Two years ago, apparently without knowing exactly what they were voting for, the people of the U.K. decided to exit the European Union. The former part is understandable: For all the extravagant promises and rosy visions and outright lies, no one actually knew what Brexit meant, other than “Brexit.” This remained true a year later, when Prime Minister Theresa May started the two-year countdown to Britain’s departure without a particularly clear sense of what that would look like. It’s remained true through all of the tortuousnegotiations, in which EU representatives say, in effect, “What do you have in mind?” and Her Majesty’s ministers shrug their shoulders and mumble, “dunno.” And it obviously remained true last week, when May gathered her Cabinet together to hammer out a working definition of Brexit, only to find out that the two most prominent Brexiteers in the room had a different interpretation. No matter: For the first time, the British government has put to paper what it thinks Brexit should mean, and—asexpected—it means nothing good for Dealbreaker readers across the pond.
The government said Thursday it would instead seek only to negotiate a framework enshrined in international law for the close cooperation between U.K. and EU financial regulators, while preserving British autonomy on financial-sector rules. It acknowledged such an approach “means that the U.K. and the EU will not have current levels to access to each other’s markets….”
Catherine McGuinness, policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, which represents many London-based financial firms, said the proposals are “a real blow.”
Gute Reise nach Frankfurt, meine Freunde.