View more on these topics

Crabb urges financial services industry to ‘make the case’ for Remain

Stephen Crabb

Work and pensions secretary Stephen Crabb is calling on the financial services sector to “make the case” for the Remain vote to get it “across the line” ahead of the EU referendum.

Speaking at an ABI dinner this week, the Tories’ replacement for Iain Duncan Smith – a vocal Brexit supporter – urged firms to warn their employees of the risk of a vote to leave.

He said: “As part of the debate over the past few months and weeks, we have sought to explain how the single market is crucial for our economy.

“Companies like Rolls-Royce and Airbus have taken on the responsibility of telling their employees how their businesses could be affected by leaving the single market. At this stage of the campaign for many workers the views of their employer will carry far more weight than those of any politician.

“You, the employers of the UK’s burgeoning financial services sector, need to make a similar case. This sector needs the EU as much as our aerospace and automotive sectors, and is just as vital to the UK economy. Financial services account for 12 per cent of our GDP, and help to rebalance the economy.”

As the vote nears the ABI has been increasingly vocal in backing a vote to remain in the EU.

Crabb added: “If we leave the single market, we also put at risk jobs in the high value insurance sector, which our membership of the single market helps to support.

“Britain is looked up to in Europe as a global centre of excellence. That reputation helps us exert major influence and shape the rules of the EU, and protect the interests of British financial services. That is at risk if we take this leap in the dark, this throw of the dice which quitting the single market would involve.

“As business leaders, I would encourage and urge you to help get the ‘remain’ vote across the line in these crucial last days.”


EU Flags European Union 480

Where has the £65bn Brexit cash gone?

Outflows sparked by the possibility of Brexit might take longer to return to the UK as more market uncertainties take their toll on investors, experts are predicting. Some £65bn has been pulled out of the UK in March and April amid growing uncertainty over the EU membership referendum, Bank of England figures show. The Bank […]


FTSE dives as Brexit fears take hold

The FTSE index has dropped 6 per cent in the past four days as pollsters showed a vote to Brexit has become more likely. The FTSE 100 ended the day down 2 per cent yesterday, at 5,923, the lowest point for the index since February. Yesterday marked the fourth day of losses for the index as fears […]


Guide: reporting to the Pensions Regulator — what and when?

Johnson Fleming has published a step-by-step guide demonstrating the importance of record keeping and reporting, and how it can ensure you operate a successful scheme. The guide takes you through some key questions you need to ask and identifies the information you need to obtain. The topics include: why you need to keep records and the benefits of doing this; registering your scheme; what information you need to record to ensure you meet the Pensions Regulator’s requirements; and what items need to be recorded and when.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 26 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Agreed. Brexit would lead to severe and virtually certain short term losses for businesses, employees and investors – especially in the financial services sector. Any benefits from Brexit would be long term and probably don’t exist. We will almost certainly lose the advantages of being in the single market – which benefit financial services – without gaining trade elsewhere. It isn’t the EU that is holding us back from selling to India and China; Germany does it really successfully, while we sell more to Ireland than we sell to India and China combined.

  2. How dare you sir – the case for leave especially for financial services is strong – and the personal case is even stronger! Just because YOUR pockets are fuller by staying in doesn’t mean that it’s best for EVERYONE!

  3. Interesting how politicians want our help yet turn a deaf’en when we ask for our legal rights back.

    There are numerous comparisons between the EU and the regulator. Both fail to listen and carry on regardless with their preferred action.

    Neither can be held to account in any meaningful way.

    Neither have any hesitation in spending other peoples money in a profligate manner

    The net benefit of their existence is close to zero

    I’m out

  4. Google: Brexit The Movie, watch it and decide for yourself.

  5. Well Mr Crabb, please don’t count on my support. The so called “single market” has prevented me from giving advice to a Brit living in Germany about his UK pensions. A passport application to the German financial regulator, a requirement to hold 50,000 Euros in capital and quarterly returns to the FCA. You have got to be joking. At a broader level I think despite short term uncertainty and volatility, the UK economy will thrive in the medium to long term. I am out.

  6. The EU are a corrupt Sepp Blatter type of organisation who do not care about anything except the gravy train continuing. Of course a lot of people are institutionalised into thinking we need ‘big brother’ and we dare not think for ourselves – rubbish.
    Lets face it the EU will implode anyway with its massive unsolvable problems. Its politics only that keeps it limping along.
    Vote leave and this false, expensive, corrupt state of affairs can end sooner.

  7. Herr Crabb, why not take the “Great” out of Britain (you don’t believe we can survive on our own) and change “United” for just another “EU Kingdom”?

  8. When we complain about regulation they say the EU did it!

  9. Switzerland just decided to cancel their EU membership application.

    One of their politicians is quoted as saying only a lunatic would join.

    The EU may well suit Germany. It benefits from a depressed exchange rate, paid for by all other member states.

    • The Swiss do tend to have a common sense approach. I’m out and Mr Crabb can put his plea with the rest of the worthless trash spewed by most politicians

  10. I find it quite amazing that Financial Advisers – of all people – should favour Brexit. Every major financial institution and most economists (yes there are exceptions) favour remain. I did come across a hedge fund manager that told me his firm is funding the Out Campaign. The reason? If there is an out vote he will clean up shorting Sterling.

