HSBC CEO Says Bankers Generating 20% of London Revenue May Move
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
The big investment banks are struggling to be profitable these days and it has nothing to do with Brexit or the EU. After the financial crisis in 2007 they have had to hold more and more capital and be more transparent about their complex transactions. And rightly so. In order to be competitive they build software that lets them comply with the regulations as tightly as possible, to maximize profit. The more the financial regulators see the more they regulate. Smaller institutions like hedge funds don't bare such a high burden. My building has been quietly emptying out for two years and so are the others. The giants are dying but it's not because of Brexit. I see purely software companies and specialist hedge funds taking over in this area in the future.
Truth be told, Brexit will hurt the EU more than it will hurt the UK and I won't hold any grudges if the EU member states fought hard to defend their union. If they impose punishing import and export duties on us then it will most likely not be out of spite but to protect them from other member states leaving too. Picture yourself on the other side of the fence, what would you do?
And one last thing, the EU was created to economically tie as many countries in Europe together so they would all depend on each other for resources. That way no one country could start world war three. By design it should maintain connections and dependencies regardless of what localized people living in it desire in the short term. Making member states more wealthy and comfortable is secondary.
To me this is one of the most important aspects. It is so sad to see this being unraveled.
I would add the quite inspired Erasmus student exchange program to this - encouraging people to do (parts of) their university studies in a different European country is a brilliant way to perform cross-pollination both with DNA/family ties and ideas. I think this could end up being the most powerful way to guard against future intra-european wars.
Ergo: UK people, please pressure your politicians to maintain membership of the Erasmus program. (Or something equivalent.)
a) making lots of people in all of the european countries related to each other in a big, beautiful and complex manner - thus preventing future wars
b) spreading ideas - good for the economies of the countries and the union
How do you figure that?
If I recall correctly, all advisory referendums in the UK have been winnable by a simple majority.
I imagine there would have been an outcry if the bar for leaving the EU was set higher than 50% of voters, especially because the 1975 referendum to remain in (what became known as) the EU had a 50% threshold to succeed.
It's natural that the people on the wrong side of the result feel a bit aggrieved. This is true in any voting system, for any vote - but can induce relatively severe regret for long-lasting or wide-ranging decisions.
The only solution I can suggest in order to minimise regret is to adopt a strategy of "deciding how we decide" as a preliminary step before the actual vote to decide. (The "Remain" camp were fairly sure they'd win the vote, and foolishly neglected to consider this.)
This approach can also be useful in meetings where a technical decision needs to be made. For instance, it might often be preferable to adopt a consent-based process rather than a consensus-based process. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
Agreeing how to decide something can also be useful in adversarial negotiations, where it is often easier to agree a "fair process" leading to a result than it is to immediately try and haggle about the result itself. (For example: "Will you pay me the average of 3 repair quotes for the damage you did to my car?" vs "Pay me XYZ for the damage you did to my car.")
If "advisory" meant opinion poll, then a 51% result would be meaningful. But as a binding referendum it's ridiculous. We'd never build a control system that flip-flopped wildly at the boundary point the way first-past-the-post elections work.
> The "Remain" camp were fairly sure they'd win the vote, and foolishly neglected to consider this.
It's always the sane people's fault for failing to realize how shitty the trumps and farages are willing to get.
In a practical sense, you're right. When people start racially scapegoating we need to watch out. But in a moral sense, no you aren't right. Their repulsive actions aren't our fault, especially not simply because we failed to stop them.
No they didn't (if "UK" = "population of the UK")
The cynic in me might suggest that it isn't because having the people uneducated on these matters greatly benefits a certain wealthy and influential section of society.
Two-thirds majority may not have been reached this referendum but it would have been eventually. Euro-scepticism has been festering in the UK for some time and is surging in France [1]
Most of the British public believe that immigration controls need to be tightened [2] something that is not possible when being a member of the EU.
[1] - http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2014-05-10...
[2] - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inline...
Absolutely. This is an example of how unreasonable it is for politicians to make these sort of changes on the weak mandates that they have.
