Opinion

Hugo Dixon

UK should get on front foot with City

Hugo Dixon
May 20, 2013 08:30 UTC

It is perhaps too much to expect Britain’s Conservative-led government to lead any initiatives on Europe, such is the orgy of self-destruction in the party over whether the UK should stay in the European Union. But, insofar as David Cameron manages to get some respite from the madness, he should launch a strategy to enhance the City of London as Europe’s financial centre.

Britain has in recent years been playing a defensive game in response to the barrage of misguided financial rules from Brussels. It now needs to get on the front foot and sell the City as part of the solution to Europe’s problems. The opportunity is huge both for Britain and the rest of Europe.

The chance of getting the EU to swing behind a pro-City strategy may, on the face of it, seem pie in the sky. Many people blame financiers for the financial crisis. So how could they be part of the solution? What’s more, Continental Europeans have long tended to be suspicious of financial markets.

Hence, the plan by 11 EU countries (not including the UK) to apply a tax on all financial transactions. Hence, too, the recent decision to cap bankers’ bonuses thoughout the EU (against London’s objections) and a scheme, so far not agreed, to do the same for fund managers.

The oddity about these rules is that they do nothing to address the causes of the financial crisis. Trading in financial instruments wasn’t responsible for the crisis. Nor were fund managers. And while banker compensation does bear some of the blame, the so-called solution is cock-eyed. Banks will react to bonus limits by pushing up fixed salaries – something which will make their finances more vulnerable when the next crisis hits.

Brexit would be bad for Britain

Hugo Dixon
May 13, 2013 09:25 UTC

Quitting the European Union would be bad for Britain. Membership of even an unreformed EU is better than “Brexit”. Quitting would mean either not having access to the single market – at a huge cost to the economy – or second-tier membership.

The debate over Brexit has moved into high gear in the past 10 days, after the UK Independence Party – which wants Britain to pull out of the EU – performed well in English local elections. The Conservative party, which rules in coalition with the pro-European Liberal Democrats, has been thrown into turmoil because UKIP has been winning votes largely from the Tories.

What’s more, many Conservatives would like Britain to quit the EU too. Last week Nigel Lawson, one of Margaret Thatcher’s finance ministers, argued the case for Brexit. Boris Johnson, the mayor of London who is the Conservatives’ most popular politician, also shuffled a little further in a eurosceptic direction – although he stopped short of calling for an exit.

Hugo Dixon: How to respond to UKIP’s surge

Hugo Dixon
May 6, 2013 02:33 UTC

By Hugo Dixon

(Hugo Dixon is Editor-at-Large, Reuters News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

The UK Independence Party will not come close to winning Britain’s next general election. The populist anti-Europe, anti-immigration party may not even win a single seat, despite last week’s surge in English local elections where it won nearly a quarter of the vote – running a close third to Labour and the Conservatives. That’s how the maths of Britain’s first-past-the-post voting system works.

Nevertheless, the rise of UKIP could have profound consequences for British politics and business – in particular, for the UK’s relationship with the European Union. This is because UKIP is mainly taking votes away from David Cameron’s Conservatives. A calculation by Sky News suggested that, if the local election results were translated into a general election, Labour would win an overall majority. Even though UKIP might win no seats itself, its popularity would damage Cameron’s prospects for reelection in 2015.

UK faces five years of limbo-land

Hugo Dixon
Jan 23, 2013 11:33 UTC

The UK faces half a decade of limbo-land. David Cameron’s promise of an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union by the end-2017— provided he wins the next election – means an extremely long period of uncertainty for business. That will be bad for investment. It also heightens the risk of an eventual “Brexit” – a British exit from Europe – which would be even worse for the economy.

An in/out referendum is neither desirable nor necessary. Of course, if the UK was planning to hand further powers to Brussels, it would be a good idea to get the people’s consent. But no leading British politician of either left or right is contemplating such a transfer of sovereignty. Cameron has been driven to promise such a referendum because of the pressure from eurosceptics within his Conservative party as well as fears that UKIP, a fringe political entity which wants Britain to leave the EU, could take votes away from the Tories in the 2015 election.

If Cameron had been promising a quick referendum, the uncertainty for business would be manageable. But he has decided that he first wants to see if he can negotiate a “new settlement” based on a competitive, flexible and fair single market. That’s why the referendum could be nearly five years away.

The EU speech Cameron should make

Hugo Dixon
Jan 7, 2013 10:05 UTC

David Cameron is planning a keynote speech on Britain’s relationship with the EU later this month. Here is what the UK prime minister should say.
 