    It’s all about the money. Few will care if they don’t have this elusive ‘sovereignty’ if they are hit in the wallet. Immigration. This is a false premise by both sides. Watching the news I don’t see Europeans marching through Europe, flooding in on boats and trying to walk through the Channel Tunnel. Non-European immigration has little to do with the EU – except that the outer borders need a Trump type fence.

    European immigrants do not take our jobs – unemployment is currently at an 11 year low.
    I have conducted a little poll of my own – by no means robust or unimpeachable, but very interesting nevertheless. Of the older cohort (most of the young want IN) I always ask if the Brexiters are able to speak a language other than English. In practically every case the answer is no. That to me signifies quite a lot.

    Anyway the sad events of yesterday does sum up the issue:
    Jo Cox believed in a better world. Brexit believes in a better Britain. Enough said?

    • Harry, did it ever occur to you, that a better Britain helps to make a better world? Or do you honestly believe, that a centralised, un-democratic bureaucracy is more likely to make the world a better place?

      The EU is not Europe and I would make the observation, that Britain has always been at it’s most beneficial to the world and the rest of Europe especially, when we lead the way. Except that they never want us to lead them, so we have to lead by example, and yet again it looks like it might be up to us to show them, that free trade is good, but what the EU has become and is moving even further towards is not.

      Mikhael Gorbachev is on record, comparing the EU to the old USSR and I think he knows better than any of us.

      As for the Hedge funds and investment banks wanting remain. of course they do, red tape suits them, it makes it far more difficult for competition to rise up and compete and the ultra wealthy get wealthier.

      On the opposite side of the coin, de-regulation inspires entreprenuers, you know the people that create real jobs, and real wealth for everyone and not just the few.

      Take a look at what has happened economically to every single country that significantly decreased regulation and red-tape? Then take a look at those that increased it (ah la EU) and spot the difference.

      And that’s before we even consider the democracy and accountability issues.

      My real question, is how much do you think it’s worth to give up your’s, your children’s, your grandchildrens and all future generations freedom and right to hold their rulers to account democratically and peacefully?

      Now look back through history and look at what it has taken to obtain democracy and freedom in the first place and ask yourself whether the price is worth it?

      • Your children and granchildrens freedom?!? Are you for real? Do you honestly believe the people of Europe are not ‘free’? Do you not remember the past?

  11. oh dear. The comments here are full of emotions not facts. I do not feel strongly about the case for remaining or leaving from the point of view of emotions. I more try to look at the likely outcomes of either staying or leaving. There are ZERO facts for what will eventually happen if we vote to leave, so we have to try and best guess what might happen. And we have to decide if remainers are scaremongering (they definitely are) or whether in spite of the exaggeration that the basis of their argument is sound (which I believe it is). There are no guarantees that if we remain that the EU will stay as it is now either. So rather than base the decision on emotive comparisons which are not actually valid why not at least try to consider the impact of a vote to leave as compared to a vote to remain? The FCA is far less democratic than any of the EU decision making bodies, since the FCA by statute cannot be made to change its mind on any policy that is legal, and it has total independence from parliamentary or legal control. At least any EU member state can vote to leave if they want to, and as a country we have opt-outs on many of the things that Brexiters are campaigning against. @ Michael Grant, if we leave the EU you will not be able to advise your German resident client anyway will you? @Alan Lakey if we leave the EU, the FCA will still be responsible for regulatory matters in the UK. The European Court of Justice is far more likely to support our Human Rights than Parliament in the UK. If we vote to leave the EU we will not be able to trade with our largest market unless we agree to abide by their rules. So we would need to find new markets pretty sharply to replace the lost trade, UNLESS WE ABIDE BY THEIR RULES. At the moment we are not part of Schengen, whereas if we leave the EU and want to keep trading without tariffs or barriers then we have to sign up to Freedom of Movement of labour anyway. So we either lose the opportunity to trade in our biggest market without tariffs or else we sign up to the thing that we don’t like but without the ability to stay outside Schengen. If we want to control our borders then why would we leave the EU? As previously stated we would have to sign up to freedom of movement of labour for EU members or else not be able to trade freely. And what is more, I believe (a belief not a fact I accept) that France would have no reason to continue with the bi-partite agreement to in effect police the UK border at Calais rather than Dover. So how would that control our borders better? Why would the French spend so much time controlling the border if we were no longer EU members? If the French authorities allow illicit migrants to hide in a lorry then they can save money, time and effort and leave it for UK Customs and Border control to deal with it when they arrive in Dover? It is hard to say how we have benefitted by being in Europe specifically since we cannot say what would have happened if we were not in Europe for the last 40 plus years. However back then we were trying to deal with a totally unserviceable National Debt, there was a 3 day working week, inflation was at dangerously high levels, and productivity was not high. We are now the fifth biggest economy in the world rather than the 6th biggest, we have far lower levels of unemployment than back in 1973, we have managed to trade globally, and we have attracted billions of pounds of inward investment from global companies (not just the EU). Whilst it is not possible to attribute these things to our membership of the EU we have not done that badly by being in it. There is undoubtedly a lack of accountability for a lot of the EU commissions expenditure, we undoubtedly pay in more as country than we receive back. There are problems caused by immigration, but there are also great benefits from inward migration. I shall vote remain because it appears to be the best option right now.