When a politician elected with maybe 40% of the popular vote, from the 65% of people who vote, gets a 51% advisory mandate from those few who show up to vote in the referendum, it's a pretty weak reason to drag everyone else along. Democracy is built on the idea of false consensus. That once enough people decide on something that it doesn't matter if others do. The closer we go to simple-majority, the worse that is.
fwiw, I find it funny that you think that's conservative. I get more feedback that it's hyper-liberal. I don't think either are correct.
To get those higher mandates we'd have to try to pass less-controversial things. Again, not that it's meant keep us here as if this is a special reference frame that I cherish, but that it would force us to reach out to both sides and find change everyone can support.
Both parties in the US election were looking to force their politician on everyone else. A healthier answer would be if we picked everyone's compromise president. But first-past-the-post is designed to produce all-or-nothing outcomes.
It is similar to the article on HN a few days ago shttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13426822aying Montreal is taking over AI. That is highly unlikely to happen as programmers rather enjoy California.
Practically, it's a way longer commute.
But if you have an office close to Gare du Nord and a flat close to Paddington or opposite then it is workable. And one train journey commute without changing trains is enjoyable. (ie sleepable/workable)
Will have to endure that train, tube, another tube or walk, then eurostar with all the kids & luggage entourage for a Disneyland Paris trip in a few months.
Winter is probably a huge shock to many, but I think it builds character and can-do attitude. Plus hockey.
I too would go crazy if I stayed inside for months.
Then again cold is one thing but Cape Breton with 160 km/h winds on a typical stormy winter is nuts.
We need bubble cities here in Canada asap.
For the most populated regions their climate is maritime mild-temperate ( to the west ) and continental ( east / south ) due to the Gulfstream. Certianly more mild than other regions at the same latitudes.
I wouldn't take their weather advice if I was going to Siberia, for example: average winter temperature in some areas there is -50 Celsius, which freeze your glasses to your face.
That's also tangential to my point - people can get outside and do stuff in "bad" weather if they want to (and will probably be happier if they do so).
(Source: I grew up in Toronto and lived in California for 10 years)
I spent two months living in Toronto again as an adult after 10 years living in Mountain View and then San Francisco, and I hated:
- the lack of interesting tech jobs
- the lack of culture
- the terrible weather with no upsides (Ontario is so topographically boring and you have to get on a very expensive flight to get anywhere interesting)
I love the sunshine here, the lack of snow, the lack of having to shovel driveways, the close proximity to stuff like hiking and skiing if I want to, the relative lack there of extreme weather (hot or cold). I can go running outdoors 12 months a year.
I don't own a car, and I don't have to drive anywhere. I have good work-life balance at work. They pay me a lot, even after taxes and cost of living (much more than I'd get in Toronto).
That being said, I wouldn't want to raise kids here. And the poverty/crime sucks a little bit.
I can't wait to retire to the suburbs of Toronto and raise some kids when I'm 30 :).
- Hiking/Camping: Most of CA with deeply varying terrain, from thick forests to mountains to plains/desert.
- Snow: Mammoth, Yosemite, Tahoe.
- Motorsport: Laguna Seca, Sonoma Raceway, Willow Springs.
- Wine: Napa, Sonoma, Paso Robles and the surrounding areas of each.
SoCal gets a lot of that too, but usually more driving/flying involved.
You also don't get very extreme weather, but you do get earthquakes.
All-in-all, I'd say CA scores really well for all kinds of active lifestyles, but the big negative is the cost of living coupled with CA taxes. If you don't mind a bit more cold and fewer jobs (slightly fewer?), Seattle becomes super appealing.
But in mountain view, I can go straight from work to Rancho San Antonio. If I'm feeling a one nighter backpacking trip, Henry W Coe is an hour and a half drive. Big Sur. That volcanic area north of Berkeley. Dayhike opportunities are too numerous to count. I love it.
Because with 150k signatures, you can get any weird ass proposition you want for a state-wide vote. And in 1986, voters decided that we needed to be warned about every little thing that might cause cancer.
Prop 65 has nothing to do with the CA gov. It's the voting public that made it happen.
Let me introduce you the rest of the state. Many places are walkable as well, though you'll have to look a little harder.
The west coast vibe is great though.
If the latter moves, well, Paris is pretty nice too.
