So, is London finished as a leading financial hub?

Not so fast!

By Thomas Levene

The City of London is the goose that laid the golden egg. Not even the left in the UK want to kill it. Ken Livingstone, a great hero of the left and the former leader of the GLC, advocated for The Square Mile because he knew that, realistically, the fortunes of all Londoners are tied to the success and influence of the City. The City provides the UK with  £75.5 billion in tax revenue every year. Although, the need for greater financial regulation seems imperative to humane socialists, at the same time it would be a disaster if financial companies migrated in numbers out of London. Thomas Levene discusses the prospect of that migration happening, now that Brexit is a reality.


One of the biggest arguments for staying in the EU was the fear that if we left it,  there would be catastrophic financial implications for the UK. Will the city of London, post Brexit, be able to keep its seat as the financial hub of Europe? Will it keep its status as one of the three main financial hubs of the world, alongside New York and Shanghai? There are serious fears that The City of London, or ‘The Square Mile’, as it is affectionately called, will lose its position. After all, why stay if London is no longer the gateway to the rest of Europe?

Since Brexit, what exactly has happened? In a recent survey, since Brexit, around 400 UK – based financial service firms have moved all, or some part of their business to somewhere in the EU. 10,000 financial jobs have already left the city and Some say the total number could rise to around 70,000. Amsterdam has now become the center for share dealing in Europe–taking a whopping 80% of the revenue from London’s control and costing the City of London an estimated £10 Billion in a year.

The financial sector is the biggest taxpayer in the UK, so the flight of large financial corporations is disastrous for the country. According to the Corporation of London, the City paid  £75.5 billion in tax for the financial year 2019 to 2020.

Amsterdam has now become the center for share dealing in Europe–taking a whopping 80% of the revenue from London’s control and costing an estimated £10 Billion in a year…

To make matters worse, London may lose more financial business in the future because EU countries want a piece of the pie, and are aggressively incentivising financial companies, brokers and investors to relocate. For example, President Macron of France has given a huge 70% tax break to those entities who may wish to move from London to Paris. Italy and Spain are offering similar deals. These are not the actions of enlightened European social democrats eager to make corporations pay their way, they are the actions of cut-throat neoliberal competitors.

EU countries want a piece of the pie

This situation has been further exacerbated because the EU has not given ‘equivalence free’ financial ‘passporting’ rights between the UK and EU to sell their financial products across the 28 member states.

Right now the UK allows EU companies to operate within their shores, but not vica versa. The trade is not on equal regulatory terms. And in yet another ruthless effort to squeeze even more business away from London, the EU has decreed that all EU–listed equity exchanges must take place solely in EU regulated exchanges.

So, is London finished as a leading financial hub? Not so fast. Daniel Hodson, former head of the London futures exchange says: ‘Yes, you have good financial centres like Paris, Frankfurt and Milan, but they are not, and never will be, the size of the City of London.’

‘Yes, you have good financial centres like Paris, Frankfurt and Milan, but they are not, and never will be, the size of the City of London.’

Daniel Hodson continues: ‘The City is too big, too liquid to fail. The EU needs London’s vast pools of capital.’ It’s logical to make the observation that, if the EU insists on barricading itself its own system, then companies and investors outside the EU may want to keep their Euros outside the EU and look for cheaper, more established, alternatives. ‘This is where London can facilitate and offer cheaper options’. Of course, additionally, London offers a great agglomeration of services to financial institutions that are not available anywhere else in the EU.

‘The City is too big, too liquid to fail. The EU needs London’s vast pools of capital.’

London has always been a buccaneering innovator. The City has been willing to adapt and capitalise on financial opportunities and change. After all, that’s how The Square Mile came to prominence as a key financial center in the first place in the 1960s. During that period the US created similar financial walls to the ones the EU seem to be intent on erecting right now. All that happened is that people eventually looked for cheaper, better alternatives for places where they conduct business. In the 1960s, that place was the City of London.

London has always been a buccaneering innovator. The City has been willing to adapt and capitalise on financial opportunities and change.

When it comes to regulation and taxation, London should be careful. However strong the cachet is for a company that locates in the City of London, no place is immune. Rash measures could result in financial businesses relocating to countries inside the EU, or even moving online altogether – especially in the time of a pandemic. Even The NY Stock Exchange, after the election of Joe Biden to the US presidency, has recently threatened to leave New York in the face of a proposed Stock transfer tax and increased regulations. 

