????脫離歐盟對倫敦金融城的潛在影響從人員缺乏旅行權(quán)到精英及金融公司大規(guī)模撤離等不一而足。的確，居住在歐盟的約140萬英國人可能要被迫回國，而目前在英國工作的220萬歐盟公民也將被迫離開英國（其中數(shù)以千計(jì)的人在倫敦金融城工作）。

????對于英國和歐盟經(jīng)濟(jì)體而言，尤其是對倫敦金融城而言，上述情況將具有相當(dāng)?shù)钠茐男?。金融城有大量的外籍員工，其中很多來自歐盟的各個(gè)成員國。當(dāng)然，英國政府可以立即為這些來自歐盟的金融專業(yè)人士提供長期工作許可證，從而消除有關(guān)金融城不歡迎外國人的疑慮，防止這些高薪人才的流失。不過從政治的角度來看，這種做法是否可行還不清楚，因?yàn)檫@么做很難不引起公憤。人們會認(rèn)為政府只向金融專業(yè)人員伸出援手，卻把教師和醫(yī)療專業(yè)人員直接拒之門外。

????如果英國脫離歐盟，金融城也需要盡快了解自己需要遵守的規(guī)則和法規(guī)。總部設(shè)在英國的資產(chǎn)管理公司能否繼續(xù)向歐洲投資者推銷基金？在歐洲投資于集合投資計(jì)劃的6.8萬億歐元中，大約四分之三都是投資于所謂的UCITS基金（Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities，可轉(zhuǎn)讓證券集合投資計(jì)劃）。這些基金滿足歐盟有關(guān)流動性和信息報(bào)告機(jī)制的最嚴(yán)格要求，幾乎可以不受限制地在歐洲市場銷售。歐盟可能會要求向歐洲企業(yè)推介業(yè)務(wù)的英國公司提高UCITS基金的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，甚至可能完全禁止它們向歐洲客戶推介業(yè)務(wù)。與歐盟達(dá)成市場準(zhǔn)入?yún)f(xié)議對于倫敦金融城來說至關(guān)重要。

????對于質(zhì)疑歐元的人而言，倫敦城脫離歐盟的金融法規(guī)約束將會發(fā)展得好得多，但這可能有點(diǎn)夸張了，特別是考慮到UCITS基金存在的相關(guān)問題。的確，每次英國人痛恨一項(xiàng)法律時(shí)，他們會選擇不去遵守它。例如，卡梅倫在2011年12月否決了一項(xiàng)立法。根據(jù)這項(xiàng)法案，歐元區(qū)國家能夠在一項(xiàng)財(cái)政契約下更加緊密地結(jié)合在一起?？穫惙駴Q這項(xiàng)法案的原因是倫敦金融城不同意開征一項(xiàng)金融交易稅，也不愿意加入一個(gè)統(tǒng)一的銀行體系。希望開征此稅的歐元區(qū)成員國后來撇開英國，一道采納了這項(xiàng)措施。他們還推進(jìn)了一個(gè)銀行聯(lián)盟的建立，并統(tǒng)一協(xié)調(diào)了涉及銀行流動性的一系列規(guī)定。

????與此同時(shí)，英國也為自己的金融中心自行制定了更為充實(shí)的規(guī)則，引進(jìn)了新的法規(guī)，如維克斯（Vickers）提案。根據(jù)維克斯提議，總部位于英國的銀行須將零售業(yè)務(wù)和投資銀行業(yè)務(wù)分離，并且需要滿足高于巴塞爾III協(xié)議（Basel III）規(guī)定的資本要求。英國退出歐盟后，這些規(guī)則可能會繼續(xù)有效。英國可能希望放寬這些規(guī)則，以更好地與歐洲大陸的其他銀行競爭，否則它的部分業(yè)務(wù)可能會被法蘭克?；虬屠璧慕鹑谥行男Q食。

????如果英國人選擇全面退出歐盟，英國政治家必須為應(yīng)對許多潛在的陷阱做好準(zhǔn)備?？紤]到它在國民經(jīng)濟(jì)中的舉足輕重，倫敦金融城的未來應(yīng)該是英國政客們的重中之重。雖然全球保險(xiǎn)和再保險(xiǎn)等部分行業(yè)最有可能留在倫敦，其他投資銀行和交易公司可能會轉(zhuǎn)移到歐盟其他國家，甚至轉(zhuǎn)移到美國的華爾街。

????自2007年以來，倫敦金融城已經(jīng)流失了三分之一的從業(yè)人員，今年將流失更多，至少部分原因在于它在世界金融版圖中的地位存在不確定性。如果英國脫離歐盟，倫敦金融城不會出現(xiàn)所有銀行和基金在一夜之間離開的局面，但它肯定會受到一定程度的影響。盡管看起來仍然很遙遠(yuǎn)，但如果不重視這種可能性，那就是政界以及倫敦金融城基金經(jīng)理的失職。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者： 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.