It should not amaze that the OECD is unable to mention government policy as a reason for the many closures. At least in the Netherlands, I think this is the major reason, not only for the consolidation, but also for departures. This makes life easier for officials, but it is not necessarily in the interest of the beneficiaries.

The Dutch supervisor always demands more money from pension funds, while making life increasingly difficult for smaller funds with narrow-minded, inflexible and costly reporting (hence solvency) requirements, controversial meddling in governance and obvious efforts to squeeze out pension fund administrators who dare to disagree with them. No wonder OECD is scared...

First, I think Juncker - who is not exactly the world's greatest diplomat - is reacting to the appointment of Johnson as the British negotiator. In that sense, it is not Juncker but May who played hardball.

Second, I expect the member-states and in particular Germany as well as the European parliament will be unhappy with Barnier. There is a feeling that the UK will be punished financially and economically hard enough already to discourage others. Though they are unlikely to stop his nomination (the negotiations with the UK are within the competence of the European Commission and they have the most knowledge of EU law), the member-states will undermine his power, possibly by a second-in-command who is beholden to the Council or the EU parliament.

What remains is that Johnson and Barnier are steps on the road to an unnecessary minimal agreement between the UK and the EU.

Don't they think Mr. Trump is a populist and don't they know that at least 40% of the US population plans to vote for him? That's a whole lot more than what the ultra-right gets in European countries...