If [to the resigned despair of the left in Britain] London goes the opposite way, and, strategically reduces taxes and if it makes regulatory hurdles even lower, then it is likely that money will flow to where it gets treated best. In this case, London will continue to thrive as the dominant financial hub, not just of Europe, but of the whole world,

… it becomes clear that London is still in the driving seat

The financial landscape is changing faster than it ever has. With the rise of Bitcoin and decentralised finance parallel industries, now worth $2 trillion and rising, there are more attractive, emerging opportunities for businesses and companies who operate in the financial sector, for those finance based businesses nimble enough and open-minded enough to capitalise on these opportunities, and for those financial hubs which willing to innovate.

Luckily, according to one report, London is the premier location in in Europe for local ‘sandboxes’ and innovation hubs. The City of London is a place that encourages innovation and Fintech startups. €2.1 billion in the UK vs €1.5 billion for the continent have been invested in Fintech startups in the City. Couple this with the fact that the current UK government has expressed a strong intention to back innovation; the huge talent pool from top universities in London that the Square Mile can draw on; the fact that The City is the leader in cyber security and green technology startups, and it becomes clear that London is still in the driving seat of Finance; at least for Europe.

In a recent PWC survey, post Brexit, The UK – and so London – was ranked ‘4th most attractive place to do business’ by CEO’s worldwide, despite Brexit. Surprisingly, investor confidence in the UK and in the Square Mile is, cautiously, high.


Thomas Levene

Thomas Levene, has been a long-time teacher, and in the last few years, been a passionate expert and investor in Bitcoin and Blockchain technology. He has completed, a ‘Blockchain Applications’ course with distinction, from Oxford University Said School of Business in 2018.

Thomas has given presentations on Bitcoin and Blockchain, internationally to young entrepreneurs on the digital Nomad Cruise in Greece and the DNX Digital Nomad Festival in Lisbon. He currently lives in Taiwan.

The Right are dominating public discourse – so why are they still so angry?


By Emil Blake

It’s rare for politicians not to smile. Even the most insincere daren’t show anything but the warmth, comfort and confidence of a smile; the most sour-faced of politicos fake it until they make it. It’s government 101, it says ‘hey, I really do mean this.’

Weather-beaten by the political tempests and low fronts that have swept into our living rooms and bedrooms through television, laptops and the damp glow of phone screens, we probably no longer care whether the powerful smile, because regardless of who we are, there isn’t a great deal to smile about in the world.  

But it’s symbolic of something far greater, a malaise and hopelessness at the very centre of power. The conservative right have been in government in the United States for four years; in the UK for a decade. For those concerned with governing in these administrations, and for their supporter base too, these should be encouraging times. 

… regardless of who we are, there isn’t a great deal to smile about in the world

In the US they swept Trump to power against huge odds; it’s allowed him to appoint Republican attorneys to the highest offices, given him licence to make enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest, and set up detention centres to rounded up illegal immigrants. In the UK the conservatives slashed public services and safety nets and won four elections in doing so. They not only won the right to hold a public debate and referendum on leaving the European Union, they even won it – against all the odds they won the argument; despite all the setbacks they are on course to get the Brexit they wanted. The state has been rolled back and any threat offered by socialists has been quelled in the form of election victories.

So, why are they all angry? Why does modern conservatism lash-out at every cause, recoil at civil redress when injustices are highlighted? You have to wonder what a conservative idyll would look like, and what it would take to get there.  

Most of us should by now have a fairly clear idea what this idyll looks like – and it ain’t pretty. It leads to orthodoxy, puritanism, ‘difficult decisions’ and ultimately, purges. Identity politics, while necessary to highlight injustices and give a voice to those facing discrimination, has unwittingly divided the left into competing tribes that focuses on difference rather than commonality; a market place of ideas where even six-figure salaried white columnists for The Telegraph can feel the sting of discrimination, merely for denying science.

The Right will now go after any cause – no matter how hopeless in the face of facts – like a rabid dog after a postman’s calf.

The culture war has enough mileage in it to maintain and drive the anger of conservatives for ever more, as it’s no longer just about freedom of speech, taking offence or personal identity; it stretches out into the horizon, when even wearing face masks in the midst of a global health crisis, is a sure sign that the marxists are in the driving seat even though election results show a social justice movement scratching in the dust through the rear view mirror of history. Where do we go from here?

Nationhood stands as the primary symbol of one’s political identity for the conservative; it is an abstract concept that is both irrefutable and intangible. God and country. Flag and country. Queen and country. But what even is ‘the country’ and what is it that they love so much about it?

Why is then not a patriotic duty to feed starving kids in the midst of a pandemic and oncoming recession?

