Why is English so important? You are going to speak it in the workplace, for sure, but why do you need that the people in the street are fluent in English? The couple of sentences that you'll exchange in the restaurant will come through even if people are not fluent.
One reason is that more people will be willing to move somewhere they understand the language. Sure you can get by in many places without knowing the language, but if you're going to live there for any significant length of time you're going to have to choose between learning it (a time commitment) or not fitting into society. Some people are happy with one or the other of those options, some people wouldn't be.
You also make moving somewhere more complicated. When I moved from UK to Paris, I was fine with work, with socialising, but my French was (and still isn't) nearly good enough to deal with government paperwork, appartment searching, reading up on tax law... etc. Sure, this problem can be solved either by the country making it easier for forigners, or by people moving paying for somebody to help them in these areas, but again its another barrier and/or additional cost.
There's also the matter of local work-related communications. Anything from taxis to tax offices, courier/mail services, etc...
In most places it wouldn't be hard to just declare that the workplace is English-speaking.
The problem is that if you want to attract non-local talent, it's harder to attract them somewhere where they'll have trouble with day-to-day life. English-speaking countries have a big advantage here: no matter what nationality a professional has they probably speak English well enough to be comfortable living there.
As another poster mentioned there are cities where the overall English proficiency is so high that it matters less (Stockholm, Berlin, Amsterdam, ...)
It's not in some places. You can easily get by in Stockholm, and to some extent Berlin, with just English. Then learn the local language gradually if you stay there. In fact it can be difficult to speak the native language as people will talk to you in English as soon as they realize you're not native.
I've actually had a harder time conversing with people in some parts of Scotland by phone, due to our different accents, than in some parts of Europe. Even though we both speak English as a first language. The UK can have bigger internal differences than the rest of the English speaking world.
Some of this is down to the international (US) English used in non-native English speaking places. I had to write my book on ASP.NET Core in American English, which took some getting used to. :)
Surely when writing a technical book, rather than a novel about some specifically English people or in a English context, it would be hard to make it specifically British rather than international English. I am trying to think of scenarios where englishms could even occur in an ASP.NET book.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be in international English, it definitely should. It just takes a bit of getting used to if that's not how you write already.
Because those companies will hire from the population living in those cities. English is the international language of business, so all things being equal, you'd choose a population that is fluent in English as a second language.
Firstly, if you think people who move to a country and don't learn the language well are assholes, and you don't want to be an asshole.
Second, you may need a decent command of the local language to access services and deal with the local authorities. For example, getting your car back if it's towed. Figuring out whether you can get a visa for that foreign consultant. Expressing your views to your political representatives. Getting emergency care at a hospital. Understanding laws written in the local language. Passing a driving test. Talking to your children's teachers. Working out how much you'll be taxed on that thing you're considering having imported.
I think scoring high on the list in the article requires that you can do all of the above with ease, without learning the language. That would be the case in e.g. Stockholm, Amsterdam, but perhaps more difficult in Paris or Barcelona.
That site was set up in 2013, when the EU moved to cap banker's bonuses, and the UK government went to court to stop them doing so. So the German car is appropriate.
If Scotland gets its Independence, then Edinburgh is a great candidate for a new London for the finance industry, as it's already got a decent finance presence.
What I meant is that I doubt Edinburgh could handle an influx of additional bankers on a large scale. I don't think there would be many places for them to go in the actual city itself.
Depends on how you count. If you include everything that is within a reasonable train/bus commute of the city center then Zurich has at least double the "population" of Edinburgh.
Not really. The UK decided itself to leave the EU. The UK claims that Scotland doesn't have the legal standing to make that call itself. That's a fairly clear sign of loss of sovereignty.
Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, has been in Brussels discussing this. In summary, it's complicated.
Firstly, economically, the remainder of the UK is a far larger market for Scotland than the EU. This wouldn't be a big issue if the UK can negotiate very good access to the single market but that's highly questionable. It also is complicated by the second point.
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that Scotland would be able to (re)enter the EU without joining the Euro. There are other exemptions the UK has that Scotland won't get but this is the biggy. It was the SNP's original economic plan to join the Euro. However, when the Euro went politically toxic following the crash, this was dropped and pretty much killed SNP's economic argument in the independence referendum. It's still pretty toxic but is probably less so given that the EU referendum has hosed Sterling.
Thirdly, a big issue in the independence referendum that hasn't gone away is that an EU entry requires unanimity and Spain are dead against separatist movements because of the Basque situation. It's possible that they will have their arm twisted by the EU commission if it means another net contributor added to the Euro block but it's not clear cut.
Fourthly, legally, they don't get to choose. They can't officially negotiate with the EU as they aren't treaty partners. Only Westminster can legally grant separation. If Scotland had voted independence the first time then it would have been followed through without a doubt. It is entirely possible the UK parliament will refuse a second time because of the outcome the first.
As to NI, all of the above and then some. The whole of the Troubles was really about NI's status in the United Kingdom and giving that up is unlikely to be a quiet affair. Maybe it won't become violent but there's more history there than in Scotland.
In short, I wouldn't even begin to know how to call this.
Highly unlikely. The EU generally negotiates as a bloc. It is almost inconceivable that there won't be some sort of trade deal between the EU and the UK and all of the EU would be party to it.
It's probably worth pointing out also that, currently, the UK has a lot of wiggle room when it comes to its relationship with the EU just because of its size. It is very unlikely that Scotland will be given any of this both because it's relatively small, economically, and it won;t be in a good negotiating position.
(I'm just playing along as devils advocate, with no skin in this game.)
It could be said that Scotland wanting to stay would be politically super-popular with the EU, who strive to draw a sharp divide between the benefits of the EU and the costs of leaving. On the other hand, England could see the compromise where Scotland is its trade partner in Europe as a win-win too.
I can't think of any situation where Westminster will prefer for Scotland or NI to secede. You'd simply be weakening yourself politically and economically, throwing away tax revenue, and looking pretty incompetent (even more so than now).
From the EU perspective, my own view is that if Sturgeon can find a way to persuade Scotland to go the full EU i.e. Eurozone, no opt outs and no rebate then I can definitely see Juncker finding a way to accommodate by doing some sort of quid pro quo with Spain. Whether the Eurozone economy will recover sufficiently (and/or the UK economy will tank sufficiently) to make that politically viable is anyone's guess.
For NI, if it wasn't for the super strong unionist movement, I'd say that there was a lot to be said for them going full EU: they're small, relatively poor, bordering Eire. But that's a really, really big if, probably enough to kill any real chance of it occurring in the next 20 years.