  12. Alistair Blyth 18th June 2016 at 1:30 pm

    What defines being English? Being English is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, and then going home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American or Australian shows on a Japanese or Korean TV, which will soon be powered by a French nuclear power station.

    And the most English thing of all? – Suspicion of anything foreign!!

    Vote Remain – you know it makes sense!

  13. The notion of British influence in Europe is entirely specious. Over the past two decades, Britain has voted against 72 proposed measures and been defeated on every single one.

    Plus, the need for trade agreements is entirely mythical. We can trade with any country we wish to without one. Also, no less than 10,000 employees of the EU are paid more than Britain’s PM. For doing what?

  14. There are facts and there are assumptions.

    Osborne is big on assumption as is Major, the totally discredited Blair, the Euro salaried Kinnock and many others who anticipate feeding at the trough.

    The facts are, we did okay pre EEC and we have not enjoyed any worthwhile increase in our standard of living post EEC. Bust/boom continues and we fund the EEC so that it can pay inflated salaries to its dignitaries, waste money, introduce nonsensical directives and more.

    Saying we should remain simply because we are already in smacks of mental deficiency

  15. @Duncan Gafney

    You seem to ignore that parts of history that don’t suit your argument.

    I can well remember the 1960’s and 70’s – before we had full on membership of the EU. We had our sovereignty, our freedom and our democracy and were a complete international laughing stock. Yes we had the freedom to strike every Tuesday (which we did with alacrity). We had your much vaunted democracy that put in the most woebegone government I think we have ever had. So bad that we had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail out. Our sovereignty enabled us to have world leading unemployment. It is no coincidence that since entering the full on EU we have (relatively) prospered.

    The Britain to which you refer has receded into the mists of time never to return. The Commonwealth is a quaint non-entity. Indeed Germany sells more to the Commonwealth than we do. Indeed all the Commonwealth wants from us is reparations for being a colonial interloper. We cannot retrieve the past. Things have moved on. The world is a very different place.

    As for entrepreneurs. I have been an entrepreneur for most of my working life. I started two completely different businesses. Richard Branson, perhaps one of our most renowned entrepreneurs is virulently pro Remain. I don’t know what businesses you have started, but believe me it isn’t difficult if you know what you are doing. Of course less red tape would be a good thing, but I think you ignore the fact that our Government generates more than its fair share. You only have to read the ‘Pinks’! AE is pretty awful red tape – n’est ce pas?

    Freedom? I don’t know which world you live in. Freedom to do what? If Cameron gets the boot, no one will get a say in who will replace him – outside the Tory party. The next election? Who? Boris or Corbyn? What a choice that would be. Local Council? Well I don’t know where you live, but many places are about as far removed from democracy as places like Karachi or Kabul.

    Your idea that the EU parliament is undemocratic is based in ignorance. In fact that parliament works more democratically that ours. But I don’t expect you to believe that so I suggest you do a little more research. Anyway at root what is this wonderful democracy? It is pandering to the lowest common denominator. That’s why we have had such an appalling campaign from both sides of the discussion.

  16. As financial advisers we know all about being governed by an unaccountable, money wasting monster.

    Do you really want to get into bed with the EU as well ? at least we get to vote for our government if they turn out to be rubbish then they walk !

    Freedom and democracy………not rules and regulations, that is just slavery when you don’t have the ability to choose.

  17. Julian Stevens 21st June 2016 at 2:04 pm

    The EU isn’t undemocratic. It’s anti-democratic.

  18. Democratic, democracy. I’m sick of hearing it. How democratic are we? A choice of two crap parties, neither of which I find in the least prepossessing. Do we get to say who leads these parties? No. So we get a vote every five years – for what? I know who my MP is, I wouldn’t employ him to make the tea – nor his predecessor (from the opposite party).

    Local council? Oh please. A collection of even bigger buffoons.

    As I keep repeating you may be keen on this chimera, but it nothing but pandering to the lowest common denominator. At least up to the 1960’s graduates had two votes and people had to wait until 21 before they could vote.

  19. Julian your statement that the EU is anti-democratic is at complete odds with your previous statement that ‘Over the past two decades, Britain has voted against 72 proposed measures and been defeated on every single one’ which has to be the definition of a democracy. 27 member states voting and the majority winning. You also fail to note the number of proposed measures Britain has voted for that were approved – probably as balance is a foreign (dirty) concept to you.

  20. Well put Matt. In fact as far as this precious word democracy is concerned the EU is somewhat more democratic that even our own Parliament. Anyway each country has an equal say when the vote which again is perfectly concomitant with pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    Slovenia has a population of 2 million. Germany has a population of about 83 million. Both have equal weight when it comes to a vote. To me that’s democratic.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm