英国退出欧盟对伦敦金融城意味着什么？

    脱离欧盟对伦敦金融城的潜在影响从人员缺乏旅行权到精英及金融公司大规模撤离等不一而足。的确，居住在欧盟的约140万英国人可能要被迫回国，而目前在英国工作的220万欧盟公民也将被迫离开英国（其中数以千计的人在伦敦金融城工作）。

    对于英国和欧盟经济体而言，尤其是对伦敦金融城而言，上述情况将具有相当的破坏性。金融城有大量的外籍员工，其中很多来自欧盟的各个成员国。当然，英国政府可以立即为这些来自欧盟的金融专业人士提供长期工作许可证，从而消除有关金融城不欢迎外国人的疑虑，防止这些高薪人才的流失。不过从政治的角度来看，这种做法是否可行还不清楚，因为这么做很难不引起公愤。人们会认为政府只向金融专业人员伸出援手，却把教师和医疗专业人员直接拒之门外。

    如果英国脱离欧盟，金融城也需要尽快了解自己需要遵守的规则和法规。总部设在英国的资产管理公司能否继续向欧洲投资者推销基金？在欧洲投资于集合投资计划的6.8万亿欧元中，大约四分之三都是投资于所谓的UCITS基金（Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities，可转让证券集合投资计划）。这些基金满足欧盟有关流动性和信息报告机制的最严格要求，几乎可以不受限制地在欧洲市场销售。欧盟可能会要求向欧洲企业推介业务的英国公司提高UCITS基金的标准，甚至可能完全禁止它们向欧洲客户推介业务。与欧盟达成市场准入协议对于伦敦金融城来说至关重要。

    对于质疑欧元的人而言，伦敦城脱离欧盟的金融法规约束将会发展得好得多，但这可能有点夸张了，特别是考虑到UCITS基金存在的相关问题。的确，每次英国人痛恨一项法律时，他们会选择不去遵守它。例如，卡梅伦在2011年12月否决了一项立法。根据这项法案，欧元区国家能够在一项财政契约下更加紧密地结合在一起。卡梅伦否决这项法案的原因是伦敦金融城不同意开征一项金融交易税，也不愿意加入一个统一的银行体系。希望开征此税的欧元区成员国后来撇开英国，一道采纳了这项措施。他们还推进了一个银行联盟的建立，并统一协调了涉及银行流动性的一系列规定。

    与此同时，英国也为自己的金融中心自行制定了更为充实的规则，引进了新的法规，如维克斯（Vickers）提案。根据维克斯提议，总部位于英国的银行须将零售业务和投资银行业务分离，并且需要满足高于巴塞尔III协议（Basel III）规定的资本要求。英国退出欧盟后，这些规则可能会继续有效。英国可能希望放宽这些规则，以更好地与欧洲大陆的其他银行竞争，否则它的部分业务可能会被法兰克福或巴黎的金融中心蚕食。

    如果英国人选择全面退出欧盟，英国政治家必须为应对许多潜在的陷阱做好准备。考虑到它在国民经济中的举足轻重，伦敦金融城的未来应该是英国政客们的重中之重。虽然全球保险和再保险等部分行业最有可能留在伦敦，其他投资银行和交易公司可能会转移到欧盟其他国家，甚至转移到美国的华尔街。

    自2007年以来，伦敦金融城已经流失了三分之一的从业人员，今年将流失更多，至少部分原因在于它在世界金融版图中的地位存在不确定性。如果英国脱离欧盟，伦敦金融城不会出现所有银行和基金在一夜之间离开的局面，但它肯定会受到一定程度的影响。尽管看起来仍然很遥远，但如果不重视这种可能性，那就是政界以及伦敦金融城基金经理的失职。（财富中文网）

    译者： 默默

    The potential impacts on the City range from a lack of travel options to a mass exodus of prime City employees and their firms. Indeed, around 1.4 million or so Britons living in the EU may be forced to return home, while 2.2 million EU citizens currently working in the UK, thousands of which work in the City, may get the boot back over the English Channel.

    This tit-for-tat exchange of workers would be highly disruptive for both the UK and EU economies, and particularly disruptive to the City, which employs a large number of foreign workers, many of which come from various parts of the EU. The government could work to halt the outflow of these high-earners by immediately granting City workers from the EU long-term working permits, removing any concerns that the City is closed to foreigners. It is unclear if such a scenario could work politically, though, as it could be difficult to avoid public outrage over the government saving bankers while they throw out teachers and medical professionals.

    The City will also need to know soon what rules and regulations it would need to adhere to if the UK withdraws. Could UK-based asset managers continue to market their funds to European investors? Approximately three-quarters of the 6.8 trillion euros invested in collective investment schemes throughout the EU are done through so-called Ucits funds. These are funds that meet strict EU guidelines on liquidity and reporting mechanisms, allowing them virtually unrestricted access to the EU market. The EU could require UK firms soliciting European business to up its Ucits standards or it could even ban them from marketing to EU clients all together. Securing this agreement with the EU would be critical for the City.

    Euro-skeptics believe that the City would be much better off outside the EU's web of financial regulations, but that may be overstating the issue a bit, especially given the questions surrounding Ucits funds. Indeed, when the British hate a regulation they often simply don't follow it. For example, Cameron vetoed legislation in December of 2011 that would have brought eurozone nations closer together in a fiscal compact because the City was against the introduction of a financial transaction tax or a unified banking system. Eurozone members that wanted the tax later banded together to adopt the measure without the UK's say. They have also moved forward with creating a banking union and harmonizing a number of rules dealing with bank liquidity and the like.

    Meanwhile the UK has created its own beefed-up rules for its financial center, introducing new regulations, like the Vickers proposals, forcing UK-based banks to ring-fence their retail operations from their investment banking operations as well as to hold more capital than required under the Basel III agreements. These rules would probably remain in force after Brexit. The UK may want to relax these rules to better compete with banks on the continent or it could risk losing some business to financial centers in Frankfurt or Paris.

    There are a number of potential pitfalls that UK politicians must be ready for if the British people choose to exit the EU completely. The future of the City of London should be their top priority given how important it is to the nation's economy. While some industries, like the global insurance and reinsurance businesses, will most likely remain in London even with a UK withdrawal from the EU, other investment banking and trading operations could be at threat of jumping the channel to the continent or jumping over the ocean to Wall Street.

    The City has already lost a third of its workforce since 2007 and it is slated to lose even more this year, due at least in part to uncertainty regarding the City's place on the financial world map. The City won't see all of its banks and funds uproot overnight if the UK withdraws from Europe but it will certainly be affected one way or another. Dismissing that possibility, as remote as it seems, would be negligent on the part of both the politicians of Westminster as well as the money managers in the City.