The UK and Denmark have a fairly unique opt-out from the Euro. Everyone else who has joined the EU in the reasonably recent-term have pledged to join at some point in the future. Sweden is supposed to join but for some reason has managed to avoid it
Indeed but they either entered the EU before the Euro and negotiated an opt out or they're in the process of adopting the Euro (albeit reluctantly in some cases).
From the EU's perspective, in order for them to go against the anti-separatists such as Spain, they'd need to have a big carrot. My guess is that full EU i.e. Euro, no opt outs and no rebate would be sufficient as it's fully in keeping with the "ever closer union" agenda. I can't see anything less being sufficiently beneficial to the EU to make the necessary compromises worth it.
No. Scotland had an independence referendum two years ago, and one of he factors in that vote was the prospect of Britain opting to leave the EU.
Scotland voted decisively to remain in the UK, and to go the way of the UK on EU membership.
This is notwithstanding the fact Scotland is financially dependent on the rest of the UK, and would not survive on its own, let alone meet the criteria for joining the EU on its own.
It's not true to claim that the EU referendum was a salient fact when Scotland voted No to independence. In fact the opposite is true, with people campaigning for Scotland to stay in the UK being very vocal about how Independence would lead to leaving the EU.
People have been trying to rewrite this bit of history, but even Cameron himself didn't expect to have to follow through on his EU referendum commitment, either losing the election totally or relying on the Lib-dems to veto it in coalition.
This however seems to be a non-sequitor, from the original point, about being a member of the EU being non- or less independent than being part of the UK. So not sure what your opening "No" refers to, or why you're re-capping your anti-independence talking points.
This happens a lot - Scotland gets painted as a financial ruin, too poor to join the EU. With oil prices low and a deficit it's not exactly Norway - but suggesting it's too poor to join the EU is farcical. I live in Czech Republic and it's a FAR worse off place than Scotland, yet it's one of the more prosperous of the newer EU countries. Comparing Scotland to Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Croatia (all beautiful places, no disrespect) the gap is even wider.
More likely is that Spain would make things difficult - but you didn't say this
gadders has a point. It'd be leaving one union to 'gain independence' only to join another, with a corresponding loss of sovereignty. Indeed the main reason (according to Lord Ashcroft's poll) people voted to leave the EU in the refendum was to regain sovereignty.
I covered this in the post you're replying to, but having to beg someone to let you leave vs. saying "we're leaving" shows a clear disparity in sovereignty. Most of the claims of loss of sovereignty to the EU were in fact nonsense.
This video by an expert in EU law covers it in detail:
> So let us start with a couple of myths. The first is the myth of sovereignty, there is no doubt whatsoever that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state under international law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the parliament in Westminster is the supreme law making authority in this country.
> Conversely there is no doubt whatsoever that the EU is not a sovereign entity, far from being a sovereign state, it is not even a sovereign entity, it has only those powers which has been given under the EU treaties. If the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law in the event of a conflict with domestic law, it is purely because our parliament has expressly instructed them to do so in our own legislation.
> So is the UK a sovereign state? Yes.
> Is parliament our supreme legislative authority? Yes.
> So why do we keep hearing about sovereignty in this debate. The fact is that sovereignty is not really an issue in the debate, it is about power and influence and sovereignty is being used as a shorthand to talk about power and influence.
I read the transcript of that video. He seems to be making conclusions about the Review of the Balance of Competencies between the UK and the EU that 1: the report itself doesn't make, and 2: I find very easy to disagree with (after reading a sample of the report myself, which is extensive).
The depth of his analysis (which goes no further than the Working Time Directive!) is about consistent with most self-proclaimed experts on Law that have never practiced it themselves. The same goes for his impartiality.
For instance, his conclusion that the UK is sovereign because parliament ultimately decides what the UK courts do is nonsense: what do you think would happen if our courts started ignoring the rulings of the ECJ?
We don't have to wonder, we'll find out what happens in that case, because it seems likely we'll cancel the UK law that tells the UK courts to do that as part of the process of Brexit. Something we can do, because we have sovereignty.
Unless they can arrange and commit to a neat handoff where UK leaves the EU, Scotland becomes independent, and Scotland joins the EU at the same time, there's a period of time when Scotland is outside the EU, and too much uncertainty for that to be feasible.
Well, they could, theoretically, print their own pound(as they already do) and tie its value to that of GBP. Or maybe don't do that, and have it separate, like US and Canadian dollars. I know you are going to say that if they join EU they would have to take the eruo - but I don't see why it couldn't be negotiated away, there's plenty of countries which agreed to take the Euro(Poland for example) but after the 2008 crisis, suspended the adaption indefinitely.
Scottish banks do indeed print their own bank notes (as do some in NI)- but they are for the GDP.
Mind you, you used to get situations (a while back) where foreign exchange places in Europe would give you worse exchange rates for Scottish notes rather than English ones.
Foreign exchanges giving worse exchange rate is better than the situation I've had many times in england, were I was simply unable to pay with or exchange northern irish or scottish pounds.
Someone told me that, by law, they have to accept those notes, but I still have ~40 NI pounds that I took to london on a trip a couple of years ago and had to take back with me.
It's a a very tender point with people because people get weirdly patriotic regarding Scottish Pound Notes. But they are a sort of bizzare currency.
Scottish notes are a legal currency, but not a legal tender. In fact there is no such thing as legal tender in Scotland. Even BoE notes are not legal tender in Scotland.
Legal tender only means you can legally pay down debts by court order in the given currency. BoE notes fulfill this job, but only in England & Wales.
"Someone told me that, by law, they have to accept those notes"
No, they don't even have to by law accept BoE notes in England. Only for paying down debts by law is that true.
Any shop or whatever can refuse or accept anything you give them.
However, to add further confusion, every single pound of Scottish notes is backed up by BoE pound sterling.
In the banks that print Scottish notes (Clydedale, RBS, Bank of Scotland) they have to keep an equal ammount of BoE Sterling.
They even created special notes so they could hold the currency in their vaults in Banks.
You can get £1,000,000 and £100,000,000 notes called Giants and Titans, which back up the Scottish and NI pound notes.
What you are legally entitled to do however (I think?) is go into any branch of Bank you have a Scottish note of and request the equal in BoE note.
So if you have £20 RBS Scottish note, you can go in to an RBS branch legally and claim your BoE note with a nice picture of Adam Smith on it :)
I'm assuming you aren't Scottish (the reference to "they") but I've never worked out why people outside of Scotland get so worked up about the fate of a small and relatively obscure country.
