英国脱欧与未来英欧关系

Scott C. James, L. Quaglia
{"title":"英国脱欧与未来英欧关系","authors":"Scott C. James, L. Quaglia","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198828952.003.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter uses the domestic political economy framework to consider the implications of Brexit for UK financial regulation. It outlines the likely future UK–EU relationship by analysing the preferences, role, and influence of key domestic groups on Brexit, and by assessing the EU’s framework for managing relations with third countries. We argue that elected officials pursued a ‘hard’ Brexit position in response to parliamentary constraints and pressure from financial regulators to avoid becoming rule-takers. The City of London authorities pushed strongly for a bespoke deal based on mutual recognition, although this masked significant intra-industry divisions. The EU’s insistence that the future relationship be based on the existing third-country regime reflected a desire to defend the single market, but also Franco-German incentives to compete for post-Brexit business. However, the coverage of third-country equivalence rules in finance, and the inclusion of financial services in trade agreements, remains limited.","PeriodicalId":365794,"journal":{"name":"The UK and Multi-level Financial Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brexit and the Future UK–EU Relationship\",\"authors\":\"Scott C. James, L. Quaglia\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198828952.003.0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter uses the domestic political economy framework to consider the implications of Brexit for UK financial regulation. It outlines the likely future UK–EU relationship by analysing the preferences, role, and influence of key domestic groups on Brexit, and by assessing the EU’s framework for managing relations with third countries. We argue that elected officials pursued a ‘hard’ Brexit position in response to parliamentary constraints and pressure from financial regulators to avoid becoming rule-takers. The City of London authorities pushed strongly for a bespoke deal based on mutual recognition, although this masked significant intra-industry divisions. The EU’s insistence that the future relationship be based on the existing third-country regime reflected a desire to defend the single market, but also Franco-German incentives to compete for post-Brexit business. However, the coverage of third-country equivalence rules in finance, and the inclusion of financial services in trade agreements, remains limited.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The UK and Multi-level Financial Regulation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The UK and Multi-level Financial Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198828952.003.0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The UK and Multi-level Financial Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198828952.003.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本章使用国内政治经济学框架来考虑英国脱欧对英国金融监管的影响。通过分析主要国内团体对英国脱欧的偏好、作用和影响,以及评估欧盟管理与第三国关系的框架,该报告概述了未来可能的英欧关系。我们认为,民选官员采取“硬”脱欧立场是为了回应议会的限制和金融监管机构的压力,以避免成为规则执行者。伦敦金融城(City of London)当局强烈推动一项基于相互承认的定制协议,尽管这掩盖了巨大的行业内部分歧。欧盟坚持未来关系应以现有的第三国机制为基础,这反映了捍卫单一市场的愿望,也反映了法德两国争夺英国退欧后业务的动机。然而,金融领域第三国对等规则的覆盖面以及将金融服务纳入贸易协定的范围仍然有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Brexit and the Future UK–EU Relationship
This chapter uses the domestic political economy framework to consider the implications of Brexit for UK financial regulation. It outlines the likely future UK–EU relationship by analysing the preferences, role, and influence of key domestic groups on Brexit, and by assessing the EU’s framework for managing relations with third countries. We argue that elected officials pursued a ‘hard’ Brexit position in response to parliamentary constraints and pressure from financial regulators to avoid becoming rule-takers. The City of London authorities pushed strongly for a bespoke deal based on mutual recognition, although this masked significant intra-industry divisions. The EU’s insistence that the future relationship be based on the existing third-country regime reflected a desire to defend the single market, but also Franco-German incentives to compete for post-Brexit business. However, the coverage of third-country equivalence rules in finance, and the inclusion of financial services in trade agreements, remains limited.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信