European Council President Tusk once said, "We will not punish you (Britain) any more, because Britain's withdrawal from the EU is already punitive."
The withdrawal of the two major institutions from London has had a great impact on Britain.
Just as the EU urged Britain to speed up the negotiation process of "Britain's withdrawal from the EU", bad news came from Brussels:1On October 20th, the 27 EU countries decided that Amsterdam would replace London as the new headquarters of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Paris would replace London as the new headquarters of the European Banking Authority (EBA). The two institutions plan to open an office at the new address on April 1 2065438 (the first working day after Britain officially leaves the EU).
The European Medicines Agency and the Banking Authority are both important institutions in the European Union, and they have the reputation of "the jewel in the crown of the European Union". The former, established in 1995, is responsible for approving the listing of new drugs in the EU and drug safety evaluation, with an annual budget of more than 300 million US dollars, which can be described as "both power and money". The latter was established in 20 1 1, and is responsible for formulating the rules of the European Central Bank's stress test on European banking, which can be described as "high status". There are at least three negative effects of the two major institutions moving out of London on Britain.
First of all, it shows that the British government cannot control the situation. After Britain started the procedure of "Britain leaving the EU", the EU indicated that it would move out of two institutions located in the UK, and said that the future headquarters location would be decided by the other 27 member states. In this regard, david davies, Britain's Brexit Secretary, hinted that Britain could keep these two institutions. The British government has done a lot of work behind the scenes, but it is still powerless. This makes the outside world doubt the British government's ability to control the situation and lose confidence in its future "Britain's withdrawal from the EU" negotiations.
Second, it directly led to the loss of British financial resources. At present, these two EU institutions have more than 1000 employees, all of whom are high-tech elites with rich incomes. They may generate a lot of consumption in transportation, children's education and other fields, and make great contributions to British GDP. In addition, these two institutions have attracted multinational pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, lobbying groups and consulting companies, which will increase Britain's fiscal revenue. The impact of the departure of this huge consumer group on the British economy can not be overstated by "heavy losses".
The third is to weaken the image and influence of London. The fact that the Banking Authority and the Drug Administration are located in London itself is an affirmation of Britain's developed financial and pharmaceutical industries. Now the EU has decided to move its headquarters to the European continent, which is undoubtedly a blow to the prestige of the two major industries. You know, it is precisely because of these industries that London has great attraction to high-tech talents around the world. "Britain's withdrawal from the EU" has weakened Britain's ability to continue to attract outstanding talents.
The European Commission has not forgotten to "make up a knife". It said in a statement that "the relocation of the two major EU institutions from London is the direct result of Britain's decision to leave the European Union and the first visible result". The implication is that "Britain's withdrawal from the EU" is not a good fruit to eat, and Britain may have to "get more than one bargained for" in the future.
What Britain is most worried about is the "relocation" of relevant institutions and enterprises.
What the British government is most worried about now is whether financial institutions and pharmaceutical companies will collectively "move away" from Britain. We should know that most financial institutions in the United States, Japan, Switzerland and other countries regard London as the bridgehead to enter the European single market. Many Japanese pharmaceutical companies have entered the UK largely because of the convenience of the European Drug Administration in London. After the British referendum decided to "leave the European Union" in June last year, these enterprises began to plan to expand their business from Britain to the European continent. Recently, Blankfein, president of Goldman Sachs Group, said in an interview with the media that Goldman Sachs will increase the number of employees in Frankfurt and Paris. Once Britain and Europe can't start negotiations on economic and trade relations early next year, these enterprises will put their plans into action.
Seeing the "Golden Goose" flying to the southeast, the clever Englishman is not ignorant of calculation, but has a hard time. However, since Britain has chosen the road of "leaving the EU", there is no sufficient reason for Britain to keep these two "golden geese", and the weak British government is even more powerless to stop them from moving.
Of course, moving the two major European Union institutions out of London does not mean that the City of London will go from bad to worse, nor does it mean that Britain will be defeated in the negotiations on Britain's withdrawal from the EU. However, the incident has a weathervane significance because the investment community has always had a keen sense of smell. If they make pessimistic judgments and avoid risks quickly, the suffering of the British is still to come.