It's a country that experienced a diaspora - a lot of us are loosely connected, hence the interest. (It's nonsensical to call something obscure and then wonder why so many people are talking about it...)
There's an ongoing offshoring of certain divisions anyway, something the article alludes to with the Polish IT staff. That kind of thing is Brexit independent.
Michelin stars are not synonymous with having good restaurants. Something like a good steakhouse is not captured my Michelin, which is a very narrow definition of good food. There's also the requirement of variety, which London does extremely well: food from many different cultures, at different price points.
It's also not that clear that Brexit will force finance away from London, which is well entrenched.
Yes, but most cities have only a handful of Michelin places. There's no reason to think a city with a few rated restaurants will have more numerous or varied restaurants.
Though Brexit hasn't caused this and staying in EU won't prevent it from happening (probably cheaper housing would help the most). However it may accelerate some of this trends.
> It's also not that clear that Brexit will force finance away from London, which is well entrenched.
Maybe not all, but a lot.
Over the last few decades London has captured a lot of business that has to be conducted within the EU for regulatory and legal reasons. One example is clearing trades; London clearing houses have captured about 80% of clearing activity from exchanges all across Europe. there are many others. Another is the LSE/Berlin stock exchange merger which was going to see the German exchange hosted and operating from London. That deal will not now happen. Unless London keeps it's financial services 'passporting' arrangements, much business conducted in London will have to be conducted within the EU.
London will not keep it's passporting rights though. The EU is built on four fundamental principles. The free exchange on good, services, capital and workers. These are inextricably linked. Since canceling the free movement of workers was the defining issue of the referendum, we will lose all four. Thus the referendum result in incompatible with membership of the European Economic Area or any similar agreement. Think about it this way. Is it fair for London to have the right to conduct business on behalf of EU businesses in London, but EU workers not to have a right to work in those London businesses? If London businesses can trade in the EU under EU rules, then EU companies should be able to set up business in London under EU rules but won't be able to because London won't be part of the EU. That's how the EU thinks about these things. They would see such an arrangement as a fundamental betrayal of their own citizen's rights.
Finally, according to EU law no member country can negotiate trade agreements with the EU, or other EU countries, or countries outside the EU. That means by law, we cannot even start to negotiate any deals with anyone until _after_ we officially exit the EU, which will probably 2 years after invoking Article 50. These deals can take many years, it took Canada 7 years to negotiate the latest deal and that's still waiting on ratification by all member governments which is likely to take another couple of years. Our economy will be operating under bare minimum WTO rules with no special provisions with anyone anywhere for _years_.
Our best option may be to exit the EU, then immediately apply for European Economic Area membership under default terms. Since we're already compliant with all the regulations, we should be able to fast track that, but it would still probably take 2 years or more during which we will be cut out of large swathes of the EU financial services industry. That business will have to be conducted somewhere, but it won't be in London. It would also mean totally betraying many key issues in the referendum though.
So this all doesn't mean London will stop being a center for finance, but when we talk about a large, double digit percentage of business leaving London it's not because people want to take that business elsewhere, it's because they will be legally obliged to.
Given the last couple of months, I think there's no evidence at all to support the assertion that British politicians aren't idiots.
Ignoring the legalities, the Leave vote crossed the Rubicon.
The EU has always tolerated rather than enjoyed the company of the British establishment. So the EU is happy to see the back of the UK.
The British establishment still thinks it's the 19th century, so it's happy not to have anything to do with the 21st.
The biggest loser will be the City - which is beyond ironic considering the UK has literally spent the last few decades retooling its economy around the City. Now it's about to throw that away.
We're not great at much else. The things we are good at - culture, R&D, farming, tourism - all work better in the EU than out.
In practice, immigration is a meaningless non-issue.
Getting rid of Polish plumbers won't suddenly reveal thousands of competent English plumbers hiding in a cupboard somewhere. It takes time to train people up, and the biggest source of training money has been the EU.
It takes time to rebuild manufacturing, and the biggest source of funding for rebuilding manufacturing has been the EU.
It takes time to improve education, and the biggest source of funding for improved education - especially at postgrad level - has been the EU.
We could move towards becoming a startup economy, but if all the VC money moves to Europe, we won't have the money to do it natively.
The Leave vote is possibly the single most stupid decision in all of British history.
"The EU has always tolerated rather than enjoyed the company of the British establishment. So the EU is happy to see the back of the UK."
This assertion is almost as myopic as those from the Leave campaign.
The UK is one of the richest and most populous countries in the Union, even without considering the repercussions on other members, Brexit will mean a serious blow for the EU in terms of trade loss and budget financing.
I don't think anybody in the EU should be happy of seeing UK's back, regardless of their opinions of its leaders.
In this Guardian article, they say the only grounds for suspending an EU member are a breach of EU values, such as freedom & democracy. Maybe they could invoke that on grounds of ignoring the referendum, but it might be a precedent the EU don't want to set:
Holland and Denmark both had EU referendums and went back for a second referendum with revised terms which passed. The British people decided to join the EU in a referendum, decided to leave the EU in a referendum and absolutely have the right to vote to stay in it again in another referendum.
The whole process is stupid, but perfectly democratic.
The referendum was for leaving the EU, nothing was said about what would happen afterwards, so keeping the free movement of those 4 things could still be on the cards, in which case the whole thing was a complete and utter waste of time (which I believe to be true anyway) and the idiots that voted purely because of immigration will be sorely disappointed. Save for actually not exiting the EU (referendum was non-binding), unless the risk assessment guys at financial institutions are complete morons it's a foregone conclusion that they'll be relocating.
> Another is the LSE/Berlin stock exchange merger which was going to see the German exchange hosted and operating from London. That deal will not now happen.
DAX is in Frankfurt, not Berlin.
What will be interesting is if the deal does go on, but happens in reverse. It might provide an easier path for LSE-listed companies with a heavy European interest to move to DAX.
> we cannot even start to negotiate any deals with anyone until _after_ we officially exit the EU, which will probably 2 years after invoking Article 50
The two year window post-A50 is specifically for such negotiations. However I'm also pessimistic since I don't think 2 years is enough nor will the EU want to extend it (which would need unanimous support for member states)
> The two year window post-A50 is specifically for such negotiations
Actually not, the two years is just for getting the divorce right. Most experts indicate that a new arrangement can only be found after the divorce is complete. Though all that probably depends on what kind of leverage rEU wants to keep in dealing with the UK.
