Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit divident isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
Is that how you vote, to prove a point?
I doubt it,because I certainly don’t.
We all vote to initiate change. You cannot prove a point with a vote.
Apparently the Brexit vote was a "slap in the face" for people like me (whoever they are). According to my brother, who narrowly avoided a slap back.
More broadly it has been shown time and time again by pollsters that this is exactly the way that many people use their votes, especially outside general elections. Good case in point was the first Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Turned out many who voted 'no' had only a hazy idea what it was, but since the unpopular govt. was for it, they were against it. When the consequences were explained to them properly, they changed the way they voted in the second referendum. A less controversial example would be the results of local council elections.
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
There is absolutely no way that Spain would vote to leave the EU. It was such a big deal for them to join in the 80s after decades of isolation under a fascist dictatorship that being in the EU represents being part of the modern world. There is pretty much zero support for leaving the EU here; in fact part of the recent Catalan independence crisis was marked by the Catalan separatists insisting they could join the EU and the unionists saying it would be impossible for them to stay in it: both sides stressed the importance of being in the EU as part of the argument. Only the Catalan anarchist CUP party could be said to be anti EU here.
Like most other countries in the EU Spain would like to modernise it from within. As with most institutions it needs reform but that is not reason enough to walk away from it, especially with very little alternative in place.
1. No I do not believe my arguments have floundered.
2. I am convinced that, over the next five years, a multi-speed EU will emerge.
3. Did I really give that ‘maths’ argument? I don’t recall it and I very much doubt it. I have never once even mentioned the migration angle because I have no issues with it.
4. Thanks.
If you are convinced it will emerge then why vote leave? Why not remain and guide the development to better suit our desires than leave and have no influence at all, and probably set back the chances of a multi-speed EU by years, if not permanently.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
The difference between us is that I am prepared to give personal opinions, debate where necessary, and provide backup when there is a relevant link.
All you ever do is say the whole thing is shit, insult people, and continually post links without providing any personal thoughts of your own.
I enjoy debating with the remainers on here because I usually learn things I did not know about and that helps me re-think my stance.
From you, I have never learnt a single thing.
I think you are guilty of a rather fanciful view of your contributions to this thread.
Your stance, based on your posts, like mine, has not changed one iota since the the debate began. You are as entrenched in your view as I am in mine. The only difference is that my view is backed up by a growing body of evidence that proves a Brexit that is good for the future of the people who live in the U.K. is simply not possible. It would make no difference how good or credible the politicians charged with negotiating it are...it simply is not possible.
I am currently trying to remember a single thing I have learnt from your posts.....if I remember any I will get back to you.
As for posting links without providing personal thoughts....most times the link is an expression of a view I agree 100% with. Only it is expressed with more clarity and authority and credibility than anything I or anyone else on this forum could achieve. What is the point of me adding the words I agree 100% with the view expressed in this link.
When you start taking cues from Chippy it is time to step away from the keyboard and take a break.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
The difference between us is that I am prepared to give personal opinions, debate where necessary, and provide backup when there is a relevant link.
All you ever do is say the whole thing is shit, insult people, and continually post links without providing any personal thoughts of your own.
I enjoy debating with the remainers on here because I usually learn things I did not know about and that helps me re-think my stance.
From you, I have never learnt a single thing.
I think you are guilty of a rather fanciful view of your contributions to this thread.
Your stance, based on your posts, like mine, has not changed one iota since the the debate began. You are as entrenched in your view as I am in mine. The only difference is that my view is backed up by a growing body of evidence that proves a Brexit that is good for the future of the people who live in the U.K. is simply not possible. It would make no difference how good or credible the politicians charged with negotiating it are...it simply is not possible.
I am currently trying to remember a single thing I have learnt from your posts.....if I remember any I will get back to you.
As for posting links without providing personal thoughts....most times the link is an expression of a view I agree 100% with. Only it is expressed with more clarity and authority and credibility than anything I or anyone else on this forum could achieve. What is the point of me adding the words I agree 100% with the view expressed in this link.
When you start taking cues from Chippy it is time to step away from the keyboard and take a break.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
The difference between us is that I am prepared to give personal opinions, debate where necessary, and provide backup when there is a relevant link.
