<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p> In the aftermath of the Brexit, the EU is swinging between a vision of enhanced integration, depicted by the Five Presidents Report, and a decision by the people of one of its leading member states - the UK - to withdraw this alliance, that may be interpreted as a non-confidence vote in the enhanced integration process underlying the EU. This article assumes that non-democratic elements embodied in the measures taken to pull out of the financial crisis and stabilize EU/EMU economies may enhance non-confidence among EU/EMU citizens, serving as incentives for more member states to opt out of this alliance, inspired by the Brexit. While it might have been expected that as the peak of the crisis passed, decision makers would pay more attention to ensure the democratic nature of such measures, comparison of the regulation enacted during the emergency phase and shortly thereafter with later regulation reveals that, despite certain improvements, many non-democratic elements still characterize both the nature of the measures devised and the decision-making processes leading to them. The article suggests that the Brexit should serve as a red light, reinforcing previous criticism calling for improving the democratic nature of such measures and of the decision-making processes involved, to prevent a further drift.</p></abstract>

In the aftermath of the Brexit, the EU is swinging between a vision of enhanced integration, depicted by the Five Presidents Report, and a decision by the people of one of its leading member states - the UK - to withdraw this alliance, that may be interpreted as a non-confidence vote in the enhanced integration process underlying the EU. This article assumes that non-democratic elements embodied in the measures taken to pull out of the financial crisis and stabilize EU/EMU economies may enhance non-confidence among EU/EMU citizens, serving as incentives for more member states to opt out of this alliance, inspired by the Brexit. While it might have been expected that as the peak of the crisis passed, decision makers would pay more attention to ensure the democratic nature of such measures, comparison of the regulation enacted during the emergency phase and shortly thereafter with later regulation reveals that, despite certain improvements, many non-democratic elements still characterize both the nature of the measures devised and the decision-making processes leading to them. The article suggests that the Brexit should serve as a red light, reinforcing previous criticism calling for improving the democratic nature of such measures and of the decision-making processes involved, to prevent a further drift.

Democracy and Financial Crisis Between the Five Presidents Report and the BREXIT: In Search for a New Way?

International and Comparative Law Review

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

In the aftermath of the Brexit, the EU is swinging between a vision of enhanced integration, depicted by the Five Presidents Report, and a decision by the...

Democracy and Financial Crisis Between the Five Presidents Report and the BREXIT: In Search for a New Way?

Publié en ligne: 24 janv. 2018

Pages: 7 - 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iclr-2016-0012

Mots clés
European union, financial services, single banking supervision, financial crisis

© 2018

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Democracy and Financial Crisis Between the Five Presidents Report and the BREXIT: In Search for a New Way?

Publié en ligne: 24 janv. 2018

Pages: 7 - 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iclr-2016-0012

Mots clésEuropean union, financial services, single banking supervision, financial crisis

© 2018

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Mots clés
European union, financial services, single banking supervision, financial crisis