I think before the referendum everyone assumed the 2 years was to negotiate a new deal. Certainly all the pro-Leave campaigners seemed to think so. I'm a bit shocked that the remain camp didn't point this out earlier. It seems to me neither side really had any good idea of what exit actually would involve.
The 2 years is also a maximum time period. On that date, the EU treaties no longer apply to the UK, whether negotiations have been concluded or not. The only way to extend that is if the EU unanimously agrees to continue negotiations.
I think the reason everyone assumed that was because that was the general consensus. The idea that the EU and UK can't negotiate new trading terms until after the 2 years is up seems to be something the European Commission pulled out their ass in the last day or so.
What they've said is that they're not willing to negotiate BEFORE the 2 years is TRIGGERED. i.e. they don't want the UK to foot-drag on triggering A50 and prolonging the process indefinitely. Basically, "shit or get off the pot"
The EU position is that if the UK is really going to trigger it, then they should do it as soon as the next PM is installed.
Again, the 2 year window is explicitly for these negotiations. It has not started yet, though.
I'm not confused, it's just a mess. No negotiations before the two years is triggered was the original EU position. The EU (or at least their trade comissioner) has come up with a new escalation, claiming that the UK also can't negotiate any post-Brexit trading terms as part of the exit negotiations, that they have to leave the EU first before they can start negotiating on how to trade with the EU: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malm... This is bad not just for the UK, but also for EU states reliant on trading with the UK.
Everybody is pulling things out of assess: Cameron backtracked in his promise to trigger Article 50 immediately after the referendum. And the EU is interpreting fuzzy law however it will please.
That's what happens when goodwill gets trashed, and trust thrown out the window.
just nitpicking: DAX is a stock market index consisting of the 30 major German companies trading on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange [0], so you can't just move to DAX.
Thanks you, I was getting confused between Börse Berlin and Börse Frankfurt. Inexcusable, as I used to work for Equiduct which is owned by Börse Berlin.
> Since canceling the free movement of workers was the defining issue of the referendum,
I don't think there's any valid inference from "X is what a lot of people thought they would get by voting Leave" to "X is at all likely to happen if/when the UK leaves the EU".
A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were voting for an extra £350M/week that would go to the NHS. Nigel Farage admitted within an hour of the result that that was never going to happen, and I haven't heard anyone from the Leave camp saying anything different.
A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were voting for the UK's businesses not to have to comply with EU regulations. But I think the most likely paths forward involve the UK continuing to do that, in order to be able to continue trading on favourable terms with the EU.
A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were voting for much lower immigration. A bunch of senior people from the Leave camp have made it clear that that is unlikely to happen.
You talk about "totally betraying many key issues in the referendum", but that's already happened, and it's pretty clear that in so far as there was any coherent plan on the Leave side it was always intended to happen.
(... But: A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were giving a big fuck-you to The Establishment and communicating their dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the UK. That, they managed just fine.)
I'm not, for the avoidance of doubt, saying that if/when the UK leaves the EU we will still have free exchange of goods, services, capital and workers, or that London will keep its passporting rights. We might well lose those things. But we can't tell that we will just because keeping them would mean not giving Leave voters what they thought they were voting for. Leave voters aren't going to get a lot of what they thought they were voting for, and they never were.
> I'm not, for the avoidance of doubt, saying that if/when the UK leaves the EU we will still have free exchange of goods, services, capital and workers, or that London will keep its passporting rights. We might well lose those things.
We are guaranteed to lose those things at least for some time, because we can't even begin to negotiate getting them back until we're out of the EU.
If the UK negotiate to be part of the EEA within 2 years of activating Article 50, then it will be a smooth transition.
The other unknown that parent did not mention is how hard will the EU make those negotiation. Everybody economical interest is that the EU accept, even politically punishing an ex-member for leaving is going to have consequences in the EU and internationally ( Eurosceptic movement have been boosted by the treatment of the people in Greece and other countries)
However, that's a bit similar that the whole referendum but applied to Europe in general, EU may well take crazy decision. See for example how Junker is talking about the UK as if it has spit in his face (remember that's a narrow victory for Leave mostly based on outright lies), then meeting the Scottish PM forgetting the referendum from 2 years ago and even saying the "Brexit will not be an amicable divorce" and anyone knows that amicable in the context of a divorce does not mean friendly, it is only amicable by comparison with the destructive mess of going through legal proceedings.
edit: The number of EU people living in the UK is more than 3 millions, that's more than the 7 smaller member of the EU, that's more people than the difference between Leave and Remain (disclaimer: that also includes me) That's what make me the most uncomfortable with Junker, he does not care about the people, he just react like a kid because the UK is making him look bad.
> If the UK negotiate to be part of the EEA within 2 years of activating Article 50, then it will be a smooth transition.
As I have tried to explain, negotiating to join the EEA while still a member of the EU is illegal under EU law. They can only start that negotiation after actually leaving the EU, not after triggering Article 50.
What is your legal status after triggering Article 50 ?
Are you still considered a full member of the EU, meaning you retain all your rights including voting ?
Lots of things are illegal for member state, basically everything that the UK needs to do in the 2 years period is illegal for a member state. Remain have been bad at campaigning but forgetting to say that -actually- they won't be able to initiate any trade negotiation until basically the day all their deals expire seems like a major blunder. If that's indeed the case, the UK will have no choice but not trigger Article 50.
Absent Article 50, surely everything the UK needs to do in the 2 years period would be legal for an EU state, because Greenland managed it? The trick is/was that EU rules (fairly obviously) allow the EU states to negotiate changes to the agreements binding the EU together, including negotiating an exit whereby one of them leaves the EU but retains some access to the internal markets.
> These deals can take many years, it took Canada 7 years to negotiate the latest deal and that's still waiting on ratification by all member governments which is likely to take another couple of years.
You seem to be insinuating that is Canada's fault for taking 7 years (actually, 5.5) to negotiate a trade deal with 28 member states simultaneously.
Needless to say, CETA is more likely to be vetoed by either Czech Republic, Bulgaria or Romania, than ratified.
My apologies for any such implication, I was only intending to point out how long and difficult such negotiations are likely to be. Blame really wasn't in my mind.
> It's also not that clear that Brexit will force finance away from London, which is well entrenched.
There is a good case for the EU to forbid banks doing EUR operations (at least those intended to trade with The eurozone) outside the EU.