All you ever do is say the whole thing is shit, insult people, and continually post links without providing any personal thoughts of your own.
I enjoy debating with the remainers on here because I usually learn things I did not know about and that helps me re-think my stance.
From you, I have never learnt a single thing.
I think you are guilty of a rather fanciful view of your contributions to this thread.
Your stance, based on your posts, like mine, has not changed one iota since the the debate began. You are as entrenched in your view as I am in mine. The only difference is that my view is backed up by a growing body of evidence that proves a Brexit that is good for the future of the people who live in the U.K. is simply not possible. It would make no difference how good or credible the politicians charged with negotiating it are...it simply is not possible.
I am currently trying to remember a single thing I have learnt from your posts.....if I remember any I will get back to you.
As for posting links without providing personal thoughts....most times the link is an expression of a view I agree 100% with. Only it is expressed with more clarity and authority and credibility than anything I or anyone else on this forum could achieve. What is the point of me adding the words I agree 100% with the view expressed in this link.
When you start taking cues from Chippy it is time to step away from the keyboard and take a break.
Then again you may be right... You can then wallow in your own self pity.
1. No I do not believe my arguments have floundered.
2. I am convinced that, over the next five years, a multi-speed EU will emerge.
3. Did I really give that ‘maths’ argument? I don’t recall it and I very much doubt it. I have never once even mentioned the migration angle because I have no issues with it.
4. Thanks.
The numbers thing might have been southbank and I mixed you both up. We will have to have a continued conversation regarding 'floundering', although it is not incumbent on you to sustain part of the conversation because, well because you won, and however flawed the winners arguments seem to me I will simply have to endure.
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Macron did not say what your stating he did.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
The difference between us is that I am prepared to give personal opinions, debate where necessary, and provide backup when there is a relevant link.
All you ever do is say the whole thing is shit, insult people, and continually post links without providing any personal thoughts of your own.
I enjoy debating with the remainers on here because I usually learn things I did not know about and that helps me re-think my stance.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
The difference between us is that I am prepared to give personal opinions, debate where necessary, and provide backup when there is a relevant link.
All you ever do is say the whole thing is shit, insult people, and continually post links without providing any personal thoughts of your own.
I enjoy debating with the remainers on here because I usually learn things I did not know about and that helps me re-think my stance.
From you, I have never learnt a single thing.
Spot on mate
Totally echo those comments. Top post as usual and from you too Blackpool.
On a narrow but potentially significant point, I haven't seen anybody else raise this issue.
The Labour Party has launched a 50 point animal welfare action plan. I don't see much to disagree with personally and welcome this initiative.
One of the points that jumps out at the reader though is the banning of imports of Foie Gras. This barbaric (in my opinion) industry is banned in the U.K. but is allowed in France. Due to the Single Market, as a country we are obliged to allow the import of this foodstuff.
We cannot ban this until we leave the Single Market. Labour deliberately send out confusing messages on Brexit and this is another example.
If this animal welfare plan is to come to pass then Labour should come clean on their true intentions on Brexit. I don't believe that they will though as too many Corbyn supporters that are also remainers can continue to vote/support Labour in the hope that a miracle might happen.
The Tories are rightly attacked for not presenting a unified vision for Brexit and rightly so. The Labour Party avoids too much finger pointing as they are in opposition, but let's not pretend (as Labour themselves do) that Labour would be doing a better job of a unified approach.
This is a minor matter in terms of Brexit issues but it does represent a significant dilemma and a cynical attempt to confuse.
Just watched Guy Verhofstadt on Marr. I urge others to watch. One c!ear theme is that it is down to the UK to come up with the answers, he ended by saying leaving with no deal would lead to a political crisis in the UK. Watch it yourself and decide, but he makes anybody on the UK side (in interviews we have seen so far) look like a blithering idiot.
Just watched Guy Verhofstadt on Marr. I urge others to watch. One c!ear theme is that it is down to the UK to come up with the answers, he ended by saying leaving with no deal would lead to a political crisis in the UK. Watch it yourself and decide, but he makes anybody on the UK side (in interviews we have seen so far) look like a blithering idiot.
