I think so, the time is ripe for many reasons:
-the UK should not get stuck with bailing out Greece any more
-London is now the premier center of world finance-that generates huge profits for the UK, why jeopardize this?
-the EU Parliament in Brussels is increasingly dictatorial, and it wants to take actions against the interests of UK taxpayers
-the UK doesn’t want a German-style invasion of muslim “refugees” (who are actually economic migrants
What say you?
Surely ostracising themselves from the EU is one way in which to jeopardise the city of London’s financial preeminence.
I doubt it, but it would please a lot of idiots.
However the compensation would be that UKIP would have to disband.
Yeah, I bet there isn’t even a war in Syria!
How so?
One of the benefits of EU membership is that it makes it a lot easier to do international business between member nations. A lot of the business those London financial institutions do is probably from Germany, France, and elsewhere in the EU. Leave the EU, and they’ll do their banking elsewhere.
See Chronos’ reply above.
Can you quantify this probability?
It also works the other way. Foreigners banking in London have easier access to the EU.
To quantify how exiting the EU would effect all this you’d need to be an economist with access to the City’s books.
That you should apply for a job as an editorial writer for the Daily Mail.
Non-eurozone countries are not on the hook for bailouts to Greece.
And when was the last time you could say that London was not a premier center of finance? I believe that whenever that was, it would be before the creation of the European Union in 1993. If membership was such a drain on London’s economy, one would expect the UK to have not joined in the first place or, because it’s been in the EU for going on 25 years now, already be circling the drain.
And indeed the UK had applied to join the EU’s direct predecessor the EEC as early as 1961, joining in 1973.
Actually, contrary to the OP London is a premier center of finance, but no longer alas the premier center of finance.
London was historically the world center of finance because of the preeminence of the Empire; all the money was in Britain. That meant that international finance largely followed English/Welsh law.* It also meant that most of the largest financial services providers (like Lloyds) were in London, or at least had offices there. Lastly, the pound was the world’s de facto reserve currency until the US finally created its own central bank.
London’s current prominence comes down to four things: the Blair government adopted policies designed to make London increasingly attractive as a place to invest and trade (and the Cameron government hasn’t done anything to undo that); its historical dominance which means many multinationals are still headquartered there; the still-reliable pound; and, EU membership.
Take away one of the four, and London is still a world financial center. But it’s probably not the world financial center.
The refugees are just that, refugees. The facts are obvious, anyone can see what is happening in Syria. Sorry to burst your right wing bubble, but you lost all credibility by insinuating that they are easy economic migrants. Plus in terms of refugee intake, the UK along with Denmark and Ireland is exempt. So I don’t see why exit the EU? UK has been a center of world finance for a long time despite being an EU member, so that also pokes holes into your argument. Britain has been a member since 1973, if it’s status was not jeopardized until now, I don’t see how it will suddenly after so many years.
Brexit is absolutely stupid on the part of the UK. Not that I would lose sleep with anything in regards to what happens to the United Kingdom.
The asterisk was supposed to point to a footnote where I explained that Delaware is the dominant US state for incorporation not because of favorable tax treatment but because its law underlies nearly all US corporation law.
Um, you obviously haven’t noticed, but we aren’t paying for Greece. That’s down to the eurozone. Which isn’t us.
Yay, let’s leave the EU, cutting our financial heartland from that huge, rich continent just to the east, and TOTALLY jeapoardise our financial centre.
Perhaps you could amuse us by naming some. Or just one for starters.
Putting the whole ‘war in Syria’ thing to one side for a moment, you have noticed that we AREN’T letting in 100,000s of Syrian refugees, haven’t you? That we maintain our own border controls, even though we are in the EU? Always have?
Really mate, you’re fighting against threats which seem only to be real inside your head.
I assume leaving the EU will be fairly neutral in terms of the City of London as a financial district. What it loses through Brexit it will probably gain in other City related areas. For instance cutting further red tape may see London become even more attractive. I realise this would be a risk, and im not saying it is without problems, but such are the unknows about a Brexit. A lot depends upon how much confidence investors still have in London after Brexit. Im sure both sides are trying to scare me with exaggerations & fearmongering.
I wish to leave the EU, but I believe we will vote to stay, unfortunately.
If Britain leaves the EU, it will remain in EFTA which means that very little will actually change except that Europeans will no longer be automatically allowed residence (and vice versa). There will be little impact on the City.
The biggest pain will be renewed demands from the SNP for a new referendum.
No need to leave the EU but they made the right decision by a mile not joining the Eurozone.