Reading time: 5 min
The ECB and the Bank of England both announce on Thursday March 19. Frankfurt holds at 2.00 percent. London holds at 3.75 percent. Neither decision is in doubt. What is in doubt is everything the press conferences are supposed to explain: how much the oil shock changes the inflation path, whether looking through it is credible, and what happens if it is not short-lived. The March ECB meeting produces the first updated staff projections since Hormuz closed. Those numbers will be revised in the wrong direction. Lagarde will then explain why that does not change anything.
The Same Week, the First Time Since 2021
Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid noted ahead of the week that this is the first time the Federal Reserve, the ECB, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan have all held policy meetings simultaneously since December 2021. That meeting, too, took place as central banks were mid-argument about how transitory inflation was going to be. They were wrong then. The institutional memory of that error is now a live variable in every decision room in the world, including Frankfurt and London.
The Reserve Bank of Australia moved first on Tuesday. In a 5-4 split, the RBA raised its cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.10 percent, its second consecutive hike, with all four major Australian banks now forecasting another move in May. Europe knows what losing an energy corridor costs. The RBA’s decision confirmed that at least one central bank is willing to tighten into a supply shock rather than wait for the data. Frankfurt and London are choosing the opposite path, at least for now.
ECB: What the Projections Will Show
The December 2025 ECB staff projections pencilled in headline HICP at 1.9 percent for 2026, core inflation at 2.2 percent, GDP growth at 1.2 percent. Those forecasts were built before February 28. The March update has a data cut-off in late February, which means it captures the first few days of the shock but not its full development. The numbers will still move. Near-term inflation goes up. Near-term growth goes down. The medium-term return to target stays intact, because that is what looking through a supply shock means.
The Conference Board estimates sustained $100-plus oil reduces eurozone GDP by 0.1 to 0.3 percentage points and lifts inflation by a similar margin. EY’s March 2026 European Economic Outlook goes further: if the Hormuz closure persists, eurozone GDP could be 1.3 percent lower by 2027 relative to a no-conflict baseline, with HICP potentially approaching 5 percent. The ECB is not projecting the EY tail scenario. It is projecting a temporary deviation from a path that returns to 2 percent. That framing is defensible. It is also the same framing central banks used in 2021.
Eurozone headline HICP was 1.9 percent in February, up from 1.7 percent in January, with core at 2.4 percent. Services inflation remains stickier than expected. Germany’s 500 billion euro fiscal package adds a demand-side inflation impulse at exactly the moment energy is adding a supply-side one. The Governing Council will not address that directly on Thursday. It will reiterate data-dependence, note the uncertainty, and retain flexibility in both directions. No hawkish member is pushing for tightening. The easing cycle that began in June 2024 and delivered eight cuts before stopping at 2.00 percent in June 2025 is treated as over, and the base case keeps the deposit rate there through at least end-2027.
The euro’s reaction will come down to whether traders read the upward inflation revision as hawkish enough to close off any residual expectations of a cut, or simply as confirmation that 2.00 percent is the floor and ceiling at the same time. EUR/USD is already navigating that contradiction: higher energy prices imply hawkish pressure, weaker growth implies dovish pressure, and the pair is stuck between them.
Bank of England: Stagnation Meets Inflation, Again
The BoE held at 3.75 percent in February by a 5-4 vote. Four members pushed for a cut to 3.50 percent. The split was narrower than the 7-2 consensus most City economists had expected. UK CPI sits at 3.0 percent, above target but falling. The Bank’s February Monetary Policy Report projected inflation reaching 2.1 percent in Q2 2026, a forecast produced before the Iran strikes. UK GDP was flat in January. Industrial production contracted 0.1 percent monthly. Services activity was flat. Administrative services fell 2.3 percent.
These are not numbers that call for tightening. But oil at $95 to $100 and rising pump prices create exactly the second-round risk that made the 2021 “transitory” judgment so costly. Barclays expects Thursday to produce a hold accompanied by communication designed to manage expectations rather than guide them, with the real signal deferred to the April 30 meeting when the next Monetary Policy Report arrives. That is when the BoE will have completed full scenario modelling of the Hormuz impact. Derivative markets are pricing in a very low probability of any rate cuts in 2026. One-month implied volatility in GBP/USD has moved from 6 percent at the start of the year to around 8.5 percent. The 10-year Gilt yield has held around 4.3 percent throughout.
The Central Problem Neither Bank Can Solve on Thursday
Both institutions are announcing policy decisions based on projections that do not yet fully incorporate the shock they are being asked to respond to. The ECB’s data cut-off was late February. The BoE’s next full modelling exercise lands April 30. Neither central bank is operating blind, but neither is operating with complete information either. This is normal. Policy is always made ahead of the data. What is less normal is making it in the middle of a geopolitical event whose duration and severity are unknown, while simultaneously being asked not to repeat the 2021 mistake of underreacting.
The decisions on Thursday are almost certainly hold and hold. The press conferences are where the week’s actual policy information lives. What Lagarde says about the conditions under which the ECB would shift its framing of the shock, and what Bailey says about the threshold for a hike becoming discussable, will matter considerably more than the rate numbers. Brent’s path through Q2 depends on whether alternative supply corridors can absorb what Hormuz is blocking. That is not a question either central bank’s projection model can answer. It is, however, the question their entire forward guidance rests on.
