Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said they will sign the bilateral agreement between the United States and the European Union regarding regulation of insurance and reinsurance.

In addition to signing the so-called covered agreement in the coming weeks, the Trump Administration said it also plans to issue a policy statement on implementation.

The Treasury statement called the pact, which was negotiated by the Obama Administration in talks that began in 2015, an important step in making U.S. companies more competitive in domestic and foreign markets and making regulations efficient, effective and appropriately tailored.

The Treasury statement also said the bilateral agreement benefits the U.S. economy and consumers by affirming Americas state-based system of insurance regulation, providing regulatory certainty, and increasing growth opportunities for U.S. insurers.

The agreement which was announced on January 13 in the final days of the Obama Administration addresses three areas of insurance oversight: reinsurance, group supervision and the exchange of insurance information between regulators.

The agreement is known as a covered agreement, which is an agreement between the U.S. and one or more foreign governments, authorities or regulatory entities, regarding prudential measures with respect to insurance or reinsurance.

U.S. Fact Sheet on Covered Agreement with European Union

According to the negotiators, U.S. and EU insurers operating in the other market will only be subject to oversight by the regulators in their home jurisdiction. For the United States, the agreement preserves the primacy of state regulation the U.S. of U.S. insurance groups while for the EU, it preserves the primacy of EU oversight of EU insurance groups.

The agreement calls for an end to collateral and local presence requirements for EU and U.S. reinsurers.

European reinsurers and regulators have wanted the U.S. to lift reinsurance collateral requirements on foreign reinsurers and treat them like U.S. reinsurers. European reinsurers and Lloyds of London syndicates complain they are disadvantaged compared to American competitors by the additional capital and collateral requirements of some states. They note that they must also now comply with new EU solvency [Solvency II) rules.

The limitations on worldwide group oversight outside of the home jurisdiction include limits on matters involving solvency and capital, reporting and governance. Supervisors however preserve the ability to request and obtain information about worldwide activities which could harm policyholders interests or financial stability in their territory.

The agreement encourages insurance supervisory authorities in the U.S. and the EU to continue to exchange supervisory information on insurers and reinsurers that operate in the U.S. and EU markets.

In January, the Treasury Department released a fact sheet on the agreement and said the final legal text of the agreement had been given to Congress as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

The European Union approval process involves the Council and the European Parliament.

Michael McRaith, the former director of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) within Treasury who left his post a week after the agreement was announced, has called negotiating a covered agreement with the European Union a critical step toward leveling the playing field for American insurers and reinsurers.

Several major insurance organizations including the American Insurance Association (AIA), the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) and the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) welcomed the agreement in January, as did the International Underwriting Association, which represents wholesale re/insurance companies in the London market.

However, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) has not been as welcoming of a covered agreement. It has called the pact a proposed solution to an invented problem the question of European regulators deeming our regulatory system equivalent.

State insurance regulators have also expressed concern that a covered agreement could potentially undermine the U.S. system of state regulation of insurance. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has been critical of the agreement, warning that it might be used as a backdoor to force foreign regulations on U.S. companies.

Another state regulatory group, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL), which has also criticized the pact, is waiting to see what the Trump Administration policy statement on implementation says. NCOIL CEO Tom Considine, speaking at the Super Regional P/C Insurer Conference in Wisconsin on Monday, said he believes the policy statement will be an attempt to reconcile the agreement with support for state-based regulation but he questioned if this is possible. Considine, a former New Jersey banking and insurance commissioner, termed the agreement great for Wall Street and horrible for Main Street.

Read more here:
Trump Administration to Sign Insurance Regulation Pact with ... - Insurance Journal

GETTY

The EUs social media team posted an interactive vote on Facebook so ordinary members of the public could deliver their verdict on Jean-Claude Junckers five proposals for the project going forward.

But the innovative post sparked anger and derision amongst some users who accused eurocrats of showing open bias by choosing a tearful face for the option to devolve more powers back to member states.

EU officials are trying find ways to engage with more young people after surveys showed worrying numbers across the continent now feel completely detached from Brussels.

But placing yourself in the hands of social media is always a high risk strategy, and it appeared to backfire today as many Facebook users took the opportunity to give the ailing project a kicking.