The UK will probably intensify operations with tax heavens (or become a tax heaven itself), so the EU will be well advised to supervise financtial transactions to/from the UK.
>Badly hurt by the financial crisis, the Dutch have capped bankers’ bonuses at just 20 percent of their annual salaries — a far more drastic curb than was imposed by the European Union. Several bankers told me that unless the Dutch repealed the cap, they wouldn’t consider moving to Amsterdam. “I’d love to relocate to Amsterdam,” one top executive told me. “But I don’t think we’re wanted there.”
If there is market incentive to move banking to Holland, it will happen. The bankers will move where the jobs go, they don't have much say in the matter.
I'm not sure we can separate the incentive effects of the company making more money, or the bankers themselves making more money. The people at the top of these companies are bankers themselves, and they have bonuses too.
Profit differential in billions on investments would be a great market incentive. Good luck holding this off by forming a mid-level bank clerk conspiracy circle.
The large salaries paid to bankers are based on the idea that elite bankers are a rare and precious commodity - one that it is worth paying for. Presumably this is elite bankers are the most connected and collaborate to rig markets best.
Presumably if a bank moved to amsterdam, it would not be able to hire the top bankers and would be left out of important money making schemes like the recent Libor conspiracy.
This is kind of saying that the salaries paid for tech talent in the Valley is an outcome of tech elites conspiracy. While in reality it's a function of history, location, network effect and estate prices.
Big enough market disruption can easily tip the scales. And leaving the EU trade zone is pretty destructive for banking and European HQ beachheads in London.
What about banks that weren't bailed out, why should they be punished for the failure of their competitors? What about banks that have repaid their bailouts with interest?
But more than that, why this focus on bonuses rather than total compensation? Surely what matters is how much someone is paid, not the details of how that payment is structured.
Bonus is usually paid out as a reward for short term goals, and that creates incentives to take higher risk in the short term.
Total compensation does not have this incentive.
I am a banker (although we are a startup bank), and for us the bonus is structured so that it is not paid in full immediately. Quite a bit is held back in case someone does something unhealthy to the company to reach their short term bonus goals.
This is not common practice though.
> Bonus is usually paid out as a reward for short term goals, and that creates incentives to take higher risk in the short term. Total compensation does not have this incentive.
If specific pay structures create bad behaviour then perhaps we should ban them, sure. But banning bonuses in general seems far too broad. How many people complaining about bonuses on this site have pay that includes stock or options - aren't those much the same thing?
Credit Suisse once paid the bonuses in `toxic assets'. A brilliant move: the PR was excellent, toxic assets moved off their balance sheets, and the bankers actually made a better bonus than they would have gotten in cash. (The toxic assets turned out to pay more when held to maturity than many models had forecast.)
I don't think you can read too much into these sorts of statements, whichever way they point. They have existing staff they need to keep happy for the moment.
They are not backtracking, HSBC have never said they would move their HQ out of London. Since 2/3 of their business is in Asia it doesn't make as much difference if London is in the EU or not compared to many other banks.
What HSBC have said is that they may move about 1,000 jobs to Paris. That's because those jobs are tied to services that by law must be provided within the EU legal and regulatory environment. When London leaves that environment those jobs will go, not just at HSBC but across our financial sector. See my other larger post on this page for further details.
It was reported in the media and by politicians as, "banks will move to Paris and to Frankfurt if Brexit happens", and articles like this only perpetuate that talking point.
One thing this article doesn't mention is the political risk in each place.
Amsterdam is ranked high, but many consider it The Netherlands the next "domino to fall" since the far-right anti-EU party is polling so well there. So if you move business there, you might be back to square one a year later.
It's all about risk. If the negotiation fall through and GB won't have access to the single market it makes sense to move the business. If you want to trade with a customer in France you may be legally required to have a business there or in EU.
Frankfurt has some smaller outpost cities, which are extremely rich like Königsberg and Bad Homburg (this is why Frankfurt is not Munich-expensive and nowhere near London-expensive) and there are a few major cities from which you can easily commute like Darmstadt, Offenbach, Wiesbaden and Mainz plus people from villages all over Hesse work in Frankfurt.
Still Frankfurt itself is a small village with an airport and a few towers. The city itself calls it "the biggest village in Hesse" [0].
I'm always a bit surprised to see entries like "good restaurants and cultural offerings" on lists like these. Aren't the people these companies are trying to hire really really hardcore workaholics? How much time do they really spend going to the opera?
Maybe I'm an outlier, but my own tastes in culture are amply satisfied by a decent bookstore and movie theatre, or in a pinch Amazon and Netflix, these days.
For finance types, I would say it's largely about status - i.e. having something 'better' than other people. Even if they cannot fully appreciate these things.
The article doesn't seem to consider that London may become more attractive to the financial sector. You know what banks hate? Regulation, you know what the EU has loads of .... that's right regulation. The UK will be able to offer a environment where financial services can thrive. Seems to have worked out for Singapore, and London already has quite the head start.
These articles are mostly FUD and partly from the bankers as a not so gentle prod to the UK government (Don't forget us, the banks) to deregulate a bit. We'll most likely get a Troy government next so deregulation is almost certain.
138 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadYou also make moving somewhere more complicated. When I moved from UK to Paris, I was fine with work, with socialising, but my French was (and still isn't) nearly good enough to deal with government paperwork, appartment searching, reading up on tax law... etc. Sure, this problem can be solved either by the country making it easier for forigners, or by people moving paying for somebody to help them in these areas, but again its another barrier and/or additional cost.
There's also the matter of local work-related communications. Anything from taxis to tax offices, courier/mail services, etc...
The problem is that if you want to attract non-local talent, it's harder to attract them somewhere where they'll have trouble with day-to-day life. English-speaking countries have a big advantage here: no matter what nationality a professional has they probably speak English well enough to be comfortable living there.
As another poster mentioned there are cities where the overall English proficiency is so high that it matters less (Stockholm, Berlin, Amsterdam, ...)
I've actually had a harder time conversing with people in some parts of Scotland by phone, due to our different accents, than in some parts of Europe. Even though we both speak English as a first language. The UK can have bigger internal differences than the rest of the English speaking world.
Some of this is down to the international (US) English used in non-native English speaking places. I had to write my book on ASP.NET Core in American English, which took some getting used to. :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0863046/quotes?item=qt0449604
Second, you may need a decent command of the local language to access services and deal with the local authorities. For example, getting your car back if it's towed. Figuring out whether you can get a visa for that foreign consultant. Expressing your views to your political representatives. Getting emergency care at a hospital. Understanding laws written in the local language. Passing a driving test. Talking to your children's teachers. Working out how much you'll be taxed on that thing you're considering having imported.
