“Looking at this group of amendments, it is important to say that my party believes in “better together” rather than “beggar thy neighbour”.

[CarrZee note: The “beggar thy neighbor” mentality describes a self-serving approach where an individual, business, or country attempts to solve its own problems by taking actions that intentionally harm others. It operates on a zero-sum mindset, meaning one party’s gain is strictly viewed as another’s loss.]

International rules provide trust, confidence and certainty, which are key to long-term and sustainable growth. This country plays a key role in shaping international rules in sectors that we care about, including finance. The Bank of England is incredibly highly respected, as are our other regulators. There is extensive participation in key bodies, such as the Financial Stability Board, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and others. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, gave a long list of the various committees in which regulators are engaged. I think she thought it might make them go native, but I consider that it is an important opportunity and area of their influence. We remain a player in making those rules, despite Brexit.

International rules need to provide flexibility, but they mean absolutely nothing if we pick only what suits us in the moment.

The world is not thriving in the beggar-thy-neighbour world of Trump in the United States, of Russia and of China. The Committee will not be surprised that I am not sympathetic to Amendment 99, which would reduce international standards to a ‘have regard’.

As for the other amendments on this sector, I have no problem with the reporting amendments, but I am cautious of Amendments 102 and 104A, because they could easily be read as an instruction to waver on the Bank of England’s primary objective of financial stability.

We must be careful not to abandon that focus on financial stability. Some people find volatility attractive—it is certainly a way in which the financial sector has frequently made much of its money.

But the cost to ordinary people of both boom and bust and continuous volatility has been exceedingly high.

The cost to businesses that need a significant measure of certainty is extremely high.

Therefore, we (LibDems) will not be supporting these amendments, though, as I say, the reporting amendments make some sense to me.”

The US and UK are letting capital control the people instead of the other way around.

https://x.com/proudsocialist/status/2073774486596235768?s=46

Gemini summary (warning, not checked): The Financial Services and Markets Bill (FSMB)—which transitions into law as an Act—serves as a sweeping overhaul of the UK’s post-Brexit financial regulatory landscape. Its main objectives focus on streamlining regulatory frameworks, cutting bureaucratic burdens for businesses, and modernising consumer protection. [1, 2, 3]

The main objectives of the legislation are ranked below from the most controversial to the least.

• The Conflict: Stripping back existing regulatory restrictions to accelerate competitiveness. [4]
• The Concern: The Financial Services Regulation Committee and peers heavily criticized provisions (such as Clause 17) that remove requirements for the FCA and PRA to “have regard” to standard regulatory principles. Critics and think tanks argue this risks creating a “speculator’s charter” that backtracks on post-2008 financial crisis safety nets. [5, 6, 7]
• SM&CR Trimming: Streamlining the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) by removing certification requirements below the senior executive level sparked friction over whether it dilutes individual accountability. [3, 7, 8]

• The Conflict: Reforming consumer redress versus protecting consumer rights.
• The Concern: The Bill mandates sweeping structural changes to how the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) operates to prevent it from disrupting standard market practices. Broad opposition from consumer groups warned that giving the FCA tighter control over FOS decision-making could compromise independent dispute resolution. [3, 9]

• The Conflict: Balancing economic growth with financial stability.
• The Concern: Legislaing a secondary objective for regulators to actively promote international competitiveness and economic growth drew heavy pushback from economists. Proponents argued it ensures the UK remains a dominant global financial hub. Opponents countered that prioritizing competitiveness could trigger a dangerous “race to the bottom” in regulatory standards. [6, 9, 10, 11, 12]

• The Conflict: Executing the Brexit “repeal and replace” framework.
• The Concern: The Bill revokes over 250 pieces of retained EU financial legislation to absorb them into a tailored UK model. While the broader financial industry warmly welcomed this transition for its agility, civil society groups raised transparency concerns over transferring vast law-making powers directly to HM Treasury and regulators without routine parliamentary scrutiny. [1, 13, 14, 15, 16]

• The Conflict: Consolidating specialized watchdogs.
• The Concern: Merging the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) functions directly into the FCA represents a major structural shift. It faced minor pushback regarding whether a massive consolidated regulator could adequately oversee highly niche payments infrastructure. [3, 17, 18, 19]

• The Conflict: Technical modernization vs. maintaining baseline safety.
• The Concern: Repealing outdated segments of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to accommodate modern digital markets and expand crypto/stablecoin oversight enjoyed cross-party consensus. Both industry and consumer advocates agreed that existing rules were wholly unfit for the digital age, meaning this objective faced virtually zero political opposition. [2, 9, 18, 20, 21]

If you would like to explore this legislation further, please let me know:

• If you want to analyze the impact of a specific clause (e.g., Clause 17 or SM&CR changes).
• If you need a breakdown of how these changes specifically alter the powers of the FCA or PRA.
• Whether you are examining this from a corporate compliance or a consumer protection standpoint. [2, 5, 7, 12, 22]