Capital gains taxes are slightly higher in France, so is corporation tax for big companies (much higher), and there are definitely higher labour taxes on French salaries, but there's no comparison in terms of what public services you get for that money (it includes unemployment insurance, child benefits, comprehensive health care, and a state pension you can actually live on, amongst other things)
The 41% is one of the layers.
Before it there is a 20-25% layer that doesn't depend on your income ;)
And it goes on...
Overall, it's definitely less in the UK, but not enough to warrant saying French taxes are "through the roof" compared to them.
In France. The taxes are layered. There is your gross salary, then one tax is applied (25%)... then another tax is applied (11-45%) on what's left ... then it keeps going on.
EDIT: This was an extreme sarcastic comment in response to the original comment above: > "Paris is more beautiful and enjoyable (subjective, but I'm sure most would people would agree)"
It was my intent to play an extreme stereotype in response to the comment from above, because I found it funny to be honest how someone can even say that. Anyways, continue downvoting...
Entirely true, but not a contradiction. Maybe things will be different in the future.
Plus, Paris already is the first financial centre in the Eurozone.
Paris is a big no-no for any experienced enough bankers.
Traders and bankers, for the most part, want to work where they can make money.
My old firm's trading floor was in Connecticut. I, like most of us, preferred to live in New York. That meant hours-long commutes. On one hand, the firm had to pay us more to compensate for this. On the other hand, that amount was minuscule compared to the value we produced. This arrangement persisted--and continues to persist--despite New York City being both the economic and cultural centre of the Greater New York Area.
Comparing London --> Paris to Silicon Valley --> Montreal is unfair. With the former, a material change has occurred to the attractiveness of London. With the latter, no such change has happened. A better comparison would emerge if California started seriously debating a large tax on California-based start-ups, expected to go effective in some unknown form over the next few years.
That said, jobs, pay and weather are better in California.
I wish I could have both, but oh well.
Cameron, surely, will have to go down as one of worst, most narcissistic leaders in the 21st Century. If not, it's a hell of a bar he's set, staging a vague refendum, excluding the people who it most directly affects (UK nationals in the EU) from voting and not including some kind of confirmation option.
Saddest part is the delusion of the British ruling class. That they think they're somehow going to matter more to the world as a small partner to China/USA rather than as a dominating member of the EU is hilarious if it weren't so sad. For context: I'm a NZer living in the UK. We're a small country at the mercy of big countries with little actual power. That the UK elected itself to be like us is just ridiculous, but c'est la vie.
And EU nationals in the UK.
From the article, they are talking about 1000 staff. 2%.
Lloyds of London said the same thing yesterday: 2% of their London staff would have to move to EU/Ireland
It is interesting that 2% of the staff bring in 20% of the revenue.
-----------------
that implies middle office only.
anyone can make an OTC trade anywhere in the world, but the EU regulations say you cannot exchange the actual shares between parties outside the EU.
[0] https://www.eba.europa.eu/regulation-and-policy/passporting-...
2. Paris (France), really? They are as anti capitalist as they get. Just look at the wealth tax thing only a couple of years ago. A gazillion little things like that exist in France.
I mean, I love the country, but no, just no. It's not a place you go to run (or found) any business, I would say. There would need to be a very good reason to do so.
But how many executives (that aren't french citizens) are deciding today that they want to base financial firms in Paris and live there, over London? The UK is much more pro business than France is. And it still will be, even after Brexit.
I love both cities, but you just can't put them next to each other (for finance) and expect Paris to win on the professional end, in my opinion.
Yes they may move some trading desks. So what? Banks do this all the time. Take for instance ING which is moving ~60 trading desks to London from Netherlands, despite Brexit.
The fact he's announced Paris as the destination seems to indicate to me he hasn't put much serious consideration in to it.
I don't think London's status as a financial hub is seriously under threat. Most of the business we do doesn't rely on EU financial services passporting rights. But that part which does will have to move, if we lose those rights. For example clearing trades for exchanges on the continent is another area where London has hoovered up most of the business from across Europe, but those gains will have to be unwound if we lose Passporting.