For, one’s country somehow loses the same emotional power when homelessness and poverty of one’s compatriots is presented to the right-wing. Somehow, when a footballer asks for government help in ensuring that thousands of children’s school meal costs are covered for low-income families while schools remain closed, suddenly the issue comes back to the individual, and the responsibility of the family.  Why is then not a patriotic duty to feed starving kids in the midst of a pandemic and oncoming recession?

The empathy gap in British, and I suspect, western society is a yawning one: as living standards drop, the politics of envy begin to take over. But this is no ‘normal’ envy, a keeping-up-with-the-joneses competition seen as healthy by the most enthusiastic supporters of the capitalist economy; no, this is not about a twitching of the curtain and a resentment at their new car or conservatory. It’s about the keen sense of injustice that other folk, other demographics are getting more attention and more help than you – even if you don’t need it. ‘Why them? Why not us?’

Prioritise our own people before refugees. White lives matter. All lives matter. Until of course, they don’t. Whether its the poor using foodbanks or ex-servicemen sleeping in the streets, it requires us to draw on our ever decreasing resources of sympathy. This envy, although misguided is in some way dressed as a fight-or-flight survival response, the bestowing of further rights by consensus to a minority, means that we might lose our own rights along the way.

In an age etched into tree bark and permafrost by pollution and over-consumption, when every day brings some reminder of our finite resources, perhaps there is some logic to the knee-jerk; yet rights are not a finite resource – in an equitable society they should be abundant and and not subjected to supply-and-demand laws of economics. Nevertheless the underlying mantra for our age: ‘there’s not enough to go around’ covers not only our societies in monetary terms, but in empathetic currency too.

The working class drift rightward towards a siege mentality nationalism can be mused upon in tomes, but perhaps we need to dump the word ‘privilege’ in order to clarify the juxtaposition of white-skinned advantage. Certainly, in the UK the word has a very loaded meaning in terms of class consciousness and identity: while the ‘average’ person might respect or even look up to the Rees-Moggs and Farages, none would be so self-deceptive as to believe they were peers.

We could talk about ‘black disadvantage’ instead but this still sounds as though it’s white people talking among themselves; although this might be a good starting point in itself. Our utterances now have been boiled down to sound bites – be it in 280 characters or updates to our ‘networks’ – the ‘friend’ is dead it seems – and in a seemingly uncertain world our announcements become ever more set in stone and bind us to fixed positions. We now build walls with words, in ways we could never have previously. Sadly, conversations have been replaced by ‘discourse’, ‘debate’ and any other euphemism you can think of for invective.

There is always someone else to blame – whether it’s Fake News, Black Lives Matter, Anti-fascists, economic experts or working class families struggling to feed their kids.

Social media is of course powered by anger, grievance and counter-claim. The masterminds behind Trump’s digital campaigns in the 2016, or Vote Leave’s Brexit campaign were all too aware of the growing dis-satisfaction that has been growing among a sympathetic demographic. Tyrants and dictators have been using communication manipulation throughout the ages to seize power, with very similar methods.

The malaise that western democracy finds itself in now, however, requires not just a blame game but a perpetual culture war: with every daily development there is a fresh angle to exploit, and the direct means to do so. Politicians no longer have to negotiate their messages through the traditional gatekeepers of journalist or editor, and it’s no coincidence that Donald Trump is the Twitter Presidentdespite the US government being the world’s second most prolific PR machine.

Trump and his advisors clearly learned a trick or two from their junior partner in the ‘special relationship’: note how cleverly the British right-wing have taken the resultant ills of 50 years of neo-liberalist policy in the UK and managed to convince a large enough section of the electorate that the EU was responsible for the struggles that the UK currently face. There is always someone else to blame – whether it’s Fake News, Black Lives Matter, Anti-fascists, economic experts or working class families struggling to feed their kids.

The Right will now go after any cause – no matter how hopeless in the face of facts – like a rabid dog after a postman’s calf. Take The Telegraph’s recent article about Jacinda Ardern’s ‘disastrous’ leadership in the wake of her recent election victory, as a shining example of the dogged pursuit of a contrarian opinion in the face of hard evidence.

The bad news – for all of us, regardless of our political persuasion – is that the cultural war is here for good, and every good deed must be justified. The positives that we can draw from this is that the ‘whataboutery‘, the revisionism and the heaping of mistruths upon lies is not sustainable. Even in an ill-functioning democracy, they must sure run out of road.


This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is img_2551.jpeg
Emil Blake

Sometime writer, sometime journalist, sometime teacher, sometime dreamer


Featured image By Becker1999 from Grove City, OH – aaIMG_0755, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=89313317

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: