With SEPA, the PSD and MiFID all paling into relative insignificance as the major banking markets explode globally, there are questions about whether the European plan will succeed or is even needed now
[From The FinanSer: Are Europe’s plans for Banking, MiFID and the PSD irrelevant?]
This is a very good point. If regulation serves only to hamper innovation but fails to deliver any commensurate benefits in stability of security, then what’s the point of it? Right now, it looks as if European initiatives in the finance sector have been a waste of time and money. They certainly haven’t worked as intended, either through a process of watering down (as in the case of the Single Cards Framework, the SCF) or through irrelevance in other cases. The Banker, more charitably, says that the EU is undergoing massive regulatory upheaval and while the goal of a single market in financial services may in principle be worthwhile…
As with all regulatory initiatives, not all the outcomes are exactly what the policymakers intended and The Banker has reported faithfully on a number of significant deviations. There are lessons to be learned from these failures as, no doubt, other parts of the world are planning to adapt the European model for their own uses.
[From The world can learn from EU’s regulatory shake-up mistakes – The Banker]
Still, as The Banker notes, we should take comfort from the fact that some scraps of usefulness might accidentally be left behind as many regulatory initiatives are swept away, saying that
Some of it will eventually come out right and Europe will be left with a half-fixed system.
[From The world can learn from EU’s regulatory shake-up mistakes – The Banker]
Frankly, given the costs of SEPA et al (which are several billions of euros), I think we ought to expect a little more than an almost coincidentally “half-fixed” system. When it comes to payment systems, I’m certain that a further separation between banking and payments is a way to move forward. It’s a combination of inactivity and accident that has led to payments being regulated, managed and delivered within banking and the goals of initiatives such as the Payment Services Directive are hardly coincident with the goals of banks
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the cards would allow people to "easily and securely prove their identity".
[From BBC NEWS | Politics | Foreign national ID card unveiled]
people need to prove who they are many times during a day.
[From In Development » Just what is ‘identity’?]
No, they don’t. People need to prove that they are entitled to do something or are allowed to do something several times during a day, which is actually an entirely different issue. Mind you, it’s an often-repeated mistake, even amongst those who should know better but haven’t really thought it through. When he was the Home Office Minister for ID cards, Andy Burnham said that “I take the view that it is part of being a good citizen, proving who you are, day in day out”. How wrong can you be? Other than the current Home Office Minister for ID cards, Meg Hillier, who said that we should see ID cards as “passports in-country”. Or, indeed, the Home Office Minister for ID cards before him, Tony McNulty, who said that
“There are now so many almost daily occasions when we have to stand up and verify our identity.”
[From BBC NEWS | Politics | Labour admits ID card ‘oversell’]
I blame the education system, but blog readers may have some other explanations as to why this same, fundamental, error is propagated by people who ought to have some grasp of the issues.
Subscribe to our newsletter
