…inducing healthy debate about the EU. I mean, the headline:

SHOULD WE QUIT THE MEDDLING EU?

really does open the subject up. Needless to say, the opening line of the article really let you make your own mind up too:

THE European Union is poised to make life even tougher for millions of pensioners by forcing life and savings companies to slash payments by up to 20 per cent.

Well, at least they presented the case for the EU’s Solvency II rules. Oh wait, no they didn’t. A report on the same topic at professionalpensions.com says:

In an interview with the Financial Times, Axa UK chief executive Nicolas Moreau said: “People will get less return for their pensions, but they have had too much of the profits because it is such a competitive market.” … Such move could allow members to shop around and look for better deals.

So the regulations could open up the market. Their report then goes on to say:

Industry figures have often warned Solvency II rules could force UK annuity providers to suffer increased costs.

This could explain why there’s the opposition from the likes of Legal and General remain opposed to it, according to the Sunday Express. What they didn’t show is that Lloyds seem to like the idea of Solvency II. According to their website:

Increased competition and transparency as a result of Solvency II should also lead to improved product development and pricing.

I don’t know much about Solvency II, or indeed the pensions market, annuities etc. But it didn’t take me long to find people who were in favour and offering reasonable arguments for it. Why couldn’t the Sunday Express do the same? They don’t have to ‘balance’ the article fully if they don’t believe in Solvency II. The angle can remain – but at least offer a chance for the flip-side of the debate to have a say.

(It’s also worth noting that the first line of the Express article presented the ’20% cuts’ as a fact. It isn’t a fact, it’s just a prediction by L&G’s chief exec).