The EU at the G20 and the G20’s Impact on the EU

Wouters, Jan; Kerckhoven, Sven Van; Odermatt, Jed

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659654.003.0017

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The role of clearing houses was further expanded in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. At the 2009 G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the leaders of the G20 decided that all standardized derivatives contracts should be traded on exchanges and cleared by clearinghouses (Wouters et al , 2013). This decision was taken as a result of the observation that there existed a lack of transparency with regards to large bilateral positions in derivative transactions (Rehlon and Nixon, 2013).…”

Section: Rise Of London As European Clearing House Centrementioning

confidence: 99%

Euro clearing after Brexit: shifting locations and oversight

Kerckhoven

Odermatt

2020

JFRC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper investigates the impact of moving Central Counterparty Clearing Houses (CCPs) that clear euro-denominated transactions to the Eurozone after the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. Prior to Brexit, the City of London had a dominant position in euro-clearing, but in the aftermath of Brexit, clearing houses might decide to move to the EU27. This paper aims to investigate the impact of moving euro-clearing to the EU27. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides an economic, political and legal investigation based on desk research. It studies the relevant materials, as they relate to the functioning of Central Counterparty Clearing in the aftermath of Brexit, with specific attention to the potential shift of locations and oversight. Findings The development of a EU27 financial hub and the possibility to increase oversight over euro-denominated financial transactions, which were partly at the roots of the financial and Eurozone crisis, could strengthen the market shaping of European financial markets. However, localizing euro-denominated transactions in Europe could potentially give rise to efficiency losses and a higher risk for companies and investors. Furthermore, the European regulatory framework currently faces certain weaknesses, obstructing the regulatory potential of the EU. Research limitations/implications As the Brexit negotiations are not yet finished, this paper does not intend to set out a definite outcome of the processes currently taking place. Practical implications Shifting locations and oversight of CCPs as a result of Brexit could lead to the establishment of a large financial centre within the EU-27. At the same time, it is to be expected that such a development will have a significant impact on the financial infrastructure of the City of London. Originality/value There exists an important trade-off with regard to shifting locations that need to be at the forefront of the discussions and the negotiations when dealing with Brexit. This seems to be neglected in a lot of the current policy debates. This paper takes stock of the ongoing debate and how it relates to the functioning of CCPs.

show abstract

Section: Rise Of London As European Clearing House Centrementioning

confidence: 99%

Euro clearing after Brexit: shifting locations and oversight

Kerckhoven

Odermatt

2020

JFRC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Still, there are two reasons why the adherence to output was most likely very high: first, during the formal part of the negotiations, the common EU position was dominantly represented by the EU Commission. In matters of IMF reform, the Commission managed very well to make its voice heard (see Wouters et al ., , p. 263) and was considered a legitimate mouthpiece because the Europeans were regarded as sitting in one boat (Interviews 1 and 2). The representation of the agreed language by the Commission increased the bindingness of the document, as its contents were not distorted by the individual interests of a member state.…”

Section: Adherence To Outputmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU, US and ASEAN Actorness in G20 Financial Policy‐Making: Bridging the EU Studies–New Regionalism Divide

Murau

Spandler

2015

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares the European Union's (EU) actorness in foreign financial policy to that of the US and ASEAN. It thus contributes to the dialogue between EU studies and the New Regionalism by putting it into practice through comparative research. It argues that a process-oriented interpretation of the actorness concept can be used to compare the EU to both nation-states and international organizations at the same time. This makes it possible to examine the 'nature of the beast' in specific foreign policy contexts on empirical grounds. The case study analyses EU, US and ASEAN actorness in the IMF reform negotiations within the G20 framework. The findings suggest that a 'two-way comparison' of the EU is not only possible but also provides valuable empirical insights into the role of informal politics in the EU and other regions.

show abstract

The European Union in United Nations Economic Governance Fora

Chané

Wouters

2017

European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite being one of the "heavyweights" in international trade, finance and development, the European Union's (EU) presence in the economic governance fora of the United Nations (UN) continues to be fraught with difficulties. Faced with the legal and political hurdles of multilateral diplomacy in a state-centric environment, the EU has had to deal with a lack of status and participation rights, the complexities of an internal coordination process involving 28 Member States, and the challenges of ensuring a cohesive external representation. This contribution provides a brief overview of the legal basis for EU engagement in the UN, the Union's internal coordination process, as well as the framework governing its external representation. To highlight the patchwork of legal statuses and modes of engagement, we subsequently take a closer look at the EU's relations with a select number of UN bodies in the area of economic governance. This allows us to illustrate the respective challenges in three scenarios: (1) UN fora where the EU and the EU Member States hold membership rights, where we look at FAO; (2) UN fora where the EU holds an observer or full participant status while its Member States have membership rights, where we look at ECOSOC, its subsidiary bodies, and UNCTAD; and (3) UN fora where the EU Member States are members but where the EU has no formal status: here we look at the World Bank.

show abstract

The EU at the G20 and the G20’s Impact on the EU

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Euro clearing after Brexit: shifting locations and oversight

Euro clearing after Brexit: shifting locations and oversight

EU, US and ASEAN Actorness in G20 Financial Policy‐Making: Bridging the EU Studies–New Regionalism Divide

The European Union in United Nations Economic Governance Fora

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About