However it looks like to be eligible the UK would have to effectively rubber stamp all the EU's financial services regulations into UK law, but of course without any of our current influence as a member over drafting it. So much for winning back Parliamentary sovereignty!
No, that wasn't the argument. It's that those 60 cast doubt on the scale of the 1,000+
Paris is the first financial centre in the Eurozone, closely followed by Frankfurt, so why do you say that ?
This seems strange, considering that even the Prime Minister's position is that keeping those jobs is not a main priority. She has said that very clearly.
P.S. Just planning my future blog posts'.
And by that, you should understand that it's harder for companies to recruit, thus the salaries are going up!
"I've got a doctors appointment tomorrow morning" is a statement of fact, even though it hasn't happened yet.
London provides enormous amounts of financial services to Europe. Around 35% of all wholesale financial activity in Europe takes place in London. Around 85% of European hedge funds are there. Around 44% of all worldwide euro trading takes place there and around 70% of all derivatives trading. Figures from https://www.thecityuk.com/assets/2016/Reports-PDF/The-UK-Eur...
In other words European companies rely heavily on people who currently live in London and presumably are settled there.
In any normal situation this would be seen as "The EU wants access to London based services, we'd better make sure we negotiate that!". However that isn't what is happening. Instead the EU plans to simply pass new laws (changing the MiFiD II rules that aren't even implemented yet) in order to force the people who live in London to sell their homes, pull their children out of school, learn new languages and move elsewhere. The banking industry is resigned to this fate and barely even comments on it.
To me this is indicative of the terrifying fanaticism at the heart of the EU. Talking about it is one of the taboos that Brexit has started to break. The people who run the EU are utterly, utterly unconcerned about the lives of the people who work in finance, they're utterly unconcerned about the economic welfare of European companies that heavily rely on the UK for financial services, they've refused to take up Theresa May's offer of ruling out forced expulsions right at the start, and their "plan" appears to be to refuse to negotiate any kind of cooperation at all until after the two year exit period is up.
This is not what responsible, mature leadership looks like. This is what it looks like when people get it in their heads that they can do anything and nobody can stop them. You can always tell when there's a true fanatic in the room because the reasonable people start blaming each other for the "inevitable" consequences of trying to defy the fanatics. Their unbending will regardless of the cost comes to be seen as a fact of life that just has to be accepted, and everyone else starts to work around them and even blaming themselves for it.
Europe will become a healthier place when people in positions of power and respect start being able to say that the EU is run by fanatics.
You can always tell when there's a true fanatic in the room because the reasonable people start blaming each other for the "inevitable" consequences
From your post:
The UK voted for Brexit, you just cannot ignore its consequences. Deal with it
London handles transactions for nations and currencies around the world. If other countries had the same attitude the EU does, there would be no such thing as a "financial capital" because dollar transactions could only be processed in the USA, Yen could only be traded in Japan, etc. Nowhere would get critical mass and London wouldn't have any real financial services industry. It doesn't work like that.
details?
The UK would obviously qualify, as it's currently obeying all the same regulations as other EU countries. The problem is that it's Brussels which decides what 'equivalence' means and it's a black box decision. It can be revoked at a months notice.
You'll notice that zero of the EU's leaders are talking about MiFiD II or equivalence. They're all planning on how to carve up people's lives and jobs instead. It's as if these rules do not exist.
That's not surprising. The EU has a long history of ignoring its own rules when they conflict with political priorities. The best example being that the treaties forbid eurozone bailouts as clearly as it's possible for the treaties to do, but they happened anyway.
The UK hasn't a stated position on financial regulation beyond statements about grandfathering wordings until the UK government gets around to changing them, pledges rejecting all EU court oversight and some veiled threats to radically liberalise everything if they can't get the negotiation outcome they wish for.
There exists a provision not-yet-implemented in UK or EU law which would give EU bodies some scope to allow some passported functions to be performed by people outside the EU if the country operating outside the EU agreed to abide by all the relevant EU financial rules to their satisfaction.
Surprisingly, some banks don't find this provision for revocable permission contingent on non-binding commitments by the EU and UK quite as reassuring as the regulatory framework the UK has opted to tear up (particularly not for the staff performing functions not covered by MiFiD II)
And somehow this is the EU leaders "planning to carve up people's lives and jobs"
The level of intellectual dishonesty required to make the arguments you are making is really quite staggering.
