FSCS reduced thresholds

eskbanker

20SmthngSver wrote: »

I remember seeing several articles when it was increased to £85k post referendum and they all said it was because of that aka leaving the EU and regulatory alignment wasn't required. That's all I was going by.

Difficult to tell if it's your memory or these articles that were flawed (do you have any links?) but it's clearly not the case that the UK unilaterally decided to change the limit in January 2017 because of a referendum result to leave the EU - we hadn't even kicked off article 50 then!

In case you hadn't noticed, we are still in the EU and therefore are still subject to all EU-wide financial regulations, and hence the UK subsequently legislating of the Payment Services Regulations in July 2017, which enact the EU's second Payment Services Directive. If there had been sufficient fluctuation in the £/€ exchange rate since early 2017 then the FSCS limit would have been changed again, as to this day it remains pegged to the €100K EU figure.

Having said that, the referendum did cause a significant devaluation of sterling, which is why it took (roughly) £85K to buy €100K afterwards, compared with £75K before, so the events weren't totally unrelated, but the notion that we chose to change the limit because we'd decided to leave is patently false....

20SmthngSver

It was around the time it was increased, along the lines of 'We're leaving the EU so the limit has to been increased to suit our regulations and standards' it's not a case of me not having a good memory. I'm sure you could do a Google search with these keywords and date selection, not that it's a particularly a big issue anyway, it was just a comment. If you feel somethings wrong then that's not my fault, I'm just relaying what I remember reading.

Yes we're still a paying member state of the EU, and we hadn't triggered Article 50 when the limit was increased, but maybe you'll remember that our passports no longer say European Union despite still being in the European Union and yet they are still valid, a decision we unilaterally took regardless of our membership status. My point: decisions have been enacted while still a member because of leaving, so it's not as black and white as you say.

eskbanker

20SmthngSver wrote: »

It was around the time it was increased, along the lines of 'We're leaving the EU so the limit has to been increased to suit our regulations and standards' it's not a case of me not having a good memory. I'm sure you could do a Google search with these keywords and date selection

Unsurprisingly a quick search doesn't locate anything supporting your recollections.

20SmthngSver wrote: »

not that it's a particularly a big issue anyway, it was just a comment.

An inaccurate comment but one which you seem to feel compelled to defend anyway, rather than accepting its correction.

20SmthngSver wrote: »

If you feel somethings wrong then that's not my fault, I'm just relaying what I remember reading.

It is your fault if you choose to invent stuff and perpetuate it as if it was fact - the last thing anyone needs is yet more lies about Brexit! Perhaps you read it on the side of a bus, or maybe in a credibility vacuum like the Daily Mail?

20SmthngSver wrote: »

Yes we're still a paying member state of the EU, and we hadn't triggered Article 50 when the limit was increased, but maybe you'll remember that our passports no longer say European Union despite still being in the European Union and yet they are still valid, a decision we unilaterally took regardless of our membership status. My point: decisions have been enacted while still a member because of leaving, so it's not as black and white as you say.

Irrelevant digression about an entirely superficial and cosmetic issue - we are still aligned with EU financial regulations, whether you like it or not....

ColdIron

Is 20Something aj23? Same style, inaccuracy and willngness to defend an argument past the point of futility. Join date 09-04-2019, same as last activity by aj

Alexland

I thought it was an unspoken rule we didn't comment on people who have reinvented themselves for whatever reason? It seems to be fashionable at the moment

Dave