He was certainly willing to talk about things ‘our’ side prefer to not too. Pity Andrew Marr didn’t raise the Irish border directly.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Just watched Guy Verhofstadt on Marr. I urge others to watch. One c!ear theme is that it is down to the UK to come up with the answers, he ended by saying leaving with no deal would lead to a political crisis in the UK. Watch it yourself and decide, but he makes anybody on the UK side (in interviews we have seen so far) look like a blithering idiot.
I watched it. Very interesting. We really need to make a decision now one way or the other about what we want. This has been dragged out for far too long now.
Whether you voted leave or remain, brexit has uncovered what a shower of shit our government is.
Just watched Guy Verhofstadt on Marr. I urge others to watch. One c!ear theme is that it is down to the UK to come up with the answers, he ended by saying leaving with no deal would lead to a political crisis in the UK. Watch it yourself and decide, but he makes anybody on the UK side (in interviews we have seen so far) look like a blithering idiot.
I watched it. Very interesting. We really need to make a decision now one way or the other about what we want. This has been dragged out for far too long now.
Whether you voted leave or remain, brexit has uncovered what a shower of shit our government is.
It was interesting that he raised, in particular, his concerns about the status of Brits living in EU countries.
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Macron did not say what your stating he did.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
Macron most certainly did say that. I watched it and saw his lips move while he was saying it. Maybe you should have checked the facts first before trying to call someone a liar.
Madrid, in which way is the EU war hungry? Have you forgotten Crimea already? The way they stuck their big, stinking unwanted nose into business that doesn't concern them in their unrelenting quest for expansion and to try to undermine Russia was sickening and hundreds lost their lives as a result. A future war between the EU and Russia is most certainly not out of the question. The EU likes puffing it's chest out and playing games which is not really equipped to finish.
Also for a trading bloc the EU has strange ambitions don't you think? Why on earth would a so called trading union need or want it's own armed forces? Why does it need a paramilitary style police force?
The EU has already started butting it's snorkel into the affairs of the African continent as if it has some moral and legal obligation to do so. It won't be long before they are putting troops on the ground and physically removing any governments of African nations that they don't see as conducive to EU policy in the region. Wars will be a direct result of this interference.
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Macron did not say what your stating he did.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
Macron most certainly did say that. I watched it and saw his lips move while he was saying it. Maybe you should have checked the facts first before trying to call someone a liar.
Madrid, in which way is the EU war hungry? Have you forgotten Crimea already? The way they stuck their big, stinking unwanted nose into business that doesn't concern them in their unrelenting quest for expansion and to try to undermine Russia was sickening and hundreds lost their lives as a result. A future war between the EU and Russia is most certainly not out of the question. The EU likes puffing it's chest out and playing games which is not really equipped to finish.
Also for a trading bloc the EU has strange ambitions don't you think? Why on earth would a so called trading union need or want it's own armed forces? Why does it need a paramilitary style police force?
The EU has already started butting it's snorkel into the affairs of the African continent as if it has some moral and legal obligation to do so. It won't be long before they are putting troops on the ground and physically removing any governments of African nations that they don't see as conducive to EU policy in the region. Wars will be a direct result of this interference.
Is your source based in St Peterburg by any chance?
Don't need a source. It's there for everyone to see. Take your EU blinkers off and have a look around you at what is going on. Have a look at EU foreign policy.
Cuckoo clocks are fine Leuth. In your case it would be a thousand EU anthems would it not lol?
Don't need a source. It's there for everyone to see. Take your EU blinkers off and have a look around you at what is going on. Have look at EU foreign policy.
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Macron did not say what your stating he did.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
Macron most certainly did say that. I watched it and saw his lips move while he was saying it. Maybe you should have checked the facts first before trying to call someone a liar.
Madrid, in which way is the EU war hungry? Have you forgotten Crimea already? The way they stuck their big, stinking unwanted nose into business that doesn't concern them in their unrelenting quest for expansion and to try to undermine Russia was sickening and hundreds lost their lives as a result. A future war between the EU and Russia is most certainly not out of the question. The EU likes puffing it's chest out and playing games which is not really equipped to finish.
Also for a trading bloc the EU has strange ambitions don't you think? Why on earth would a so called trading union need or want it's own armed forces? Why does it need a paramilitary style police force?