Not to be crude, but often these people perform work that's against the public interest. Why should the EU be concerned about their personal well-being? Quite a lot (but not all) of their work is parasitical in nature.
If you check, you'll find it's only the EU that has a hangup about the physical location in which euro-denominated transactions occur.
https://www.cepol.europa.eu/media/news/european-police-colle...
It'd make about as much sense as if the EPA were located in London.
In the meantime, some people may decide to look for another job before being transfered god knows where... https://www.ft.com/content/2ca416ba-c8f8-11e6-8f29-9445cac89...
I think you've got this the wrong way round. The UK voted to leave the EU, and its not like nobody in the run up mentioned that it might lead to companies leaving the UK for EU countries. We made this bed. Time to sleep in it.
There is no actual, fundamental requirement for anyone to move anything anywhere in the wake of Brexit. The reason people have described this as "inevitable" is because the EU can be assured to mandate it, even though they don't have to, even though other regions don't mind having financial services provided by the UK.
You're treating the EU's behaviour as if it's the laws of physics. That's how you know that there are fanatics in the room: people stop treating their behaviour as something that can be reasoned with, and start treating it as if they were some artifact of natural laws.
It's a false statement. The EU wants you to believe that. It is entirely false. There is no "have". There is only "want".
I'm exaggerating for effect, but the EU has a clear set of rules. It's not fanaticism, it's called "working together". The UK, not the EU, decided to stop following the rules. It makes no sense for the EU to bend the rules.
Whether or not the EU should in fact try with any means to keep the union together is another question of course. But; assuming that's their goal, then I consider it pretty reasonable to a) try to rob London of as much financial business as possible by scaring large corporations into moving to EU cities b) scare other countries into not leaving the union by demonstrating a bad deal for the UK c) set tough positions before the Brexit negotiations start (which may be loosened during the actual negotiations).
As a citizen of another EU country, I completely back what the EU is doing centrally at the moment, that is, I care less about the lives and careers of london financial workers, than I do the future integrity of the union. I completely agree with statements like "They voted out and there has to be consequences". Not because it is axiomatically so, but because I think tough consequences are the right choice
What vote exactly?
Citation needed.
Also, you didn't answer my question: What vote exactly? You mentioned Italy, so I guess it had something to do with Italy - however you haven't answered.
I'm talking about future referendums. Those can be held in any European country where either a EU-critical party wins power, or a popular demand calls for it (such calls recently failed in Finland, for example, although a referendum had it been held would never have resulted in an exit).
So to be very clear- There are no planned exit referendums, there have been no other such referendums than the Brexit vote, and without petitions or power shifts there are no such votes on the horizon. So by "What votes" I mean e.g a vote under LePen or the next Italian government.
Not sure what you think I "wish", I certainly don't hope for any such referendums around Europe.
No, you are not. You referenced a vote in Italy. There was a referendum in Italy totally unrelated to any of the "what ifs" you're spilling here.
> So to be very clear- There are no planned exit referendums, there have been no other such referendums than the Brexit vote, and without petitions or power shifts there are no such votes on the horizon. So by "What votes" I mean e.g a vote under LePen or the next Italian government.
What next Italian government? Do you think M5S does even stand a chance?
> Not sure what you think I "wish", I certainly don't hope for any such referendums around Europe.
Of course mate.
What if the EU realises that even if both walk away as winners no one will easily follow the UK, because frankly no other EU member state is in a similar position to the UK?
There's only 9 member states who didn't adopt the Euro, so basically everyone else already disqualified to leave the EU. When you look at the remaining 9 (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) there is either no appetite for an exit (Sweden, Denmark) or the country has simply no leverage at all.
So would the EU risk to fall apart when the UK gets a good deal? Nope.
Remember you heard it first here.
I don't consider it likely but I also don't consider the current political climate "rational", sadly.
The Eurozone is really what should be dismantled, because it's flawed by design. I'd hate to see the union itself which is originally a peace and trade project disintegrate because of a flawed currency and disagreements on people movement.
