Multiple banking houses have at least indicated that they're willing to migrate. Even more important, a lot of financial products in the banking/insurance sector rely on passporting, that is if they're accepted in one EU country, they can be sold anywhere in the EU. That country used to be England up to now. Given that nobody knows if/when the real separation will happen, I fully expect banks and insurances to hedge their bets and start moving that to other countries.

Well so is the parent comment which is arguing essentially that things are fine today and so they will continue be fine in the future.

I'm simply suggesting that may not be the case since EU is now likely incentivized to disrupt the current status if only to set an example. Rather than disrupt physical trade that is linked to export oriented mainland jobs, financial sector may be a riper target as barriers to moving these jobs are low (essentially no capital investment), disrupting it can be used to create jobs on the mainland and can create a punitive effect on UK.

London is very expensive. Banks already have significant motivation to move operations somewhere cheaper, and have been doing so when they can.

That said, whilst it may seem tempting to run to the EU, other countries have been wanting to kill off the city and take its profits for their own for a long time. In the event of a remain vote, they may simply have been emboldened to outvote the UK and do it anyway, hence the focus in Cameron's negotiations on protecting the City. He knows it is vulnerable.

The banks now face a choice. Which is more risky/expensive. Needing to go through separate EU regulatory processes and get an EU "passport" via a subsidiary. Or relocate to e.g. Paris, and have all their activity be regulated by an EU now dominated by socialist governments rather than just some of it.

He's not the only one who seems to think so: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4pkt3k/bbc_forec...