Theresa May’s Brexit Legacy Predicament: Short-Term vs Long-Term
This short blog post discusses the
delicate predicament that British PM Theresa May is faced with in light of MP’s
recent support for the triggering of Article 50[1]. Whilst it may be obvious
that any political leader will have to balance a number of competing interests,
the job facing Theresa May is arguably more important. The decision of the
British people to leave the European Union has forced the Government to focus
on productivity and growth in preparation of leaving the bloc, as can be seen
by the many Trade excursions taken by Mrs May in recent weeks. Yet, that
position is one that can directly induce a lowering of standards, or a
so-called ‘race-to-the-bottom, that may have an extremely damaging effect on
the health of the British society (and potentially further afield due to the
interconnectedness of modern society).
This theoretical notion of the
introduction of new levels of ‘regulatory arbitrage’ – where institutions will
move between jurisdictions to receive a more favourable regulatory environment –
and the potential of its effect upon the U.K. is, arguably, no longer
theoretical. In regards to regulatory arbitrage and its potential effect, Cornelius
Hurley, a former US regulator, mentioned in the Financial Times that ‘…it
really boils down to regulatory arbitrage – and the competition among financial
regulators to [either] the most credible or the most lenient’[2]. Elsewhere, Professors
Pierre Boyer and Hubert Kempf have noted that ‘competition induced by
regulatory arbitrage in a financially open economy invalidates the use of some
instruments and consequently critically
hampers the regulatory capacity of these authorities’[3]. This development will be
borne out of the U.K.’s inability to act on a United front, regulatory
speaking, once it leaves the European Union - Professor Niamh Moloney offers an
insightful understanding as to the many issues that may face the U.K. upon
leaving the bloc, including the issue of regulatory competition[4].
Yet, it is contested here that
things need not go that far – the threat is more than enough. Multiple news
outlets have been reporting that the U.K. is facing a financial-services exodus
once the separation is complete[5], and it is this threat
alone that will force Theresa May’s hand – for a Prime Minister facing the
prospect of determining the course that the country, with its fragile economy,
will take, the option of reducing regulatory standards to both keep and attract business is a decision that she
will arguably not hesitate in taking.
However, this short-termism –
induced by the result, and arguably the narrative, of the referendum - is
extraordinarily dangerous. To expose the British economy, in the first
instance, to the venal and self-interested culture that has enveloped the
modern financial sector, is surely a recipe for disaster, particularly so soon
after the Financial Crisis of 2007/08. The reliance of the British economy upon
the financial services sector only serves to add to the understanding that the
future of the U.K. will be determined by the ethics of the financial sector if
regulatory standards are to drop after separation – we have seen, time and time
again, that to rely upon the financial sector to promote the interests of
anyone or anything other than their own interests is delusional and reduces our
ability to guard against the inevitable attack upon society. Unfortunately, it
is usually the case that at the time when we must be vigilant, we are inattentive
and trusting, a paradox based on belief and hope – it is that concoction that
creates the breeding ground for great damage.
[1]
Tom Batchelor ‘Article 50 Brexit Vote: Full list of MPs who backed Theresa May
starting official EU Negotiations – and those who voted against’ [2017] The
Independent (Feb 2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-parliament-mps-vote-brexit-theresa-may-eu-negotiations-labour-conservative-how-voted-a7558291.html.
[2]
Alex Baker, Jim Brunsden, and Michael Stothard ‘Brexit – an existential problem
for London and Paris’ [2016] Financial Times (Feb 19) https://www.ft.com/content/e2d1a8a0-d725-11e5-969e-9d801cf5e15b.
[3]
Pierre Boyer and Hubert Kempf ‘Regulatory Arbitrage and the Efficiency of
Banking Regulation’ [2016] Oxford Business Law Blog (June 15) https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/06/regulatory-arbitrage-and-efficiency-banking-regulation.
[4]
Niamh Moloney ‘Financial Services, the EU, and Brexit: An Uncertain Future for
the City?’ [2016] 17 German Law Journal.
[5]
Zlata Rodionova ‘Brexit: Banks in ‘advanced talks’ over mass move to Paris,
says French Regulator’ [2016] The Independent (Dec 8) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-banks-london-paris-move-uk-france-exodus-french-regulator-a7462731.html;
Daniel Boffey ‘Brexit: leading banks set to pull out of UK early next year’
[2016] The Guardian (Oct 22) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/22/leading-banks-set-to-pull-out-of-brexit-uk.
Comments
Post a Comment