A bad City deal is worse than none

Since the referendum, City firms have been “lobbying tirelessly” to preserve some version of the EU’S “passporting regime”, which permits them to operate across the bloc, says Jonathan Ford. The “Brussels nanny” might be “tiresome”, but “bankers instinctively like keeping systems that are familiar, and from which they know how to make money”. Rather than accept the unwelcome results of a botched deal, however, the City should simply cut loose. Not doing so would raise the risk of being saddled with the EU’S rule book, without having any say in its contents, and of conceding valuable markets as the “political price” of a deal. In any case, “there’s no ravening lion round the corner should they give up the passport”. Don’t forget, the Square Mile’s powerful position was built on clients coming to London to make deals. So rather than tangle itself in red tape “to preserve a portion of the 20% of its business that is Eu-facing”, the City should “slip nanny’s hand, maximise the legal and linguistic advantages that allow it to be competitive, and thus continue to grow its global trade”.