Perhaps a Toyota Avensis, built in Derbyshire...?
That article should have considered Edimburg, even if it might have been a journalistic faux-pas.
I'll admit to possibly being a bit of NIMBY in my comment as I live and work in central Edinburgh!
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/728
Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament, would be free to charge what taxes it wants, and have more power over where that would go.
Perhaps England can leave the EU but other NI and Scotland stay?
Firstly, economically, the remainder of the UK is a far larger market for Scotland than the EU. This wouldn't be a big issue if the UK can negotiate very good access to the single market but that's highly questionable. It also is complicated by the second point.
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that Scotland would be able to (re)enter the EU without joining the Euro. There are other exemptions the UK has that Scotland won't get but this is the biggy. It was the SNP's original economic plan to join the Euro. However, when the Euro went politically toxic following the crash, this was dropped and pretty much killed SNP's economic argument in the independence referendum. It's still pretty toxic but is probably less so given that the EU referendum has hosed Sterling.
Thirdly, a big issue in the independence referendum that hasn't gone away is that an EU entry requires unanimity and Spain are dead against separatist movements because of the Basque situation. It's possible that they will have their arm twisted by the EU commission if it means another net contributor added to the Euro block but it's not clear cut.
Fourthly, legally, they don't get to choose. They can't officially negotiate with the EU as they aren't treaty partners. Only Westminster can legally grant separation. If Scotland had voted independence the first time then it would have been followed through without a doubt. It is entirely possible the UK parliament will refuse a second time because of the outcome the first.
As to NI, all of the above and then some. The whole of the Troubles was really about NI's status in the United Kingdom and giving that up is unlikely to be a quiet affair. Maybe it won't become violent but there's more history there than in Scotland.
In short, I wouldn't even begin to know how to call this.
IE could it grow fat being the middle man between the Leavers and the EU?
It's probably worth pointing out also that, currently, the UK has a lot of wiggle room when it comes to its relationship with the EU just because of its size. It is very unlikely that Scotland will be given any of this both because it's relatively small, economically, and it won;t be in a good negotiating position.
It could be said that Scotland wanting to stay would be politically super-popular with the EU, who strive to draw a sharp divide between the benefits of the EU and the costs of leaving. On the other hand, England could see the compromise where Scotland is its trade partner in Europe as a win-win too.
From the EU perspective, my own view is that if Sturgeon can find a way to persuade Scotland to go the full EU i.e. Eurozone, no opt outs and no rebate then I can definitely see Juncker finding a way to accommodate by doing some sort of quid pro quo with Spain. Whether the Eurozone economy will recover sufficiently (and/or the UK economy will tank sufficiently) to make that politically viable is anyone's guess.
For NI, if it wasn't for the super strong unionist movement, I'd say that there was a lot to be said for them going full EU: they're small, relatively poor, bordering Eire. But that's a really, really big if, probably enough to kill any real chance of it occurring in the next 20 years.
Why? There are plenty of EU countries without the Euro..
From the EU's perspective, in order for them to go against the anti-separatists such as Spain, they'd need to have a big carrot. My guess is that full EU i.e. Euro, no opt outs and no rebate would be sufficient as it's fully in keeping with the "ever closer union" agenda. I can't see anything less being sufficiently beneficial to the EU to make the necessary compromises worth it.
Scotland voted decisively to remain in the UK, and to go the way of the UK on EU membership.
This is notwithstanding the fact Scotland is financially dependent on the rest of the UK, and would not survive on its own, let alone meet the criteria for joining the EU on its own.
People have been trying to rewrite this bit of history, but even Cameron himself didn't expect to have to follow through on his EU referendum commitment, either losing the election totally or relying on the Lib-dems to veto it in coalition.
This however seems to be a non-sequitor, from the original point, about being a member of the EU being non- or less independent than being part of the UK. So not sure what your opening "No" refers to, or why you're re-capping your anti-independence talking points.
More likely is that Spain would make things difficult - but you didn't say this
This video by an expert in EU law covers it in detail:
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/16/watch-dishonesty-ind...
> So let us start with a couple of myths. The first is the myth of sovereignty, there is no doubt whatsoever that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state under international law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the parliament in Westminster is the supreme law making authority in this country.
> Conversely there is no doubt whatsoever that the EU is not a sovereign entity, far from being a sovereign state, it is not even a sovereign entity, it has only those powers which has been given under the EU treaties. If the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law in the event of a conflict with domestic law, it is purely because our parliament has expressly instructed them to do so in our own legislation.
> So is the UK a sovereign state? Yes.
> Is parliament our supreme legislative authority? Yes.
> So why do we keep hearing about sovereignty in this debate. The fact is that sovereignty is not really an issue in the debate, it is about power and influence and sovereignty is being used as a shorthand to talk about power and influence.
The depth of his analysis (which goes no further than the Working Time Directive!) is about consistent with most self-proclaimed experts on Law that have never practiced it themselves. The same goes for his impartiality.
For instance, his conclusion that the UK is sovereign because parliament ultimately decides what the UK courts do is nonsense: what do you think would happen if our courts started ignoring the rulings of the ECJ?
They won't be allowed to use the Pound.
So, they will end up like Greece.
I really why people don't see this.
It's the BRITISH parliment in WESTMINISTER who will decide who uses the pound. NOT YOU, Mr/Mrs Commentator.
And they will decide to not allow scotland to use it.
Mind you, you used to get situations (a while back) where foreign exchange places in Europe would give you worse exchange rates for Scottish notes rather than English ones.
Someone told me that, by law, they have to accept those notes, but I still have ~40 NI pounds that I took to london on a trip a couple of years ago and had to take back with me.
It's a a very tender point with people because people get weirdly patriotic regarding Scottish Pound Notes. But they are a sort of bizzare currency.
Scottish notes are a legal currency, but not a legal tender. In fact there is no such thing as legal tender in Scotland. Even BoE notes are not legal tender in Scotland.
Legal tender only means you can legally pay down debts by court order in the given currency. BoE notes fulfill this job, but only in England & Wales.
"Someone told me that, by law, they have to accept those notes"
No, they don't even have to by law accept BoE notes in England. Only for paying down debts by law is that true.
Any shop or whatever can refuse or accept anything you give them.
However, to add further confusion, every single pound of Scottish notes is backed up by BoE pound sterling.
