Can’t we just ask the regulator?

From The Jolly Contrarian
Revision as of 21:42, 26 September 2022 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

It is well known and widely reported that regulations have grown in complication since those mad, dreamer Thatchery days when rules were for birds and the Randian spirit of Aleister Crowley was the dominant fingerpost showing the way towards market governance

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.

What once seemed elegant now seems barbaric in its simplicity — and we have long since grown inured to the idea that our every authorised action or financial impulse should be minutely monitored, reported, and regulated.

Being a pragmatist, it is not the JC’s motive to take sides in between paternalistic nannies and red-blooded monetarists, other than to say however regulations are framed, justice and good governance — the well-rehearsed imperative for juridical certainty — requires the rules to be as plain, simple and clear as possible, and where, as now, those they are not, to be capable of simple divination and unjeopardising challenge.

If the rules aren't clear, the regulator should be able to explain them and, in the case of unresolved ambiguity, make a call.

Anyone in the business will know this is the aspiration of an utter fantasist. Anglo Saxon regulators wouldn't dream of giving guidance, perhaps fearing the precedent an erroneous ruling night create, perhaps acknowledging that their own staff have no better ideas what the rules are meant to mean than anyone else.