HQs wouldn't leave London. It's the financial capital of the world and no arbitrary political union will change that.
And when we leave, everyone will stop trading with us and cripple their economies just to say "we told you not to leave". Yeah right.
With effect from January 2016, Citigroup, one of the largest US financial institutions is moving its European HQ from London to Dublin.
Has it given any reason? Is it doing what many multinationals have done and ceremonially moved its HQ to Dublin for tax reasons whilst a lot of the business is kept in London?
HQs wouldn't leave London. It's the financial capital of the world and no arbitrary political union will change that.
And when we leave, everyone will stop trading with us and cripple their economies just to say "we told you not to leave". Yeah right.
With effect from January 2016, Citigroup, one of the largest US financial institutions is moving its European HQ from London to Dublin.
Just checked the detail and it's only it's retail banking centre. No jobs will move to Dublin. It's not exactly its "European HQ".
It will be connected with its Euro trading services, many other banks will move these services to Dublin or Frankfurt, but it's a small part of London's financial services.
Just repeat what Fiiish is saying, no one is saying things will not change and we will not lose a certain amount of business and jobs. For every negative impact that can be cited it is possible to point out opportunities that compensate for being released from the restrictive practices of the EU.
Are these the same car manufactures who were going to pull out of the UK if we did not join the euro?
No, they would be the ones who advocated that we join. An important difference. Most large multinational companies are in favour of the euro. It helps them a lot. I don't suggest that their views should be paramount but they have the right to put that case and for it to be considered.
There are reasons of economics to debate, and figures that go this way, or that way. There are details, there are practicalities, and there are broad brush concepts regarding rights, laws, and philosophical considerations. There are things regarding local identities and things regarding internationalism and world village ideals.
One conclusion I am coming to is that the issue is not black and white, nothing is clearly obvious or even clearly right or wrong.
For many it will probably be a matter of personal choice. If hard headed national economics dominate a persons thinking on this matter that will drive their decision. If the notion of deeper integration culturally, socially and politically dominates, that will be a driver, if somebody is an environmentalist first and foremost that will be a driver too. For many the decision will be taken with regard to a mixture of everything.
I voted yes originally, and at that time the terms of reference were much narrower, but I did not vote then because of business reasons which was the main reasons promoted, but for more one-world idealistic reasons.
When the referendum comes I doubt I will be as much influenced by tweaks and details of any new style Europe, but because of other beliefs I find important.
I say a big fat OUT. I for one do not want to have a Euro 'army' (please!!!) I want our military to protect our borders! I think we are big enough to stand on our own in this world without all them overpaid eurocrats in Brussels. Time to make Great Britain (well England) GREAT again!!!!
Comments
It will be connected with its Euro trading services, many other banks will move these services to Dublin or Frankfurt, but it's a small part of London's financial services.
Just repeat what Fiiish is saying, no one is saying things will not change and we will not lose a certain amount of business and jobs. For every negative impact that can be cited it is possible to point out opportunities that compensate for being released from the restrictive practices of the EU.
There are reasons of economics to debate, and figures that go this way, or that way. There are details, there are practicalities, and there are broad brush concepts regarding rights, laws, and philosophical considerations. There are things regarding local identities and things regarding internationalism and world village ideals.
One conclusion I am coming to is that the issue is not black and white, nothing is clearly obvious or even clearly right or wrong.
For many it will probably be a matter of personal choice. If hard headed national economics dominate a persons thinking on this matter that will drive their decision.
If the notion of deeper integration culturally, socially and politically dominates, that will be a driver, if somebody is an environmentalist first and foremost that will be a driver too. For many the decision will be taken with regard to a mixture of everything.
I voted yes originally, and at that time the terms of reference were much narrower, but I did not vote then because of business reasons which was the main reasons promoted, but for more one-world idealistic reasons.
When the referendum comes I doubt I will be as much influenced by tweaks and details of any new style Europe, but because of other beliefs I find important.
I think we are big enough to stand on our own in this world without all them overpaid eurocrats in Brussels.
Time to make Great Britain (well England) GREAT again!!!!