European banks would be heaving a big sigh of relief on the Japan stimulus and China news. The banks found themselves in the cross hairs last week. It’s been a long time since investors got as panicky about bank shares as they did last week. It may not be long before it happens again.
Here in Britain the banks are beginning to take sides on the Brexit debate. HSBC said it would keep its headquarters in London. But it said it could shift up to 1,000 jobs from London to Paris if Briton’s vote is to leave the European Union.
Meanwhile, the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Ross McEwan said that Brexit uncertainty could “slow down” the British banking sector. Barclay’s Jonn McFarlane went further and said that most members of the lobbying group he represents, “feel that staying in a reformed Europe is the right choice.”
For whom?
For the British people? Or for the banks? Or are the interests of both groups one and the same? Hmmm. What do you think?
In the meantime, Lord Blackwell from Lloyds has said that without “significant change” Britain’s EU membership can’t last. That sounds about right. But here’s a question: how does Britain go about “reforming the EU from within?” Has the prime minister asked for any “significant changes” to the EU project that make staying in it the best course for the future?
So far, the main argument from the “stay” campaign is that because we can’t know what will happen if we leave, it’s risky to leave. The same could be said for going out your door every day. But you get on with it don’t you?
There was life before the EU. There will be life after. Changes force adaptation. We know what we’re getting now. Why not try for something better?
Category: Brexit