Way too many have kept busier defeating Brexit than saving Britain, come what may.

Sir, Philip Stafford writes “City executives describe the EU’s no-deal plans as a ‘nakedly political’ grab for London’s business” “Tail risk” April 9.

Alex Barker in “Barnier vs the Brits” FT already in November 2011, wrote about the fears of Sir Mervin King held about that some Brussels reforms would reshape a vital British industry, banking, to the benefit of eurozone rivals. 

Specifically Barker mentioned: “Underlying the alarm in London is a more visceral fear: that Mr Barnier’s backers on the mainland are using this regulatory marathon to sap London’s strength as Europe’s pre-eminent financial centre.”

And that was when Michel Barnier was only the “European internal market commissioner – a perch giving him oversight of the continent’s financial industry. Arguably, no European Union job is of more consequence for the UK.”

Well yes, there was. Now Michel Barnier, since December 2016, is the European Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union, a job with even more consequence for the UK.

Given the previous rough relationship between Britain and Monsieur Barnier, one could have made a very well argued case that his appointment served no one well. And I am sure many EU nations would have understood that.

As a friend of Britain, I have one way or other argued the previous on several occasions, but with no luck. I believe that is because way too many were kept too interested in just defeating Brexit and so, to try for a better Brexit, did not fit their plans.

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-michel-barnier-really-sure-about.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/07/european-citizens-must-solve-brexit.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/07/should-not-mr-michel-barnier-negotiator.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/04/what-kind-of-tariffs-is-protectionist.html

@PerKurowski

For sturdy returns on equity, banks must abandon their dangerous road of maximizing returns by minimizing equity.

Harriet Agnew and Patrick Jenkins write: “This manner of doing business in which a handful of influential individuals could orchestrate the markets [1986]… In today’s terms would be completely illegal” “Big Bang II What’s next for the city?”

What? A handful of individuals orchestrated the markets more than ever when, for instance with Basel I in 1988, for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, they decreed the risk weights of the Sovereign to be 0% and that of 100% We the People 100%.

And the authors quote Pierre-Henri Flamand with: “Brexit may mean a reverse Big Bang for the UK’s relationship with Europe… But it could mean Big Bang II for its relationship with the rest of the world. Brexit could improve the City’s prospects of doing business in parts of the world such as Asia and Africa where the growth is”

And on that I agree, but only if the banks go back to being banks making returns on equity by means of reasonably audacious banking, abandoning that dead-end road of maximizing returns by minimizing equity.

If they don’t then I guess we will have to endure other types of Big Bangs, like the on I was referring to when in 1999 I wrote: “The possible Big Bang that scares me the most is the one that could happen the day those genius bank regulators in Basel, playing Gods, manage to introduce a systemic error in the financial system, which will cause the death of the last financial dinosaur that survives at that moment.”

Since they introduced that systemic risk, risk weighted capital requirements for banks, and even after the 2007-08 crisis insist on keeping it, I still fear that a truly Bad Big Bang is closer than any Big Bang II.

In short, if the City wants to maintain or even gained competitiveness, then it must recreate itself in a non-distorted way. Escaping the the influence of the Basel Committee is much more important for Britain and its banks (and for all other nations) than any Brexit or no Brexit.

@PerKurowski ©

But FT, are you now not happy with ECB wanting to shrink the City?

Sir, you seem to be complaining about ECB wanting to shrink London´s importance as a financial center, “Trading places, the City and the ECB” December 4.

You have me a bit confused, was that not what you wanted to happen? In your editorial “Gain the advantage” of November 16, 2009 you certainly seemed not mind the City shrinking and on May 22, Martin Wolf, in “Why Britain has to curb finance” spoke about UK regulators having “an influence on the world economy out of proportion to the country´s size”.

Change of hearts eh? Or is it that you suddenly remembered your name?