Brussels and Edinburgh threaten UK regulation

I think many of us would like to see the FSA brought to heel by a greater power, though somehow or other it seems free to set its own agenda irrespective of anything anybody else might have to say.

It'd be interesting if all the Scottish offices passported out and back, though, wouldn't it?

Why the heck do small-town IFA businesses like most of ours need any Brussels regulation at all. Its ludicrous to think that typical IFA clients in Rochdale or Wrexham need to be treated the same as in Warsaw or Rotterdam. There is NO Single Market for what we do.

@ Dan Rear - Without knowing the actual figures, I will take a punt on there being more clients (or as many) linked to a small percentage of big IFAs as there are clients linked to small-town IFA businesses. These bigger IFAs probably have more exposure throughout the EU than say a small business that caters to local clients.

Is it really ludicrous to think that clients in Warsaw, Rotterdam, Rochdale or Wrexham should not be treated the same? At the end of the day, the reasons for financial planning are surely universal, and yet unique to the individual and their circumstances.

On that basis, you'd have a global legal system, a global taxation system, a global health system and all sorts of other global systems. Look what's happened with Europe's attempts to create and run a continent-wide economic system ~ quite probably, any number of learned economists and not so learned politicians made a convincing theoretical case for it, but in practice it hasn't worked.

Julian, I was not suggesting that we should be encouraging full integration of global systems, merely pointing out that it is not necessarily ludicrous to think that clients should be treated the same within an economic union... How it works in reality is another matter.

The point is that Brussells are entitled, as we are a fully paid up (maybe?) member of Europe, to suggest and recommend rules and policies that impact all of us. Many of which may be valid and beneficial, just as many others are petty, confusing or shambolic.

If I was an advisor, I would want to know why Europe believe it OK for tied advice to receive commission while independents have to charge a fee? This, to me, suggests a favouritism towards the banks and life offices...

@ Ufsotf and Julian

The *Theory* behind the Common Market (before it transmogrified into the EU) was a common system based on the lowest common denominator with local options to impose higher standards that only applied to those selling in that state/area, but allowing everyone in the Common Market to sell to those in other areas as long as they met the higher of the standards in the seller's or buyer's market. Which made sense until Jacques Delors ...

A global health system would be most welcome - IF anyone can get US taxpayers with less than a $billion to spare to agree to it.

The trouble is that most of the Brussels diktats seem to be anything but LCD. I've still yet to see any reasoned argument, convincing or otherwise, as to just what benefit we derive from being part of the EU and all the former Europhiles such as Ken Clarke have gone very quiet on the subject.

If the UK isn't part of Europe, then why should we be remotely concerned about whether or not we have any influence in Europe? I believe that the UK should row its own boat and leave everyone else to row theirs. Free trade with but economic and sovereign independence from Europe. Maybe next time I'll vote UKIP ~ I certainly won't be voting Conservative again.