European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 60

Second Tier, Second Thoughts

The latter sentence quite clearly
translates as “Don’t give us any more
homework as long as you did not do your
own.”

Staying closer to substance than
to institutional emotions, EIOPA in its
preliminary report mostly summarizes
the landscape of stakeholder comments
as being more friendly toward the
Commission’s initiative than it actually
is (as we saw earlier). This is achieved
by intentional vagueness, on the one
hand, and a high tolerance for internal
contradictions, on the other. Take, for
example, the following quotes:

PPPs) should refer to national definitions
of PPPs” (EIOPA 2014b, Paragraph 53). So
EIOPA advises the Commission to treat
as a PPP whatever product one of the 28
member states defines as such. This implies
an enormous variance and could lead
to either astonishing over-reach or utter
ineffectiveness of European regulations.
Even regarding the 2nd regime and thus a
single, pan-European product EIOPA is not
much the wiser, for example, concerning
the term “retirement objective” (“EIOPA
notes that for 2nd regime purposes, future
work will be needed in order to establish
a clear understanding of this concept”;
EIOPA 2014b, Paragraph 58). At the very
least, this would need to be discussed
much more extensively and openly, since
the political ramifications for member
states’ pension policies and the balance
between their pillars are potentially very
substantial.
Acknowledging
the
hurdles
taxation and PPP definition represent,
EIOPA sets out to reframe the issue at
hand as one of consumer protection
and advises the Commission as follows:
“EIOPA believes a strong case is made
for a future Directive that would establish
a single market for PPPs inter alia
through the alignment across the EU of
PPP holder protection measures” (EIOPA
2014b,Paragraph 217, emphasis added by
EIOPA). If EIOPA’s resulting strategy can
be summarized in a nutshell, it is this:

The key outcome of the stakeholders’
contributions received during the
summer consultation period is the
overarching conclusion that a single
market for PPPs is advantageous
for consumers, providers, and for
the broader EU economy. […]
Stakeholders are aware of the
advantages and the incentives arising
from a single market. […] However,
most stakeholders seem to be satisfied
with the present situation […] More
specifically, a significant number of
the commenting stakeholders gave
the opinion that it is neither feasible
nor necessary to create or improve
a single market. (EIOPA 2014b,
Paragraphs 23–26)

Failure of the consultation
process—measured
by
its
initial
ambitions—is admitted only implicitly
and without drawing too much attention
to the con sequences. This is most apparent
regarding to which products actually are to
be covered by the single market for PPPs:
“EIOPA believes an EU wide definition
(in order to capture all existing and future

The creation of a 2nd regime,
introducing a highly standardized EU
PPP, could overcome many consumer
protection issues in the distribution
process (e.g., by framing the decisionmaking process in a way that could
encourage potential members to
make suitable choices—e.g., through
60