It is hard to see beyond one of two ways of interpreting this statement, 2/4  BIS central bankers' speeches  neither of which stands up to much scrutiny. The first interpretation is that the rules should not change in the future, and to do so would be unwelcome. This is unrealistic, dangerous and inconsistent with practice. As the world around us changes, so must the rules to accommodate these changes. As evidence of this, look at what the authorities have had to do in response to Covid and the shock that created for financial markets. The EU is almost constantly revising, or contemplating revising its own rules, and that’s a good thing. So, I dismiss this argument. The second argument is that UK rules should not change independently of those in the EU. I am being careful to phrase this point. It’s not that UK rules might change independently – the equivalence process provides for re-assessment of such decisions, so this should not be a problem. So, it must be the stronger form that they should not change independently. But that is rule-taking pure and simple. It is not acceptable when UK rules govern a system 10 times the size of the UK GDP and is not the test up to now to assess equivalence. It’s worth considering why we would choose to change the rules. First, it would be rare to say the least if such rules turn out always to work perfectly first time and thus need no amendment.
Andrew Bailey: The case for an open financial system Speech by Mr Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, at the Financial and Professional Services Address, Mansion House, London, 10 February 2021. * * * As we look forward – and for so many reasons we must look forward – it is important to focus on the future of financial services, and the important role they play in our economy and internationally. This will be my focus today. I am going to look forward with the benefit of history and context and set out why open financial markets are in the interests of all – home and abroad – and something we should always strive for. I want to start with the Bretton Woods agreement towards the end of the Second World War. This was a fundamental and decisive commitment to an open world economy. This commitment did not come free at the time – the adjustment was hard for this country – and of course the more formal Bretton Woods system broke down in the 1970s. But that breakdown did not compromise the commitment shared broadly across nations to an open world economy. There have been times when the commitment has been sorely tested, but it has not been abandoned. What followed the breakdown was a shift of emphasis, not a free for all.