jump to navigation

a common supervisory culture for eu financial markets? July 16, 2008

Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , trackback

Responding to the Commission’s consultation (a document which appears to be available only in English) on possible amendments to Commission Decisions establishing CESR, CEBS, and CEIOPS, the UK authorities (FSA, Treasury, with the agreement of the Bank of England and Pensions Regulator) say they support the idea that the EU committees could help to develop a common, but not a single, supervisory culture:

we do not agree that differences in how supervisors supervise result in a material obstacle to the single market. Rather, different supervisory practice can reflect differences in market structure, market behaviour and local culture, which are valued to firms and consumers. A common supervisory culture thrives on that diversity of practices and experiences. Developing a common supervisory culture does have real value because it facilitates effective collaboration and by reinforcing common values and principles it will help provide for similar regulatory outcomes.

I’m not really sure what all these words mean. In general the UK’s response emphasises that the responsibility for regulation should be left with the national regulators, and not subject to supervisory control by the committees, an approach which is consistent with the recent (and not so recent) focus on the need to ensure the competitiveness of the UK financial sector.

Comments

1. John Flood - July 17, 2008

I suspect these words mean that we don’t anyone (including the Americans) messing around with the system we have built up over time. Add to which even though the UK government is a zealous adopter of EU regulations, it isn’t a keen advocate of extended EU jurisdiction. Despite globalization–the topic of the course I’m teaching to Miami students at the moment–the nation state hasn’t died off, nor does it appear mortally wounded, and the UK government still regards itself as an unique entity. This is, however, strange in the context of the UK’s own fragmentation. Therefore, I agree: what do these words mean?