Mr Juncker has proposed five pathways for the future of the EU, which range from reverting back to a simple trading alliance right through to the creation of a full United States of Europe.

The chief eurocrat has already dismissed going back to economic ties as unworkable, and his officials echoed that sentiment by choosing a crying emoji to represent voting for that option.

A thumbs up was used to vote for the creation of a two speed Europe, a heart represented doing less but more efficiently, a laughing face meant carrying on as normal and a wow emoji championed the superstate option.

The comments below the post were split between those offering supportive remarks and others mocking the project, with several asking why dismantling the club was not an option.

Ryan Bailey asked: Why theres no option for dismantle the European Union? I don`t think Europe has a future.

Dillon Slowey echoed that thought, adding: Is there an option to abolish the EU?

Rickard Ankar said: I want your supranational union to die. Long live democracy, long live the nation state.

Others offered more nuanced criticism, suggesting that a perceived lack of democracy at the heart of the EU and the dominance of Germany and France were more pressing issues.

Sander de Regt wrote: I like the EU but I dont like it that I cannot choose the persons who think of new ideas.

Also I dont like how Germany and France plays like they are the boss. Everyone should be equal. Also this companies who are manipulating laws should be banned.

Christopher Talbot said: Personally, I would like to see the EU as more democratic, better run, less bureaucratic organisation.

And Saba Buadze mused: Doing more economical and less political things. Before European union were less political everything was great.

Some also suggested the poll itself was not fair, pointing out that eurocrats were clearly showing a preference for certain options through which emoji they had chosen to represent them.

Darran Gange wrote: Come on European Commission, you can't seriously suggest that this is a fair poll. Someone had to choose what the sad emoji would be.

REUTERS

1 of 8

Geert Wilders wants to 'de-Islamicise' the Netherlands, hopes clashes between Turkish-Dutch protesters and the police, along with Ankara's accusations of Dutch 'fascism', will help bolster his chances of finishing first

However, equal number in were people expressing optimism and encouragement about the future of the EU, with many saying they would like to see more cooperation in future.

Arnout Posthumus wrote: Doing more together is the perfect way. But we know that its rather impossible.

Michael Holz added: In my opinion it is a question of doing the 'right' things together on the European level. Common problems are tackled commonly.

Everything else stays in the competence of the member states. Personally, I think that the EU must adopt a federal structure.

And Rudy Maertens implored: Find a way to cancel Brexit... we are better together... and I know this post will get trolled, but I'm still hopeful there is a way.

Original post:
'Where's the option to abolish you?' EU mercilessly mocked after running emoji poll online - Express.co.uk

GENEVA (Reuters) - The European Union and Britain plan to put forward a joint proposal for reform of the terms of their World Trade Organization (WTO) membership in September or October, an EU source said on Monday, as London negotiates to leave the EU.

The two sides are also discussing sharing liabilities from trade disputes including WTO litigation over Airbus (AIR.PA) subsidies in a long-running case with the United States, the EU source said.

Currently we are in talks with the United Kingdom to come to a joint approach on the matter, on all the aspects of the divorce, with regard to the WTO. And I would think that, come the month of September/October, we will be able to come jointly to the rest of the (WTO) membership, the EU source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The joint approach would address aspects of the EU's WTO membership terms, known as its WTO "schedules", that are not easily split between Britain and the other 27 EU members: agricultural tariff quotas, agricultural subsidies and commitments on services trade.

The plan is (that) we would explain together how we would see the disentanglement of the United Kingdom from the EU commitments and schedules, the source said.

The joint approach would also deal with Britain's wish to join the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement, which liberalises access to procurement markets between signatories. The EU is a member of the agreement but Britain is not.

Asked how important it was to finalize revision of the WTO terms of membership before the EU and Britain formally divorce, the source said: I have the impression that the United Kingdom believes that is important.

Britain's Brexit minister, David Davis, pledged to "get down to work" as he kicked off a first full round of negotiations in Brussels on Monday but, a year after Britons voted to leave the EU, their government seemed at war with itself over the divorce terms.

Britain also faces a multi-billion euro bill as it leaves the EU, to cover ongoing commitments.

One of those costs may be a provision to cover damages that could be awarded to the United States in the world's largest trade dispute, the 13-year-old battle over allegedly illegal subsidies to plane giants Airbus and Seattle-based Boeing (BA.N).

