Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter  Follow us on LinkedIn

News

Summer holidays from today … back on 9th September! I wish all my readers Happy Holidays – wherever you are allowed to go!

Why not try our new service? Brexit and the City - the Impact

"Brexit has ended the Golden Age of the City" video with Federal Trust Director Brendan Donnelly

Brexit and the City of London: April 2021 Video Update

 

24 April 2018

Speech by Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis at City Week in London


Default: Change to:


The European Commission Vice-President gave a snapshot of the EC's work to break down barriers and further integrate the EU single market for capital, and how Brussels can manage the fact that the UK has decided to withdraw from it.


[...]We are working full speed to deepen and integrate capital markets across the EU, as part of our flagship project, the Capital Markets Union. For example, we have made it cheaper and simpler to raise capital on public markets with our new Prospectus Regulation. And we have agreed on a new framework for Simple, Transparent and Standardised securitisation.

Other proposals are still waiting to be agreed. Our proposal for a Pan-European Personal Pensions Product would help to put to more productive use savings that currently lie on low-interest rate accounts.

And in last month's Fintech Action Plan, we set out concrete steps for a more innovative and competitive European financial industry. One example is regulatory sandboxes, where the European Supervisory Authorities are already working on collecting best practices. I have had good exchanges with Andrew Bailey and the Financial Conduct Authority on this. [...]

For the Capital Markets Union, our goal is to have the building blocks in place by 2019, ahead of the next European elections. This will also help our companies to better cope with the departure of Europe's largest financial centre from the single market.

This brings me to Brexit. While the negotiations are underway, our number one priority is to manage the risks and uncertainty that emanate from this change. And I see two types of risks:

The first risk is linked to the remaining uncertainty on the withdrawal agreement. We have reached an agreement on a joint legal text that covers large parts of the future withdrawal agreement, including a transition period until 31 December 2020. But important negotiation issues still remain to be dealt with before the agreement can be finalised, such as the Irish border and the governance of the withdrawal agreement. As Vice President in charge of financial stability, my message to all parties –firms and supervisors – is that they need to continue their work to prepare for all scenarios.

The Commission is assisting where we can. The notices we published help the industry identify the foreseeable consequences of losing the financial passport. But at the end of the day, it is for the companies concerned to identify concretely how Brexit will impact their business models.

Together with supervisors, we are also closely monitoring markets to make sure that we avoid major disruption on the day of Brexit. Our current discussions confirm that companies can alleviate the main risks by repapering contracts and adapting operational models. I will be discussing these issues later today with Philip Hammond and Mark Carney.

The second risk is linked to our future relationship with the United Kingdom. Last month, the EU27 set out their negotiation guidelines for an overall understanding of the framework for the future relationship. So what would this mean for financial regulation?

Up until now, the UK and the other EU Member States have managed risks jointly by setting common rules. And the European Court of Justice has guaranteed that they are enforced against operators from all Member States. As a result, countries are willing to accept that operators from across the EU export financial services – and also risks – into their territory, without supervising those operators themselves.

With Brexit, the UK will move away from this system. As a consequence, each side will have to set and implement its own rules to protect investors and ensure financial stability. In the words of Chancellor Hammond, "neither side can be a simple rule taker".

But the EU has a long history of relying on the regulation and supervision of third countries, provided they achieve the same results as our own. We call this equivalence. As of today, we have over 200 equivalence decisions benefitting over 30 non-EU jurisdictions. No one else has a more open, comprehensive and structured framework of regulatory reliance on third countries.

[...] Our risk-based approach and proportionate application of equivalence means that it can work for third countries with different levels of interaction with the EU financial system. The EU27 Member States recently recognised this in a statement when discussing the future relationship with the UK. They also reiterated their support to build on and further improve equivalence. And that is what we are currently doing.

Last June, we proposed targeted reviews to the supervision of central counterparties. CCPs are special, due to their systemic nature. The new proposal would differentiate the treatment of the most systemic CCPs from the less significant players. And there may be cases for individual CCPs where - as a last resort - we need to go beyond equivalence.

Investment firms pose yet another specific and systemic set of risks. So when we proposed in December to make EU prudential rules for them more proportionate, we also proposed to make the equivalence test more proportionate and risk-sensitive. This would involve a more detailed and granular assessment for more important third countries, including on supervisory convergence. Still, ours are among the most open rules for third country firms globally.

In spite of these improvements, there are some clear limits to equivalence. First, equivalence decisions are and will remain unilateral and discretionary EU acts. Even in trade agreements, governments do not give up power over their core responsibility to protect financial stability. This is why there are prudential carve-outs in such deals.

Second, equivalence rules do not cover all parts of the financial sector.

And third, equivalence is only possible if there is a close convergence of rules and supervision. If the EU and a third country should happen to go different ways, the conditions for equivalence would fall. This means that equivalence may be changed or – as a last resort - withdrawn. [...]

To sum up: equivalence is not perfect, neither for firms nor for supervisors. But one should not make the perfect be the enemy of good. Equivalence has proven to be a pragmatic solution that works in many different circumstances, and it can work for the UK after Brexit as well. [...]

Brexit is posing many challenges. For the financial sector, the Commission's first priority is to safeguard financial stability and ensure investor protection. It is my duty to encourage you to take steps to prepare for all scenarios. I am convinced that companies from the UK and the EU27 have the capacity to manage the risks and uncertainty.

Full speech



© European Commission


< Next Previous >
Key
 Hover over the blue highlighted text to view the acronym meaning
Hover over these icons for more information



Add new comment