What matters though is if another country thinks they can leave the EU with the outlook of a "better" deal outside the EU. The EU would fall apart if countries would believe that, but what I tried to say is that the EU doesn't really have to fear that, because no other country is even remotely in the same position as the UK, so the chances of a "better" deal outside the EU are almost non-existent, because the fact alone that they don't have their own currency would makes significantly more difficult.
Therefore the EU can actually work out a good deal for the UK and the EU without jeopardizing the EU membership of others. Makes sense?
Italy won't vote out because of a "better deal outside" (nor do I believe the UK did!). They'll vote out if populists can convince them there will be fewer immigrants without disastrous economic consequences.
The only option is an ad-hoc constitutional law that allows for a specific (non-binding) referendum and requires a large (2/3) majority on the parliament. Interestingly, this was last done in '89, to vote to transition from the (economical) European Community to the (political) European Union.
The EU should stand or fall on its own merits. The moment people start to think, we have to make it painful for people to leave, it loses its legitimacy. It is on the way to be a new USSR. And if one day continental Europe slowly turns into a military dictatorship (it is effectively already a soft power dictatorship) I will not have any sympathy for whatever happens to people like you.
I didn't mean that in the sense of being a cosmopolite euro-citizen, I simply meant I'm a resident of an EU country other than the UK.
I have no wishes for consequences as punishment alone, I only want consequences in the sense that benefits such as low trade barriers should be shared among those who create them and share the burdens, e.g who accept strict common envirinmental regulations and allow freedom of people to move.
Of course countries would prefer the benefits of a collaboration/union/pact/ without the responsibilities and costs.
EU leaders like to paint people who reject this approach as shirking their "responsibilities", or "cherry picking", or whatever other dubious analogy they came up with today. But it's just psychological manipulation. If citizens of a country are overwhelmingly convinced that freedom of movement makes sense only for similar economies, or only up to a limit, etc, then it's not the EU's place to blindly insist that they obey. It's the EU's place to convince them they're wrong, if necessary, by letting them go their own way so some years later the results can be compared. That is how you build trust and loyalty.
You know, 18 months ago I was vaguely pro EU. Like most people I had not thought about it much, in truth. The UK referendum forced me to do my research, to spend a lot of time pondering the issues, to engage with the eurosceptic arguments. And nowadays I am convinced the EU is doomed. It is a concept so flawed it cannot be fixed. It should be abolished and replaced with numerous multi-lateral treaties between whoever wishes to make them, wherever those countries are located in the world. In other words, how the global system of cooperation already operates. There is no need to artificially tie immigration with financial regulation, or medical approvals with subsidies to farmers. There is no need for a flag, an anthem, an all powerful centralised bureaucracy of people who care more about their pensions than the people they rule.
Europe would be happier, healthier and experiencing deeper cooperation if the EU had never been invented at all.
That's pretty subjective. But it's at least a way of tying cooperation on difficult areas (migration, environment, aid, other regulation) to positive effects (trade, peace). I'm not saying it's a perfect or necessary setup - but it's a way of arranging things that countries have voted to be part of.
> EU leaders like to paint people who reject this approach as shirking their "responsibilities", or "cherry picking", or whatever other dubious analogy they came up with today.
I think cherry picking is a reasonable description, since with the setup as it currently is (like it or not) member states accept the negative consequences in migration/aid/regulation in order to achieve the benefits. In order to e.g. have all the trade benefits but but accept the environmental benefits or help with migration - you'd be cherry picking. Of course you could argue that these things are independent. They should be tried on their own merit. That it's government overreach to combine. I'm not even going to gave that discussion now (I don't even necessarily disagree) but that's not the situation.
> And nowadays I am convinced the EU is doomed. It is a concept so flawed it cannot be fixed. [...] It should be abolished and replaced with numerous multi-lateral treaties between whoever wishes to make them > Europe would be happier, healthier and experiencing deeper cooperation if the EU had never been invented at all.
Sure. But a whole different discussion. In such a future or alternative reality we wouldn't need to discuss what the EU does when Britain leaves because there is no EU. It might be the case that the EU is doomed. Or that it is dismantled. But it won't be this year, or the next. So the debate about what kind of agreement will be struck between the EU and the UK is still a real one. These negotiations will take place between the actual, flawed, mega-package-deal EU, and the UK. It's those negotiations I'm talking about, not whether the EU is actually a good idea, can survive long term etc. Interesting, but separate topics.