"I think that is also part of the discussion," the EU source said, without giving any details. "I'm not sure that will be clarified already. I think we're now working first and foremost on schedules."

Reporting by Tom Miles; writing by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Kevin Liffey

See the article here:
EU and Britain to present post-Brexit plan on WTO membership - Reuters

French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe (center) says France will use "all means" to make Paris more attractive for international finance.

AFP/Ian Langsdon

For once, foreign bankers are the most popular people in Europe, as pols in Ireland, France, Germany, and beyond try to recruit financial operations that will likely be disrupted by the United Kingdoms exit from the European Union.

Henry Grabar is a staff writer for Slates Moneybox.

Friday was the deadline for international financial institutions based in the U.K. to submit contingency plans to the Bank of England explaining what they plan to do in a variety of Brexit scenarios, including a hard Brexit, meaning a situation in which the U.K. leaves the European Union without a trade deal in place.

That would make things very complicated for the thousands of bankers who have made London Europes financial capital over the past two decades. The head of the London Stock Exchange predicted in September that the country could lose 100,000 jobs if (or, it now seems, when) the City of London loses passporting rights, which allow companies in London to sell services within the E.U. In April, Sam Woods, the head of the Bank of Englands regulatory arm, asked banks to send in their plans.

Those documents have not been made public, and so far most banks have been happy to play the fieldthe past few weeks have been marked by intense international campaigning, as Dublin, Frankfurt, and Paris compete to seduce bank chiefs.

Barclays head Res Staley and JPMorgan head Jamie Dimon, for example, have both met with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar in the past few weeks. Barclays decided months ago to establish its European base in Dublin;JPMorgan has said it will move jobs from London to Dublin, Frankfurt, and Luxembourg. The Irish capital has long been a hub for back-office banking jobs because of its low taxes and English-speaking culture.Its a beautiful city, with great real estate and an open business climate, Dimon told JPMorgan staff on his visit, according to the Guardian.

Paris has also stepped up its game. In October, the capitals outlying business district and banking center, La Dfense, launched a campaign: Tired of the fog? Try the frogs. Both the region and the national government have also worked to attract firms.

In a memo sent earlier this month and published this weekend by the Mail on Sunday tabloid, the City of Londons special representative to the E.U., Jeremy Browne, said the French were the worst in Europe. They are crystal clear about their underlying objective: the weakening of Britain, the on-going degradation of the City of London What we are witnessing is a whole-of-France collective endeavor, made more giddy and more assertive by the election of Macron. French president Emmanuel Macronworked as an investment banker before serving in the cabinet of his socialist predecessor, Francois Hollande.

It is entirely in line with the tone set by French representatives currently crashing conspicuously around London, making heroic relocation promises and pouring cold water on the propositions of alternative EU financial centers, Brown wrote. One example of this he gave was French officials trashing the more civil-minded Luxembourg, which has also pitched itself as a destination for Londons financial workers.

Two weeks ago, the French prime minister douard Philippea moderate member of the French center-right party before he joined up with Macronpitched a package of bank-friendly reforms to a conference of bankers in Paris last week, including scrapping the top payroll tax bracket and creating an international court to handle cases in English. "The message I want to share with you is clear and it is simple: the French government is committed to boost Paris' attractiveness by all means," Philippe said.

And because France and Germany are both now trying to lure banks, a six-year effort to impose an E.U. tax on financial transactions may be dead, Bloomberg reports:

Frankfurt, a longtime hub for banking on the continent, has recruited the likes of Standard Chartered and Goldman Sachs.

The question for bankers is whether they can trust Paris. Franois Hollande won a landslide election in 2011 by declaring finance his true enemy. Macron may be riding high right now, but it seems unlikely the French are suddenly hot on bankers. Humiliating London and proving its inferiority to Paris, however? a va.

More:
It's a Steamy Summer for European Leaders Trying to Seduce London's Bankers - Slate Magazine (blog)

A huge truck bomb detonated at a crowded traffic circle in Kabul in May was one of the deadliest strikes in the long Afghan war, and a reminder of how the battlefield has extended to the capital. That attack killed around 80 people, and though many of the people killed and injured were commuters on the streets, many other casualties were in office buildings close to the blast site. (Three women were killed in the bombing and another 52 injured.)

