3 ms·
MiFiD II says that any country that has regulatory 'equivalence' effectively gets a financial passport, EU membership not required. The UK would obviously qual
by zigzigzag 10y ago
MiFiD II says that any country that has regulatory 'equivalence' effectively gets a financial passport, EU membership not required.
The UK would obviously qualify, as it's currently obeying all the same regulations as other EU countries. The problem is that it's Brussels which decides what 'equivalence' means and it's a black box decision. It can be revoked at a months notice.
You'll notice that zero of the EU's leaders are talking about MiFiD II or equivalence. They're all planning on how to carve up people's lives and jobs instead. It's as if these rules do not exist.
That's not surprising. The EU has a long history of ignoring its own rules when they conflict with political priorities. The best example being that the treaties forbid eurozone bailouts as clearly as it's possible for the treaties to do, but they happened anyway.
- icebraining 10y agoBut did the EU change the way it decides what 'equivalence' means after Brexit? Or was it always a black box?
- zigzigzag 10y agoIt has never been defined. It is a purely political decision, which is why everyone is acting as if it doesn't exist: the EU will never follow the spirit of its own laws if there is perceived political advantage to not doing so.
- notahacker 10y agoThe UK is leaving the EU in order to be able to opt to not abide by EU rules. The UK hasn't a stated position on financial regulation beyond statements about grandfathering wordings until the UK government gets around to changing them, pledges rejecting all EU court oversight and some veiled threats to radically liberalise everything if they can't get the negotiation outcome they wish for. There exists a provision not-yet-implemented in UK or EU law which would give EU bodies some scope to allow some passported functions to be performed by people outside the EU if the country operating outside the EU agreed to abide by all the relevant EU financial rules to their satisfaction. Surprisingly, some banks don't find this provision for revocable permission contingent on non-binding commitments by the EU and UK quite as reassuring as the regulatory framework the UK has opted to tear up (particularly not for the staff performing functions not covered by MiFiD II) And somehow this is the EU leaders "planning to carve up people's lives and jobs" The level of intellectual dishonesty required to make the arguments you are making is really quite staggering.