brexit as we see them, continue to communicate them publicly and with our firms, and actively engage in constructive fora such as this. thank you for your attention. 1 see most recent central bank of ireland macro - financial review 2 see sibley, ed. ( 2017 ) " the irish financial services sector : a prudential regulation perspective ", speech, financial centres summit, october 17 for perspectives on the european regulatory framework 3 consolidated figures based on regulatory returns submitted to the central bank of ireland. 4 see lch – swap volumes 5 see financial conduct authority business plan 2018 – 2019 6 see european central bank – “ relocating to the euro area " 7 see cross, gerry. ( 2018 ) “ integration, interconnection, innovation : some current themes in european financial regulation ", speech, barclays capital conference, march 14. 8 the uk “ government has committed to bring forward legislation, if necessary, to create a temporary permissions regime to allow relevant firms to continue their activities in the uk for a limited period after withdrawal. in the unlikely event that the withdrawal agreement is not ratified, this provides confidence that a back - stop will be available ” see bank of england - firms ’ preparations for the uk ’ s withdrawal from the european union : update following march 2018 european council 7 / 7 bis central bankers'speeches

##es the firms we regulate, we are essentially looking at four objectives from a prudential supervision perspective. regulated firms should : 1. have sufficient financial resources, including under a plausible but severe stress. 2. have sustainable business models. 3. be well governed, with appropriate cultures, effective risk management and control arrangements in place. 4. be able to recover if they get into difficulty, and if they cannot, they should be resolvable in an orderly manner without significant externalities or taxpayer costs. brexit has the potential to affect each of these, and all financial services firms should be evaluating the impact of brexit on these aspects of their business. from a regulatory and supervisory perspective, a primary concern is to ensure that regulated firms that have business models with direct or indirect exposures to the uk economy address and plan appropriately for the potential negative impacts of brexit. therefore, we expect regulated firms across all sectors to consider, plan and adapt to the potential implications for their business models and revenue streams. it is the responsibility of firms ’ boards to assess the potential impact of brexit on their firm and to plan accordingly. new or materially changing entities in terms of new entities or business lines, we have been working for some time with a range of firms who have recognised that they need to relocate some of their activities in order to continue to access the eu market after brexit. once again there are asymmetries here. brexit is an imposed and undesired cost for businesses. there is the potential cost of setting up a new business in a different location, seeking authorisation, finding premises, relocating staff and so on. perhaps more importantly for some firms, there are ongoing costs and frictions associated with reorganising business lines, funding flows, booking models, and so on. it is understandable that firms want to minimise these costs and frictions. however, our gatekeeping role is hugely important in mitigating financial stability risks and 4 / 7 bis central bankers'speeches protecting market integrity and customers in ireland and across europe, and, consequently, protecting trust in and the reputation of the irish financial services system. so, it is imperative that any new business authorised here as a result of brexit meets the high standards that are expected of any such firm authorised in the eu – consistent with them effectively being, in many cases, an eu head office responsible for business undertaken in multiple jurisdictions. they need to organise themselves so