In the banks that print Scottish notes (Clydedale, RBS, Bank of Scotland) they have to keep an equal ammount of BoE Sterling.
They even created special notes so they could hold the currency in their vaults in Banks.
You can get £1,000,000 and £100,000,000 notes called Giants and Titans, which back up the Scottish and NI pound notes.
What you are legally entitled to do however (I think?) is go into any branch of Bank you have a Scottish note of and request the equal in BoE note.
So if you have £20 RBS Scottish note, you can go in to an RBS branch legally and claim your BoE note with a nice picture of Adam Smith on it :)
I don't see why will end up like Greece. Not all countries using the Euro end up like Greece.
Michelin stars are not synonymous with having good restaurants. Something like a good steakhouse is not captured my Michelin, which is a very narrow definition of good food. There's also the requirement of variety, which London does extremely well: food from many different cultures, at different price points.
It's also not that clear that Brexit will force finance away from London, which is well entrenched.
Michelin rates all kinds of places, including sushi bars, Chinese takeaways and steakhouses.
Though Brexit hasn't caused this and staying in EU won't prevent it from happening (probably cheaper housing would help the most). However it may accelerate some of this trends.
Maybe not all, but a lot.
Over the last few decades London has captured a lot of business that has to be conducted within the EU for regulatory and legal reasons. One example is clearing trades; London clearing houses have captured about 80% of clearing activity from exchanges all across Europe. there are many others. Another is the LSE/Berlin stock exchange merger which was going to see the German exchange hosted and operating from London. That deal will not now happen. Unless London keeps it's financial services 'passporting' arrangements, much business conducted in London will have to be conducted within the EU.
London will not keep it's passporting rights though. The EU is built on four fundamental principles. The free exchange on good, services, capital and workers. These are inextricably linked. Since canceling the free movement of workers was the defining issue of the referendum, we will lose all four. Thus the referendum result in incompatible with membership of the European Economic Area or any similar agreement. Think about it this way. Is it fair for London to have the right to conduct business on behalf of EU businesses in London, but EU workers not to have a right to work in those London businesses? If London businesses can trade in the EU under EU rules, then EU companies should be able to set up business in London under EU rules but won't be able to because London won't be part of the EU. That's how the EU thinks about these things. They would see such an arrangement as a fundamental betrayal of their own citizen's rights.
Finally, according to EU law no member country can negotiate trade agreements with the EU, or other EU countries, or countries outside the EU. That means by law, we cannot even start to negotiate any deals with anyone until _after_ we officially exit the EU, which will probably 2 years after invoking Article 50. These deals can take many years, it took Canada 7 years to negotiate the latest deal and that's still waiting on ratification by all member governments which is likely to take another couple of years. Our economy will be operating under bare minimum WTO rules with no special provisions with anyone anywhere for _years_.
Our best option may be to exit the EU, then immediately apply for European Economic Area membership under default terms. Since we're already compliant with all the regulations, we should be able to fast track that, but it would still probably take 2 years or more during which we will be cut out of large swathes of the EU financial services industry. That business will have to be conducted somewhere, but it won't be in London. It would also mean totally betraying many key issues in the referendum though.
So this all doesn't mean London will stop being a center for finance, but when we talk about a large, double digit percentage of business leaving London it's not because people want to take that business elsewhere, it's because they will be legally obliged to.
Ignoring the legalities, the Leave vote crossed the Rubicon.
The EU has always tolerated rather than enjoyed the company of the British establishment. So the EU is happy to see the back of the UK.
The British establishment still thinks it's the 19th century, so it's happy not to have anything to do with the 21st.
The biggest loser will be the City - which is beyond ironic considering the UK has literally spent the last few decades retooling its economy around the City. Now it's about to throw that away.
We're not great at much else. The things we are good at - culture, R&D, farming, tourism - all work better in the EU than out.
In practice, immigration is a meaningless non-issue.
Getting rid of Polish plumbers won't suddenly reveal thousands of competent English plumbers hiding in a cupboard somewhere. It takes time to train people up, and the biggest source of training money has been the EU.
It takes time to rebuild manufacturing, and the biggest source of funding for rebuilding manufacturing has been the EU.
It takes time to improve education, and the biggest source of funding for improved education - especially at postgrad level - has been the EU.
We could move towards becoming a startup economy, but if all the VC money moves to Europe, we won't have the money to do it natively.
The Leave vote is possibly the single most stupid decision in all of British history.
This assertion is almost as myopic as those from the Leave campaign.
The UK is one of the richest and most populous countries in the Union, even without considering the repercussions on other members, Brexit will mean a serious blow for the EU in terms of trade loss and budget financing.
I don't think anybody in the EU should be happy of seeing UK's back, regardless of their opinions of its leaders.
It is really a lose-lose situation.
> Brexit will mean a serious blow for the EU in terms of trade loss and budget financing.
The UK can get a norwegian deal: same trade, same budget, no UK blocking.
The Germans and more market oriented Europeans further east liked the British as a counterweight to the statist French, I think.
More importantly, can the EU actually kick out Britain, if Britain decides not to go forward with the leave?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/article-50-b...
The referendum is only advisory under British law so they'd have no legal basis on which to do that.
It would fuel civil unrest and favor far-right parties.
As much as it pains me, it is not really an option.
The whole process is stupid, but perfectly democratic.
DAX is in Frankfurt, not Berlin.
What will be interesting is if the deal does go on, but happens in reverse. It might provide an easier path for LSE-listed companies with a heavy European interest to move to DAX.
> we cannot even start to negotiate any deals with anyone until _after_ we officially exit the EU, which will probably 2 years after invoking Article 50
The two year window post-A50 is specifically for such negotiations. However I'm also pessimistic since I don't think 2 years is enough nor will the EU want to extend it (which would need unanimous support for member states)
Actually not, the two years is just for getting the divorce right. Most experts indicate that a new arrangement can only be found after the divorce is complete. Though all that probably depends on what kind of leverage rEU wants to keep in dealing with the UK.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on...
What they've said is that they're not willing to negotiate BEFORE the 2 years is TRIGGERED. i.e. they don't want the UK to foot-drag on triggering A50 and prolonging the process indefinitely. Basically, "shit or get off the pot"
The EU position is that if the UK is really going to trigger it, then they should do it as soon as the next PM is installed.
Again, the 2 year window is explicitly for these negotiations. It has not started yet, though.