The EU has already started butting it's snorkel into the affairs of the African continent as if it has some moral and legal obligation to do so. It won't be long before they are putting troops on the ground and physically removing any governments of African nations that they don't see as conducive to EU policy in the region. Wars will be a direct result of this interference.
Comments
According to my brother, who narrowly avoided a slap back.
More broadly it has been shown time and time again by pollsters that this is exactly the way that many people use their votes, especially outside general elections. Good case in point was the first Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Turned out many who voted 'no' had only a hazy idea what it was, but since the unpopular govt. was for it, they were against it. When the consequences were explained to them properly, they changed the way they voted in the second referendum. A less controversial example would be the results of local council elections.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Like most other countries in the EU Spain would like to modernise it from within. As with most institutions it needs reform but that is not reason enough to walk away from it, especially with very little alternative in place.
Also in what way is the EU 'war hungry'?
Your stance, based on your posts, like mine, has not changed one iota since the the debate began. You are as entrenched in your view as I am in mine. The only difference is that my view is backed up by a growing body of evidence that proves a Brexit that is good for the future of the people who live in the U.K. is simply not possible. It would make no difference how good or credible the politicians charged with negotiating it are...it simply is not possible.
I am currently trying to remember a single thing I have learnt from your posts.....if I remember any I will get back to you.
As for posting links without providing personal thoughts....most times the link is an expression of a view I agree 100% with. Only it is expressed with more clarity and authority and credibility than anything I or anyone else on this forum could achieve. What is the point of me adding the words I agree 100% with the view expressed in this link.
When you start taking cues from Chippy it is time to step away from the keyboard and take a break.
We will have to have a continued conversation regarding 'floundering', although it is not incumbent on you to sustain part of the conversation because, well because you won, and however flawed the winners arguments seem to me I will simply have to endure.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
The Labour Party has launched a 50 point animal welfare action plan. I don't see much to disagree with personally and welcome this initiative.
One of the points that jumps out at the reader though is the banning of imports of Foie Gras. This barbaric (in my opinion) industry is banned in the U.K. but is allowed in France. Due to the Single Market, as a country we are obliged to allow the import of this foodstuff.
We cannot ban this until we leave the Single Market. Labour deliberately send out confusing messages on Brexit and this is another example.
If this animal welfare plan is to come to pass then Labour should come clean on their true intentions on Brexit. I don't believe that they will though as too many Corbyn supporters that are also remainers can continue to vote/support Labour in the hope that a miracle might happen.
The Tories are rightly attacked for not presenting a unified vision for Brexit and rightly so. The Labour Party avoids too much finger pointing as they are in opposition, but let's not pretend (as Labour themselves do) that Labour would be doing a better job of a unified approach.
This is a minor matter in terms of Brexit issues but it does represent a significant dilemma and a cynical attempt to confuse.
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-launches-radical-action-animal-welfare-2/
One c!ear theme is that it is down to the UK to come up with the answers, he ended by saying leaving with no deal would lead to a political crisis in the UK.
Watch it yourself and decide, but he makes anybody on the UK side (in interviews we have seen so far) look like a blithering idiot.
As one of the comments below the article point out, a tiny sample.
Whether you voted leave or remain, brexit has uncovered what a shower of shit our government is.
Does it contain a solution to the Irish border question?
Madrid, in which way is the EU war hungry? Have you forgotten Crimea already? The way they stuck their big, stinking unwanted nose into business that doesn't concern them in their unrelenting quest for expansion and to try to undermine Russia was sickening and hundreds lost their lives as a result. A future war between the EU and Russia is most certainly not out of the question. The EU likes puffing it's chest out and playing games which is not really equipped to finish.
Also for a trading bloc the EU has strange ambitions don't you think? Why on earth would a so called trading union need or want it's own armed forces? Why does it need a paramilitary style police force?
The EU has already started butting it's snorkel into the affairs of the African continent as if it has some moral and legal obligation to do so. It won't be long before they are putting troops on the ground and physically removing any governments of African nations that they don't see as conducive to EU policy in the region. Wars will be a direct result of this interference.
Cuckoo clocks are fine Leuth. In your case it would be a thousand EU anthems would it not lol?