Brexit and the EU Economic & Monetary Union

Author(s):  
Michele Chang

Although the UK enjoyed an opt-out from EMU, Chang explains that it was influential in its development. The UK successfully defended its interests in financial services despite EMU. Moreover, it often acted as a shield for non-Eurozone countries. Therefore, the withdrawal of the UK from the EU is likely to have an impact within the EMU, altering interstate alliances, changing the balance between euro-ins and euro-outs, and reducing the need to act outside the legal framework of the EU. In addition, the shortfall in the EU budget resulting from the end of the UK financial contributions may change the stakes in fiscal negotiations, creating room for the establishment of a Eurozone fiscal capacity. Finally, it is uncertain to what extent post-Brexit the EU may be able to push forward with the Capital Markets Union and whether the UK may stay connected to it.

This book provides integrated analysis of and guidance on the Prospectus Regulation 2017, civil liability for a misleading prospectus, and securities litigation in a European context. The prospectus rules are one of the cornerstones of the EU Capital Markets Union and analysis of this aspect of harmonisation, the areas not covered by the rules, and the impact of Brexit, provides valuable reference for all advising and researching this field. The book discusses the subjects of Prospectus Regulation from both a legal and economic perspective. It focuses on key subjects of the new Prospectus Regulation, providing an in-depth analysis of each issue. The book then moves on to explain the domestic law on liability for a misleading prospectus, this issue being omitted from the Regulation. The law and practice in each of the key capital markets centres in Europe is analysed and compared, with the UK chapter covering the issues and possible solutions under Brexit. A chapter on securities litigation gives full consideration of conflicts of laws issues with reference to the Brussels I regulation, and the Rome I and II Regulations. The book concludes by looking to the future of disclosure practices in connection with securities offerings in the EU.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Coimbra Henriques

Abstract The Council is a crucial intergovernmental institution of the European Union. However, the complex, opaque and consensual character of the decision-making process in the Council puts its legitimacy into question. Intergovernmentalist theory posits that it is sufficiently legitimised, indirectly, by the member state governments. Constructivist research, on the other hand, suggests that socialisation might disturb the relaying of positions from the national to the supranational level, as the former approach implies. This paper aims to explore these issues, in particular related to representation and consensus. It contains an analysis of material generated in in-depth interviews. The Capital Markets Union (CMU) initiative serves as an umbrella term for regulatory changes directed at the overall development of European capital markets. As such, when analysing the legal framework of the CMU, it is important to note that this involves an undertaking which goes beyond the regulation of financial systems, also aiming to achieve supervisory convergence throughout the member states of the European Union. Indeed, it is perhaps one of the clearest examples of federal implications within the EU. All the synchronous movements enacted into law, leading towards harmonisation and supervisory convergence, show us that the CMU is an foundational piece in a collective journey towards ever greater integration in terms of economic governance and economic policies. Nonetheless, even if the CMU is one of the few cross-country risk-sharing mechanisms available to the EU, its implementation faces difficulties (as well as the looming Brexit) that demand careful analysis.


Significance The Commission's plan aims to further the freedom of movement for capital within the EU single market, and so boost growth. Capital movement is hampered by different national regulations, tax and accounting rules, and national interpretations of EU directives. The Commission aims especially to facilitate financing for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Impacts The nature of the policy area and the Commission's plans mean SMEs' access to financing is unlikely to ease quickly. The UK government will use the CMU to say the EU is liberalising, but its end-2017 referendum deadline falls before results will be clear. Post-crash, renewed financial sector liberalisation carries risks and could excite political opposition, including on the UK left.


Author(s):  
Emilios Avgouleas

This chapter offers a critical overview of the issues that the European Union 27 (EU-27) will face in the context of making proper use of financial innovation to further market integration and risk sharing in the internal financial market, both key objectives of the drive to build a Capital Markets Union. Among these is the paradigm shift signalled by a technological revolution in the realm of finance and payments, which combines advanced data analytics and cloud computing (so-called FinTech). The chapter begins with a critical analysis of financial innovation and FinTech. It then traces the EU market integration efforts and explains the restrictive path of recent developments. It considers FinTech's potential to aid EU market integration and debates the merits of regulation dealing with financial innovation in the context of building a capital markets union in EU-27.


This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union to create the legal framework for Brexit. Building on a prior volume, it overviews the process of Brexit negotiations that took place between the UK and the EU from 2017 to 2019. It also examines the key provisions of the Brexit deal, including the protection of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, and the financial settlement. Moreover, the book assesses the governance provisions on transition, decision-making and adjudication, and the prospects for future EU–UK trade relations. Finally, it reflects on the longer-term challenges that the implementation of the 2016 Brexit referendum poses for the UK territorial system, for British–Irish relations, as well as for the future of the EU beyond Brexit.


Author(s):  
de Serière Victor

This chapter addresses the non-financial information to be included in a prospectus, alongside an analysis of the fundamental concept of materiality. It examines some issues relating to non-financial information to be included in a prospectus under the new EU prospectus regime. A level playing field in terms of uniform investor protection within the EU accordingly has regrettably not been achieved. This chapter argues that the Prospectus Regulation could have achieved more by requiring Member States to impose certain uniform tort law requirements in their national prospectus liability regimes. Another topic addressed in this chapter relates to the possibility for offerors of securities to obtain liability protection by including exoneration clauses in prospectuses. The Prospectus Regulation does not regulate this topic, but the analysis in this chapter shows that the possibilities appear to be severely limited; practice in any event shows that exoneration is seldom (if ever) stipulated. The chapter concludes that all this appears to be relatively good news in terms of investor protection generally, but the lack of harmonisation stands in the way of a unified EU capital markets union.


Author(s):  
Walker George ◽  
Purves Robert ◽  
Blair Michael

This chapter examines the evolution of the European Union' financial services law and its impact on the development of financial services law in the UK, as it stands at the end of 2016, six months after the EU referendum. It first describes the evolving role and functions of the EU institutions, namely: the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament. It then considers the primary sources of EU law, including treaties, and the effects of the various changes in the Treaty of Rome. It also discusses the establishment of the single market in financial services and the moves to establish a banking union. Finally, it analyses the substantive financial services measures that have been adopted in the EU since the 1970s.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 248-267
Author(s):  
Nina Haerter

In the 11 years since the outbreak of the financial crisis, the EU has introduced many policy initiatives directed at the financial sector, the most recent one being the Capital Markets Union. The official aim is to integrate Europe’s financial markets, fulfilling decades-old wishes for a Single Market for capital. Some scholars have already voiced concerns about different elements of Capital Markets Union since its inception in 2015, but the extent to which this critique was generalizable remained unclear. Through an analysis of policy documents and interview data inspired by the ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’-approach, this paper reveals two common threads among the many Capital Markets Union proposals, which are not explicitly acknowledged: a reduction of prudential rules and various forms of incentivizing financial products with public funds. It is therefore argued that Capital Markets Union is not a market integration project (as its name and official narrative suggest), as much as it is the re-establishment of EU-led financialization, following a long tradition of asymmetrical integration in the Union.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document