View more on these topics

May dismisses City demands in Brexit plans

Britain's new Prime Minister Theresa May speaks outside 10 Downing Street in central London on July 13, 2016 on the day she takes office following the formal resignation of David Cameron. Theresa May took office as Britain's second female prime minister on July 13 charged with guiding the UK out of the European Union after a deeply devisive referendum campaign ended with Britain voting to leave and David Cameron resigning. / AFP / JUSTIN TALLIS (Photo credit should read JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images)
(Photo credit JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images)

Prime Minister Theresa May and her team have dismissed the demands of the City of London to agree an interim deal with the European Union to ease the transition of Brexit, according to reports.

Bloomberg sources say the Government will not prioritise the protection of the City after the UK has left the EU, signalling a change from the approach of former prime minister David Cameron, whose “remain” campaign focused on the financial services sector.

In her speech at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham on Sunday, May did not refer to the City but said a Brexit deal should involve free trade in goods and services as well as joint efforts on counter-terrorism initiatives.

But speaking to ITV this week she said: “I recognise the concern that business has, they want to see a smooth process as we go through these negotiations and transition out of the EU.

“I want to make sure we’re listening to business and I’ve had meetings with businesses big and small and government ministers are talking to businesses across different sectors.”

At the conference May announced article 50, which kick-starts the formal process for leaving the EU, will be triggered by the end of March.

Recommended

PRA admits lack of long-term planning on Brexit

The Prudential Regulation Authority has not carried out any contingency planning over the long-term effects of Brexit. Following a Freedom of Information request to the regulator, the PRA says it had conducted “significant contingency planning” for any market volatility that could have happened before, during, or in the immediate aftermath of the UK’s vote to […]

NATIXIS PORTFOLIO CLARITY – UK Portfolio Barometer

Natixis Global Asset Management’s quarterly Portfolio Barometer offers insights into UK financial advisers’ model portfolios and the allocation decisions they are making. Natixis’s Portfolio Research & Consulting Group works with financial advisers and other intermediaries to analyse and enhance their model portfolios and help them develop investor portfolios suited to today’s complex markets. The Portfolio […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 9 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. So the biggest single earner, the biggest pool of taxpayers who pay by far the greater proportion on income tax will not be prioritised. This is a business plan? Yet higher debt and people spending money they don’t have presumably is. A sinking pound and zero interest rates are the rewards for savers.

    How they can continue to maintain that sterling at a 30 year low will help exports is a bit of a mystery. We have to import our raw materials. That will make them more expensive. Only a low wage economy can thrive in such a situation. When you consider that one of our largest export earners is gems and precious metals (11.5% of total) you can see that the actual marginal profit is actually slight.

  2. PS And another effect of a sinking pound is becoming ever more evident. More of our businesses, infrastructure and manufacturing is now being snapped up by foreigners who recognise a cheap deal when they see one.

    The end result? We will all be working for European , Far Eastern and American firms.

  3. Time to move on. There was a time when FS was not the biggest contributor and it can be so again. No big contributors to scandals such RBS business unit ripping business off. No big contributors to scandals like the LIBOR rigging. No big contributors to mass miss-selling as in years gone by. A more balanced economy is what is need so other businesses can increase their share of contributions to the country. If the Banks want to continue to do business in EU they can and will but they will have to do it on different terms to now thats all. It is all a lot of hot air at the moment – nobody knows what will happen but I am sure it will be a big a catastrophe as we have seen thus far following the vote. The huge majority of the world is not in the EU. The huge majority of the world get on and do deals all over the world (ex-EU) and the rest of the world is doing quite nicely thank you very much. The EU is not the bee-all and end-all, except where red tape and bureaucracy are concerned. 40 years of practice have made the EU very good at that. The most free market in the world – the USA have been pulling their hair out at trying to do a deal with the EU for over a decade – no joy. Canada – 7 years and nearly managed it until the EU moved the goal posts once more and they Canadians pulled the plug (maybe temporarily or maybe permanently). The EU is a basket case, an economically broken and defunct model and UK PLC (including FS) can prosper hugely from reducing their exposure the EU economic basket case. FS business was only a fraction of the total UK annual levy which was paid by tax payers. If there are those who want to focus on maintaining a close relationship with the EU and if there are tariffs imposed, then the banks can pay these directly. I personally do not think the tariffs will be forthcoming as we will reciprocate and that will hurt too many European big businesses and many hundreds of thousands of jobs in each of many member states. However that will be a business case decided by the banks themselves. It will be a small amount in terms of annual turnover for them. The banks/unions always cry out about huge potential job losses when change comes along. Well, tough poop, its about time the directors of these huge organisations figure out ways to drive business forward in different places instead of wining and dining in the city 3 or 4 days a week and playing golf on friday afternoons. Its time they actually started to earn their salary and bonuses by being creative and effective in other countries. seek out new opportunities globally instead of sitting on their fat as*es comfortably doing what has long been the “established”, easy and cosy way of the past. Get with it guys – earn your corn and if you are not up to it then I suggest you naff off to live and work in Europe. The UK as an independent country, trading all over the world, will be an exciting place to run companies and there will be no great problem in getting world class leaders to replace the dinosaurs which exist in the FS world in the City now.
    Rant over, I am off to earn some money

  4. Nice rant Marty Y – you should be President of Faragelalaland. Very politically correct to trash the City but they contributed over 11% of the total tax take to the UK government in 2013 so obviously we should just let them slide or naff off to Europe. Did you happen to drive a bus with £345 million on the side in the referendum?

  5. Harry
    I am afraid that you are overlooking two rather bigger obstacles to any sort of priority or interim deal for the City over Europe: –
    1. Most EU leaders have clearly stated that negotiations on trade deals for goods and services cannot even be started until the UK has completed the Article 50 exit process. I don’t think there is a negotiator on the planet who could agree a deal if the only thing facing them on the other side of the table is a row of empty chairs!
    2. Those same EU leaders want to try and grab as much trade off the City as they can, so they are hardly likely to try and smooth the process or do a special deal are they?
    For all the special pleading that is going on, at the end of the day, the business decision will come down to whether the price of doing business based here is higher or lower than the cost of relocating (and possibly far more onerous EU regulation) from operating “over there”, wherever that might be.

  6. In essence I see that I may agree with you, insofar as your post indicates what a complete shambles everything is. The eventual winner may not be the EU or UK, but New York, then there will be egg on everyone’s face. Better to be as little disruptive as possible in order to secure what we have.

  7. Sorry – above rudely not addressed. Above in response to Kevin Neil

  8. We can open up the mines, rebuild all those factories we turned into flats, sell our goods to the Chinese, scrap the FS industry and return to a beautiful dystopian 1970’s dream.

Leave a comment