22 Amendments of Bernard MONOT related to 2017/2253(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas equivalence is a tool to promote international regulatory convergence, which may lead to more competition in the EU on a level playing field, while preventing regulatory arbitragewhich should, in theory, prevent regulatory arbitrage, while in practice it enables only the major international financial players to artificially concentrate their liquidity, collateral and, in general, their business in a very small number of financial centres;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas this concentration in a small number of global financial centres, facilitated by equivalence, mutual recognition and exemption regimes, is harmful to global financial stability and to the economic development of those states which have had their financial liquidity lured away by international financial centres;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the forthcoming withdrawal of the UK from the EU will potentially have a significant impact on the regulation and supervision of financial services, given the close relationship that currently exists between the Member States in this area;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas it is important for the financial liquidity of the EU's continental states - which, because of passporting and, more generally, the harmonisation of European financial regulation, has been concentrated in London, to the great benefit of US financial and banking operators - to be able to be redistributed among the various Member States after Brexit;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that since the financial crisis, the EU has developed its financial regulation through wide-ranging reforms; welcomes the increased regulatory and supervisory cooperation between the EU and third countries; recognises that this has helped to improved global consistency in financial regulation and has made, with the aim of making the EU more resilient to global financial shocks;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the EU should promote global financial regulatory reforms aimed at reducing systemic risk and should work towards an open, integrated and resilient financial system thatwhich supports sustainable economic growth, job creation and investment;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the Member States may not always entirely support international cooperation owing to concerns about the protection of national interests and the inherent incentive to shift risks to other jurisdictions;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Deplores the poor global coordination of financial regulation, which means that the United States often imposes its views and interests on the international community while exempting itself from implementing the rules it has imposed on others;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Regrets that post-crisis global financial coordination has been used as a pretext for the deconstruction of the banking model for financing European economies, to the benefit of market-based finance, which is more remote from economic operators, particularly small- scale ones; regrets that high-street banks are, allegedly for the purpose of financial stability, being replaced by international giants and market participants which are, more often than not, from the United States;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, in many cases, the granting of equivalence is a unilateral decision taken by the EU and is not applied in a reciprocal manner by third countries; considers that international cooperation could be better advanced by dint of international agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries; notes that, unlike equivalence, international agreements can provide mutual access between the EU and third countries for financial institutions and for the mutual recognition of rules; is nevertheless concerned about the pattern, systematically repeated, whereby international agreements are concluded by the US administration but never ratified by Congress, which results in a de facto unilateral disarmament by EU countries to the benefit of market penetration by the United States;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the EU’s equivalence regime is an integral part of its regulatory framework for financial services and can offer several benefits, such as: the removal of unnecessary regulatory barriers, increased competition, increased capital flows into the EU, and more instruments and investment choices for EU firms and investor, but seriously doubts it can be useful to the economies of the Member States;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that equivalence decisions do not grant financial institutions comparable rights to passport financial services throughout the EU, but recogni and stresses that they may only give third-country institutions limited access to the single market for certain products and that this access can clearly be revoked in accordance with the interests of the Member States;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that one of the key avowed objectives for equivalence is to promote regulatory convergence on the basis of international standards, whereas in reality it is a question of concentrating liquidity, collateral and, in general, the business of international financial giants in a minimum number of financial centres; stresses, furthermore, that artificially maintaining financial activity in a very small number of global centres in such a way harms the financial stability and economic interest of the Member States which have seen their financial liquidity disappear to the benefit of those international financial centres;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that equivalence decisions and international agreements should be objective, proportionate, risk-sensitive and be taken in the best interests of the Member States of the Union and itstheir citizens;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the Commission has the right to withdraw equivalence decisions, and believes that Parliament should be consulted in a timely manner before such a withdrawal decision is taken; calls for the introduction of clear procedures and timelines governing the adoption, withdrawal or suspension of equivalence decisions; calls for Parliament to retain the power of initiative, at any time, to request that an equivalence decision be withdrawn;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for equivalence decisions to be reviewed at least once every threea years by the relevant ESA and for such reviews to be made public;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of introducingdevelop an application processdure for granting equivalence which could be open, to be submitted to third countries on a date specified in a given piece of legislationto the benefit of European operators;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that close consideration should be given to the equivalence regime between the EU and high-impact third countriesthe United States and United Kingdom, in order to develop stable and resilient regulatory relationships - not one-way relationships - with thoese countries which have close financial links with the Union;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls the importance of National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in the authorisation process for financial institutions that wish to delegate part of their portfolio management or risk management to service providers in third countries where the regulatory regime is comparable to that of the EU; considers that NCAs have sufficient technical knowledge and expertise to properly assess delegation approval requests; encourages the ESAs to develop further cooperation between NCAs in order to share best practice concerning regulatory cooperation and activities with third countries; considers that NCAs should be able to challenge and halt any granting of equivalence if it affects the interests of their national operators, financial stability and economic development; notes that the United States does nothing but behave in such a way and that the US Congress and federal agencies do not hesitate to call into question the enforceability of the international agreements signed by the United States;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Underlines the importance of the EU’s roleactive role played by the EU in global standard-setting as a means of working towards international consistency in financial regulation, seeking to maximisinge financial stability, preventing regulatory loopholes between jurisdictions and developing an efficient international financial system that is as efficient as possible;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for active involvement from the Commission, the Member States and ESAs in global standard-settingMember States that are also G20 members in global coordination bodies in financial services; stresses the need forat the consistent implementation of international standards is theoretically important in order to achieve better regulatory cooperation with other jurisdictions and to improve global financial stability; deplores, however, the unilateralism and uneven transposition of the standards arising from global coordination which, de facto, always end up facilitating the penetration of non- European players into the economies of the Member States;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls to that end, moreover, for the EU-US Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue to be upgraded to include more regular meetings; stresses that the EU should push to have, at all costs, prevent a financial services chapter as part offrom being included in any potential future EU- US trade agreement;