Home > All journals > European Business Law Review > 30(4) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Nathan De Arriba-Sellier
European Business Law Review
Volume 30, Issue 4 (2019) pp. 695 – 719
https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2019029
Abstract
This article reviews the impact of Brexit on the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) and claims that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom will lead to more centralisation of supervision at EU level and a tightening of the supervision over third countries’ markets actors. This conclusion is based on a study of both the European authorities’ activism and the amendments recently adopted by EU legislators to reform the functioning of European financial supervision. Brexit has highlighted the extent of the remaining gaps in European financial supervision, which are partly due to the role that the UK played in designing European financial supervision. The reform is also geared towards mitigating the “costs” for the European economy incurred by Brexit. By analysing these developments, this contribution argues that Brexit has been seized by the European Union as an opportunity to significantly strengthen European financial supervision.
Extract
The article seeks to explain the emergence of the European Union (EU)’s international investment policy since the 1980s. The article develops two competing explanations. It evaluates whether the Commission acted as policy entrepreneur to consolidate the EU’s role in international investment policy or whether European business lobbied for the ‘brusselization’ of international investment policy making to ensure access to ambitious state-of-the-art international investment agreements. The article traces the EU’s involvement in international investment policy through history. It examines policy-making instances, which shaped the EU’s de facto competences in international investment negotiations and its legal competences under European law. It finds that Commission entrepreneurship promoted the EU’s involvement in international investment negotiations and ultimately ensured due to the procedural particularities of the Convention on the Future of Europe the extension of the EU’s legal competences. European business and the Member States did not promote the emergence of the EU’s international investment policy.
European Foreign Affairs Review