Verhoofstadt today:
"it is an illusion to suggest that the UK will be permitted to leave the EU but
then be free to opt back into the best parts of the European project,
for instance by asking for zero tariffs from the single market without
accepting the obligations that come with it."
"The EU must use the UK’s departure to reform and move forward."
Please, stop that. I am an EU national that works and lives in the UK. There's 3 million of us. Among my anecdotal data, 2 families have left already - the rest of us have been postponing / stopping for undefined time buying houses, cars and doing any long or even mid term planning.
This is all because the UK citizens, plus the Irish, plus the Commonwealth citizens (that may or may not have right to live and work in the UK) voted and decided we were not worth it. As simple as that. We, of course, didn't have the right to vote.
Don't even dare to use the "poor families" argument on this.
> (...) The people who run the EU are utterly, utterly unconcerned about the lives of the people who work in finance (...)
You can't be fucking serious mate.
Whoever voted Leave in the referendum holds no moral ground to bring in these arguments.
Edit: This comment's score is like a rollercoaster! Whoever is downvoting me, could you please please understand for a second that most of the people working in the financial sector had a vote on Brexit (as most people in the UK had), but 100% of the people that are now in a legal limbo had no vote on Brexit? Ok, thanks.
What a shame.
You don't even consider that maybe the EU could just ... not do anything. There is no problem with euro-related transactions being handled in London. The vote was not a decision that you weren't "worth it". It was a decision that the EU is a problem and needs to be got rid of.
But in a classic show of why the decision was correct, instead of blaming the EU for imposing trade sanctions on your industry, you blame the UK for voting to leave even though it's entirely the EU's retaliation that is to blame for your predicament. There is nothing that requires them to block Europeans from trading with the UK.
The EU's actions are not inevitable. They are deliberate, spiteful and driven by the fear of a loss of political power. Take your anger to Brussels.
"Not do anything" means the UK is not part of the EU hence the UK has no trade deal with the EU. The defaults are WTO rules, which is TARIFFS and no passporting just to be over-simplistic. The WORST deal for everyone.
> There is no problem with euro-related transactions being handled in London.
There is. The EU would actually need to change the law to allow London to keep operating while not being part of the EU.
It is the UK who's leaving. Why do you try to paint it as retaliation?
> The vote was not a decision that you weren't "worth it".
Yes, it was. EU immigration was a big part of the vote and the other, namely what you wrote --> "It was a decision that the EU is a problem and needs to be got rid of." is the "not worth it" part. For you, it's not worth to keep us around. I respect your opinion, but please also respect my distaste for it.
> But in a classic show of why the decision was correct, instead of blaming the EU for imposing trade sanctions on your industry, you blame the UK for voting to leave even though it's entirely the EU's retaliation that is to blame for your predicament.
It's not trade sanctions, it's the lack of a trade deal. You must have been supermad at Makro when you stopped paying for your membership and lost your right to buy there, right? Those filthy revengeful Makro workers, imposing trading sanctions on YOU nonetheless!
> The EU's actions are not inevitable.
Agreed. The UK just has to reach an agreement that satisfies both parts.
> They are deliberate, spiteful and driven by the fear of a loss of political power.
No, they're not. The UK's decision to eat their cake and have (which you don't seem to be able to grasp - where does this delusion come from?) is the only deliberate and spiteful action here.
> Take your anger to Brussels.
Good luck for the future. You're going to need (and what's even worse - I'll need it because of delusional people like you as I live in the UK too).
Do you have a link to details? My understanding was that the passporting rule just makes licenses for banking valid in the entire EU (instead of only the host country) and that there are provisions to include countries with rules similar rules to MiFiD outside the EU, and the UK is currently still working implementing MiFiD to make this easy (also they will possibly still be a member state when the rules trigger)
(I admittedly don't really follow Brexit-news, since to me it seems 95% of it is utter speculation. If banks really thought there was unavoidable trouble coming, they'd be moving and not just talking?)