权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

EU Membership and the 'British Dilemma'

欧盟成员国身份和“英国困境”

基本信息

批准号：
ES/N015584/1
负责人：
Angus Armstrong
金额：
$ 27.99万
依托单位：
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2016
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2016 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FN015584%2F1
关键词：
EU Membership British Dilemma

项目摘要

The impact of European Union (EU) membership on financial services will be at the centre of the referendum debate. On the one hand, membership provides access to the world's largest borderless economic market. But on the other hand, the price of EU membership is giving up the right to independent action on certain areas of financial policy. The key issue will be the benefits from access to the single market, versus any possible limits on financial policy which may increase the risk of future financial failures.The UK has been a world leader in finance for two centuries. It is the largest net exporter of financial services in the world. The UK hosts more overseas banks than any other country in the world and also hosts the largest insurance, wholesale finance and asset management markets in Europe. Finance is also vital part of all our daily transactions, and hence the overall performance of our economy.However, there is a downside to hosting a global financial centre. Chancellor Osborne calls this the "British dilemma": while we enjoy the benefits of the largest global financial centre, the inherent risks are large relative to the UK's tax base. When large banks fail, the buck stops with national governments. The dilemma is even sharper today than seven years ago given our high level of public debt and limited capacity for fiscal support. Former Bank of England Governor Lord King made a similar point that "banks are global in life, but national in death." When large and important cross-border institutions fail, residual losses tend to fall on domestic taxpayers. For example, in 2009 UK tax payers were exposed to more than £1 trillion of losses in the banking sector. This was the cost of having global banks and being a global financial centre.Countries in the Eurozone are responding to the crisis by forming a European Banking Union. This is the most significant integration in the EU since the Maastricht Treaty. When a bank fails, the losses will be shared though a resolution fund and a systemic crisis would require a shared fiscal backstop. This crosses the political Rubicon of sharing taxpayers' liabilities across borders within the EU with far reaching consequences. The current UK Government has made clear that it will not join the EBU.The UK has a number of options inside and outside the EU. One option is to insist that all foreign banks in the UK are individually capitalised and regulated by the Bank of England. This would be similar to the Swiss option outside of the EU. This contradicts branch banking rules under the EU and would put at risk our leadership in global banking. Another option is that the UK stays in the EU and accepts less control over its domestic banking agenda and eventually considers joining the European Banking Union, where some of the risk associated with its large banks can be shared with our European partners. Still another policy option is that the UK remains in the EU and exerts greater influence on European banking regulation (as it has in the past). European banking regulations are made in Brussels but within the global regulations set at the G20 and the Financial Stability Board. The UK has been particularly successful at representing its interests in both forums in the past.Is this last option achievable? If the UK stays in the EU, the single market will have two global currencies (Euro and Sterling), along with two of the most powerful central banks in the world, two supervisors and sets of prudential regulations and two resolution procedures backed by two distinct groups of taxpayers. This does not look like a sustainable 'single market'. This Fellowship will investigate the trade-off, how the UK financial sector could be accommodated within the EU and compare this to the plausible options of being outside of the EU.

欧盟（EU）成员国身份对金融服务的影响将成为公投辩论的核心。一方面，成员资格提供了进入世界上最大的无国界经济市场的机会。但另一方面，欧盟成员国身份的代价是放弃在某些金融政策领域采取独立行动的权利。关键问题将是进入单一市场的好处，而不是任何可能增加未来金融失败风险的金融政策限制。两个世纪以来，英国一直是全球金融领域的领导者。它是世界上最大的金融服务净出口国。英国拥有世界上最多的海外银行，同时也拥有欧洲最大的保险、批发金融和资产管理市场。金融也是我们所有日常交易的重要组成部分，因此也是我们经济的整体表现。然而，拥有一个全球金融中心也有一个缺点。英国财政大臣奥斯本（Osborne）称之为“英国困境”：虽然我们享受着全球最大金融中心的好处，但相对于英国的税基，其内在风险也很大。当大型银行倒闭时，责任就落在了各国政府身上。鉴于我们的公共债务水平高企，而财政支持能力有限，如今的困境甚至比7年前更加严峻。前英格兰银行行长金勋爵（Lord King）也提出了类似的观点：“银行生是全球性的，死是国家性的。”当大型和重要的跨境机构倒闭时，剩余损失往往落在国内纳税人身上。例如，2009年，英国纳税人承受了银行业逾1万亿英镑的损失。这是拥有全球性银行和成为全球金融中心的代价。欧元区国家通过组建欧洲银行联盟来应对危机。这是自《马斯特里赫特条约》（Maastricht Treaty）以来欧盟最重大的一体化。当一家银行倒闭时，损失将通过解决基金分担，而系统性危机将需要共同的财政支持。这跨越了欧盟内部跨境分担纳税人责任的政治“卢比孔河”，产生了深远的影响。现任英国政府已明确表示不会加入欧洲货币联盟。英国在欧盟内外都有许多选择。一种选择是，坚持所有在英国的外资银行都必须单独资本化，并接受英国央行（Bank of England）的监管。这将类似于欧盟以外的瑞士选择。这与欧盟对分行的规定相矛盾，并将危及我们在全球银行业的领导地位。另一种选择是，英国留在欧盟，减少对其国内银行业议程的控制，并最终考虑加入欧洲银行业联盟（European banking Union），在那里，与英国大型银行相关的一些风险可以与我们的欧洲伙伴分担。还有一个政策选择是，英国留在欧盟，对欧洲银行业监管施加更大的影响（就像过去那样）。欧洲银行业监管是在布鲁塞尔制定的，但符合20国集团（G20）和金融稳定委员会（Financial Stability Board）制定的全球监管规定。过去，英国在这两个论坛上特别成功地代表了自己的利益。最后这一选择是否可行？如果英国留在欧盟，单一市场将拥有两种全球货币（欧元和英镑），以及世界上最强大的两家央行，两家监管机构和一套审慎的监管规定，以及由两组不同的纳税人支持的两种处置程序。这看起来不像是一个可持续的“单一市场”。该奖学金将调查权衡，如何在欧盟内容纳英国金融部门，并将其与欧盟以外的合理选择进行比较。