On reparle beaucoup de l’Union bancaire, et une fois de plus la propension européiste à l’utopie se fait jour. Un retour documenté à ce que signifie l’Union bancaire s’impose donc. On trouvera ci-après la référence à un article que je viens de publier sur le sujet dans une revue américaine (et donc en anglais, sorry !).

Voici la référence :

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/...

Mais la conclusion vous en donne un avant goût :

The banking union is eerily reminiscent of the usual process of European integration : as soon as a problem arises, no matter what the question is, the answer always is the same—more European integration. As with any secularized faith, no return is considered possible. Every part of the acquis communautaire, every past decision in the direction of more integration is permanent, and calling it into question would be considered a serious moral fault. The European faith is based on the conviction that history has a meaning, a single meaning of greater human unity, and that we know it : it is both a necessity and a duty. Even when a mistake has been committed, the answer is always the same : increase the doses. Indeed, crises are needed to accelerate integration, because normally governments, parliaments, and public opinion resist the further reduction of national sovereignty. Another feature of that complex process is that it always remains partial, lacking coherence. Before the banking union, Europe had a common currency but no common budget and no common management of the financial system. That will remain the case : after the banking union, there will still be major differences between the various national banking systems. Once again, European leaders are attempting to use complex but apolitical and thus “uncontroversial” methods to drive further integration. Once again, their methods will partially resolve some problems. But the banking union, as with other reforms, will leave in place the fundamental political disjunction at the heart of the European project.