Off the back of the thread below, lots of people asked for one on services & financial services. So here it is. The deal is very thin in both areas, though that was expected. I don't think it amounts to making the deal unfair/unbalanced but it is a missed opportunity. 1/

First, we shouldn't look at this through the lens of UK having trade deficit with EU in goods & surplus in services. That is too simplistic. EU accounts for a large proportion of UK's goods trade so zero tariff zero quota is beneficial for UK as well for the EU. 2/
Similarly, having a very thin deal on services & financial services is also bad for EU. Belief in some quarters than business will simply move from UK to EU in these areas. But its not that simple. Will be costs & duplication while some business just won't make sense any more 3/
We also shouldn't forget that while services is the largest part of our economy, it is inherently much more domestically focused. Furthermore, the single market in services is less integrated than that in goods so there are already some non tariff barriers to contend with 4/
It is also important to remember how we got here. Services was ultimately deprioritised under the previous Govt Chequers approach. This was because the Govt was seeking frictionless trade in goods. 5/
Asking for an ambitious deal on services as well would have essentially amounted to asking for single market membership but without the same obligations. It wouldn't have flown (of course, it turned out the EU didn't like the approach even with that factored in). 6/
This meant the Political Declaration was drafted to be pretty basic on services. However, when new Govt came in, while it dropped the ambitious asks on goods it didn't correspondingly increase the asks on services. This was the real missed opportunity. It came over a year ago 6/
In terms of what the deal does on services, it is in line with precedents. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications is a good example. It feels like a missed opportunity as well, but at least it is drafted to allow for bilateral agreements between sectoral bodies 7/
Similarly, the mobility provisions are maybe marginally better than expected by allowing 90 days business travel out of 180 rather than 365. But there are lots & lots of reservations. The social security coordination is also better than expected which helps people move 8/
On financial services the deal is particularly thin, but the sector had been expecting & preparing for that for some time. The real questions is, what would have been needed to get a more ambitious deal here? 9/
Ultimately, it would have required committing to ongoing alignment of financial services rules with the EU without a say over them. Which just doesn't feel feasible for UK given size of financial services sector. 10/
I was always personally a fan of the Bank of England's mutual recognition type approach, but its been clear for years now that the EU isn't willing to countenance that kind of arrangement. 11/
In terms of the impact this will have, the day one impact has probably been less than expected, though there have been movements of assets & people from UK to EU. Bigger issue is how EU regulators approach this over time & seek to pull more into EU. 12/
Even then though, it won't be an existential threat to financial services in UK & I expect sector will continue to prosper. Indeed, globally the sector faces some big challenges & choices about how to operate post Covid-19 (in areas from real estate footprint to digitisation) 13/
It is also true of the wider services sector that it would have been difficult to reach a much deeper agreement without making a big shift on red lines such as free movement of people or aligning with regulations. 14/
Overall, deal could have pushed boundary more on services & FS. But it didn't largely due to major red lines of both sides. Not recent, but set over a year ago with decisions around the Political Declaration. Missed opportunity by both sides, maybe marginally more the UK 15/
They could have set a world leading framework here. But chose to prioritise other things. But when questioning whether more could have been done on services we should also be realistic about what else we would have deprioritised instead ENDS 16/

More from Finance

1/ I'm thrilled to announce the launch of my new website, a one-stop shop for all the content I'm creating.

There you'll find links to all my podcasts, the TTMYGH newsletter, and other exciting future projects.

2/ In 2020, I reignited my passion for interviewing brilliant people by launching The Grant Williams Podcast in various forms, including The End Game, The Super Terrific Happy Hour, and The Narrative Game.


3/ Starting February 1, I'm taking the bold step of moving these podcasts completely behind a paywall.

For the very affordable price of only $10 a month, listeners can gain access to the Copper Tier of
https://t.co/fxUfH8maI4, which includes all current & future podcasts.


4/ Why am I doing this? First and foremost, I aspire to create VALUABLE content. By definition, if something is priced at $0, it isn’t valuable. The time, effort and creativity that goes into these episodes is substantial. To keep doing them properly, they can no longer be free.

5/ I also strongly believe content creators should be able to make a living creating content. If everything is free, that’s not possible. I never seriously considered accepting outside sponsors – complete integrity is too critical to me.
The Dutch regulator and DNB as financial supervisor are a tough cookie to deal with. In essence they hyperregulate EU-rules into goldplated Dutch rules which go beyond what is prescribed in Europe.

All NL-customers at British banks may thus be kicked out on brexit.

Thread

/1

If we start with the capital requirements directive, it says attracting deposits is forbidden. In article 9.

https://t.co/RYl7SXligC


Now the translation of that rule into Dutch law is slightly expanded to not only prohibit attracting deposits, but to also prohibit, having those deposits under custody ('ter beschikking hebben').

That's not in EU law, but it is in our Dutch law.

https://t.co/PsbWfNY3PA


So if you wonder how this would work out for UK banks and Payment institutions servicing Dutch customers. Have a read at the technical explanation of DNB, the financial supervisor and their summarising table.

https://t.co/LL0fAnYkRJ

Passive servicing of Dutch is not allowed!


Any bank or PSP in the UK that continues to serve Dutch customers (as in retail customers, professional players are excepted) can thus be subject to fines and policing under Dutch law.

Meaning we not only have Accidental American issues in payments, but also Accidental Dutchies

You May Also Like