{"title":"Equivalence Decisions in the EU and UK Financial Services Sectors Post-Brexit","authors":"Emil Nästega°rd","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Financial services are largely left out of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement that was reached at the end of December 2020. The issue of cross-border market access for financial services firms based in the EU and in the UK could be resolved by the adoption of mutual equivalence decisions. The UK made a number of equivalence decisions pre-Brexit to allow EU-based financial services firms access to the UK market. The EU has not reciprocated. Consequently, UK-based financial services firms have moved business into the EU to maintain client access. The article discusses advantages and disadvantages of the EU and the UK’s different strategies as regards market access and whether equivalence decisions in the area of financial services can be used to build up a trustful relationship between the EU and the UK post-Brexit.\nEquivalence decisions, Brexit, pre-Brexit regulation, post-Brexit regulation, financial services regulation, Joint UK-EU Financial Regulatory Forum, market efficiency, market relocation, Singapore-on-Thames, systemic risks","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Financial services are largely left out of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement that was reached at the end of December 2020. The issue of cross-border market access for financial services firms based in the EU and in the UK could be resolved by the adoption of mutual equivalence decisions. The UK made a number of equivalence decisions pre-Brexit to allow EU-based financial services firms access to the UK market. The EU has not reciprocated. Consequently, UK-based financial services firms have moved business into the EU to maintain client access. The article discusses advantages and disadvantages of the EU and the UK’s different strategies as regards market access and whether equivalence decisions in the area of financial services can be used to build up a trustful relationship between the EU and the UK post-Brexit.
Equivalence decisions, Brexit, pre-Brexit regulation, post-Brexit regulation, financial services regulation, Joint UK-EU Financial Regulatory Forum, market efficiency, market relocation, Singapore-on-Thames, systemic risks
期刊介绍：
The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