They made up more than a quarter of the total casualties, and child deaths were up 9 percent compared with the same period last year.

These civilian attacks need to stop, said David Skinner, the country director for the nongovernmental organization Save the Children. Not only do they injure and kill innocent people in the most horrific way, but they cause untold distress and trauma, especially for children, often leading to serious psychosocial issues and impacting their longer-term development.

The report blamed antigovernment forces for 67 percent of the civilian casualties, holding the Taliban responsible for 43 percent, the Islamic State for 5 percent and unidentified groups for 19 percent. But Afghans also suffer at the hands of government and allied forces, sometimes as they come across their unexploded ordnance.

The report commended government forces for reducing civilian casualties from ground engagements, including indiscriminate firing of mortars and other heavy weapons in civilian areas. In the meantime, it said, casualties caused by the insurgents use of homemade bombs had only increased. Roughly 40 percent of all civilian casualties 596 deaths and 1,483 injuries resulted from the insurgents use of such explosives, including suicide bombs, the report said.

The Taliban rejected the report in a statement, calling it one-sided and politically motivated.

Homemade bombs continue to be one of the Talibans main weapons, one that was on display again this week as Afghan forces tried to recapture the district of Nawa in the southern province of Helmand.

As Afghan forces pushed toward the district center this week, they had to defuse as many as 100 Taliban bombs, said Omar Zwak, a spokesman for the governor of Helmand.

Even as violence has increased in 15 of the countrys 34 provinces, mass-casualty attacks in the capital have killed the most civilians, the U.N. report said.

Ninety-four percent of the roughly 1,000 casualties in Kabul resulted from suicide bombings, the largest of which killed more than 90 people and wounded close to 500 when a truck full of explosives went off near the citys diplomatic enclave. (President Ashraf Ghani put the death toll from that bombing at 150.)

A drastically different case of civilian casualties occurred over the weekend in Kabul, an increasingly militarized city where checkpoints and security barriers have been proliferating. Guards for a senior government official opened fire on a wedding convoy passing in front of his heavily fortified street, killing the bride and another woman.

The Kabul police said that members of the wedding convoy had fired celebratory shots into the air as they were passing the home of Hajji Mohammad Mohaqiq, deputy chief executive of the Afghan government, and that his guards had thought they were under attack. Two of the guards have been arrested, said a police spokesman, Abdul Basir Mujahid.

A United States military raid last Thursday on the outskirts of Tarinkot city, the capital of Uruzgan Province in the south, resulted in civilian casualties, residents and officials said. Dust Muhammad Nayab, a spokesman for the governor of Uruzgan, said Taliban from all over had come to the rescue of the militants shadow governor, the target of the raid, so the fighting had become intense.

Six civilians have been killed and 12 others injured, including women and children in the cross-fighting, Mr. Nayab said.

Faiz Muhammad, 60, who lives on the outskirts of Tarinkot, said life had become difficult for his village even before the raid, with the Taliban warning people to leave before each offensive. He would take his family to the forested area of Sajawal, sometimes five times a month, and they would return after the fighting quieted down.

Last week, his family fled, but Mr. Muhammad stayed home to take care of the cattle. One night he heard planes, and the next morning he learned that a raid had taken place in Sajawal. Eight members of his family were killed, he said: his wife, Shapirai, 45; his son Abdul Khaliq, 28; a daughter-in-law; three other sons; and two young grandsons. Five other family members were wounded.

My heart is just bleeding, Mr. Muhammad said at the bedside of his 25-year-old son, Mujahid, in a hospital in nearby Kandahar. The doctors say my sons leg might need amputation. I am worried about his health if they do amputate, he will be half a man.

Capt. Bill Salvin of the United States Navy, a spokesman for the American military in Afghanistan, said the military had looked at the tapes and did not see evidence that civilians had been targeted. But he said a preliminary inquiry had been started, a routine response to any claim of civilian casualties.

Mujib Mashal reported from Kabul, and Taimoor Shah from Kandahar, Afghanistan. Fahim Abed contributed reporting from Kabul.

View post:
Afghanistan More Deadly for Women and Children, UN Says - New York Times