That's what happens when goodwill gets trashed, and trust thrown out the window.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAX
I don't think there's any valid inference from "X is what a lot of people thought they would get by voting Leave" to "X is at all likely to happen if/when the UK leaves the EU".
A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were voting for an extra £350M/week that would go to the NHS. Nigel Farage admitted within an hour of the result that that was never going to happen, and I haven't heard anyone from the Leave camp saying anything different.
A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were voting for the UK's businesses not to have to comply with EU regulations. But I think the most likely paths forward involve the UK continuing to do that, in order to be able to continue trading on favourable terms with the EU.
A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were voting for much lower immigration. A bunch of senior people from the Leave camp have made it clear that that is unlikely to happen.
You talk about "totally betraying many key issues in the referendum", but that's already happened, and it's pretty clear that in so far as there was any coherent plan on the Leave side it was always intended to happen.
(... But: A lot of people thought that by voting Leave they were giving a big fuck-you to The Establishment and communicating their dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the UK. That, they managed just fine.)
I'm not, for the avoidance of doubt, saying that if/when the UK leaves the EU we will still have free exchange of goods, services, capital and workers, or that London will keep its passporting rights. We might well lose those things. But we can't tell that we will just because keeping them would mean not giving Leave voters what they thought they were voting for. Leave voters aren't going to get a lot of what they thought they were voting for, and they never were.
If anyone of voting age believes that, they are undoubtedly an idiot.
> I'm not, for the avoidance of doubt, saying that if/when the UK leaves the EU we will still have free exchange of goods, services, capital and workers, or that London will keep its passporting rights. We might well lose those things.
We are guaranteed to lose those things at least for some time, because we can't even begin to negotiate getting them back until we're out of the EU.
The other unknown that parent did not mention is how hard will the EU make those negotiation. Everybody economical interest is that the EU accept, even politically punishing an ex-member for leaving is going to have consequences in the EU and internationally ( Eurosceptic movement have been boosted by the treatment of the people in Greece and other countries)
However, that's a bit similar that the whole referendum but applied to Europe in general, EU may well take crazy decision. See for example how Junker is talking about the UK as if it has spit in his face (remember that's a narrow victory for Leave mostly based on outright lies), then meeting the Scottish PM forgetting the referendum from 2 years ago and even saying the "Brexit will not be an amicable divorce" and anyone knows that amicable in the context of a divorce does not mean friendly, it is only amicable by comparison with the destructive mess of going through legal proceedings.
edit: The number of EU people living in the UK is more than 3 millions, that's more than the 7 smaller member of the EU, that's more people than the difference between Leave and Remain (disclaimer: that also includes me) That's what make me the most uncomfortable with Junker, he does not care about the people, he just react like a kid because the UK is making him look bad.
As I have tried to explain, negotiating to join the EEA while still a member of the EU is illegal under EU law. They can only start that negotiation after actually leaving the EU, not after triggering Article 50.
Are you still considered a full member of the EU, meaning you retain all your rights including voting ?
Lots of things are illegal for member state, basically everything that the UK needs to do in the 2 years period is illegal for a member state. Remain have been bad at campaigning but forgetting to say that -actually- they won't be able to initiate any trade negotiation until basically the day all their deals expire seems like a major blunder. If that's indeed the case, the UK will have no choice but not trigger Article 50.
Yep.
And to your other points, yes again. Article 50 is a political and economic suicide pill.
The BBC concludes that the trade commissioner is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct.
You seem to be insinuating that is Canada's fault for taking 7 years (actually, 5.5) to negotiate a trade deal with 28 member states simultaneously.
Needless to say, CETA is more likely to be vetoed by either Czech Republic, Bulgaria or Romania, than ratified.
My hometown steakhouse, Alexander's, carries a Michelin star
There is a good case for the EU to forbid banks doing EUR operations (at least those intended to trade with The eurozone) outside the EU.
The UK will probably intensify operations with tax heavens (or become a tax heaven itself), so the EU will be well advised to supervise financtial transactions to/from the UK.
My deepest sympathy goes out to the poor bankers.
I'm not sure we can separate the incentive effects of the company making more money, or the bankers themselves making more money. The people at the top of these companies are bankers themselves, and they have bonuses too.
Presumably if a bank moved to amsterdam, it would not be able to hire the top bankers and would be left out of important money making schemes like the recent Libor conspiracy.
Big enough market disruption can easily tip the scales. And leaving the EU trade zone is pretty destructive for banking and European HQ beachheads in London.
Anyway what is the justification for a cap on bonuses? As opposed to taxing them more or something.
I think that was sarcasm.
That the bonuses are paid for with tax payers' money?
The banks fail, then get bailed out... and from the bailout money they continue to pay themselves bonuses when they actually shouldn't see a dime.
Banks had to be bailed out a bit too much recently to still be allowed such high bonuses.
But more than that, why this focus on bonuses rather than total compensation? Surely what matters is how much someone is paid, not the details of how that payment is structured.
I am a banker (although we are a startup bank), and for us the bonus is structured so that it is not paid in full immediately. Quite a bit is held back in case someone does something unhealthy to the company to reach their short term bonus goals. This is not common practice though.
If specific pay structures create bad behaviour then perhaps we should ban them, sure. But banning bonuses in general seems far too broad. How many people complaining about bonuses on this site have pay that includes stock or options - aren't those much the same thing?
[1] http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/06/30/hsbc-rules-out-leaving-l...
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hsbc-headqua...
What HSBC have said is that they may move about 1,000 jobs to Paris. That's because those jobs are tied to services that by law must be provided within the EU legal and regulatory environment. When London leaves that environment those jobs will go, not just at HSBC but across our financial sector. See my other larger post on this page for further details.
Amsterdam is ranked high, but many consider it The Netherlands the next "domino to fall" since the far-right anti-EU party is polling so well there. So if you move business there, you might be back to square one a year later.
Frankfurt is just growing over 700k people.
Population (2014-12-31)
• City 717,624 • Urban 2,221,910 • Metro 5,500,000
I wouldn't be surprised that there is 7mln that can commute to Frankfurt.
Still Frankfurt itself is a small village with an airport and a few towers. The city itself calls it "the biggest village in Hesse" [0].
[0]: http://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=2942&_ffmpar[_i...
Maybe I'm an outlier, but my own tastes in culture are amply satisfied by a decent bookstore and movie theatre, or in a pinch Amazon and Netflix, these days.
As for cultural offerings? People at the top of finance make a LOT of money. They aren't just stuffing it under the mattress.
Interesting times.
I think London will be ok.