 The euro crisis is forcing euro zone nations to rethink how they wish to run their currency union. It is also forcing European Union countries that don’t use the single currency, such as Britain, to rethink their relationship with Europe.

We have three main options: quit the EU; move to the edge as the euro zone pushes towards closer union; and seek to stay at the heart of Europe and influence its development in a way that promotes our interests.

There are members of my own Conservative party who would like Britain to quit. There are others who would like us to move to the periphery. But I am determined to make sure that we stay at the centre.

Brexit could come before Grexit

Hugo Dixon
Nov 12, 2012 10:12 UTC

Investors have been obsessed with the notion of “Grexit” – Greece’s exit from the euro. But “Brexit” – Britain’s exit from the European Union – is as likely if not more so. The country has never been at ease with its EU membership. It refused to join its predecessor, the European Economic Community, in 1957; it was then blocked twice from becoming a member by France’s Charles De Gaulle in 1960s; and shortly after it finally entered in 1973, it had a referendum on whether to stay.

The euro crisis has put further pressure on this difficult relationship. David Cameron’s Conservative Party, the governing coalition’s dominant group, delights in pointing out the flaws in the single currency. The party’s eurosceptics feel vindicated because they have long believed that monetary union was only possible with political union.

But “I told you so” is never a good way of endearing oneself to others. What’s more, the idea that greater integration in the euro zone has “remorseless logic” – as Britain’s finance minister, George Osborne, puts it – directly undercuts the country’s national interest. The more the 17 countries in the single currency club together, the more the UK will be left out on the fringe.

Who will watch the Bank of England?

Hugo Dixon
Jul 16, 2012 08:19 UTC

A year ago Rupert Murdoch was probably the most powerful unelected person operating in Britain. The media baron could seemingly choose prime ministers. Then came the phone hacking and police bribery scandal, after which politicians sought to distance themselves from him.

The title of most powerful unelected Briton now probably belongs to Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England. Witness the way he dispatched Barclays’ chief executive Bob Diamond two weeks ago in connection with the Libor rate-rigging scandal. Whoever succeeds King next year will have even greater powers. After all, responsibility for financial stability and banking supervision is about to be added to the central bank’s main task of running monetary policy. It’s vital for democracy that this authority is exercised effectively, transparently and fairly.

Who will be King’s successor when he steps down? And how will the new governor be made accountable? These questions have been brought into sharp relief by the Libor scandal. The front runner for King’s job has seen his chances knocked, while doubts have been raised about the central bank’s effectiveness and transparency.

The perils of an indispensable boss

Hugo Dixon
Jul 9, 2012 09:59 UTC

Was Bob Diamond really irreplaceable? Barclays’ board operated for 15 years on the assumption that he was. As a result, the UK bank’s chief executive became more powerful – and ever harder to replace. Now that he has been kicked out in the wake of the Libor rate-rigging scandal, Barclays is struggling to find new leadership.

This is an object lesson for all companies, not just banks. Think of two other UK-listed groups which have recently provoked shareholder anger over their bosses’ high pay packages: WPP, the advertising giant; and miner Xstrata. In both cases, the boards paid their chief executives so much because they thought they were indispensable.

Barclays is now in a mess. Not only has Diamond quit, his chairman, Marcus Agius, has also said he will resign. Both men ultimately had to go: Diamond had come to epitomise the worst of the City of London’s greed, while Agius seemed unable to hold his chief executive in check. Neither man responded to requests for comment.

How to end the banker backlash

Hugo Dixon
Feb 6, 2012 09:47 UTC

There was a whiff of the lynch mob in the UK last week. Stephen Hester, the current Royal Bank of Scotland boss, was bludgeoned by politicians and the media into foregoing his bonus even though he was brought in to clean up the largely state-owned bank. Two days later his predecessor, Fred Goodwin, was stripped of his knighthood. While Goodwin bore much of the responsibility for RBS’s near-bankruptcy, removing his title flouted normal procedures. Not only is such a dressing down traditionally reserved for criminals; the prime minister, David Cameron, prejudged the verdict of the committee which reviewed the knighthood. The week was capped off by the leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband, calling for a tax on bankers’ bonuses.

While the UK is currently the epicentre of the backlash against financiers, the phenomenon is widespread across the Western world. Francois Hollande, who is likely to be France’s next president, has said that his main adversary isn’t Nicolas Sarkozy but a faceless, nameless, opponent – the world of finance. And across the Atlantic, the only serious setback in Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign so far came when he revealed that in 2010 he had paid only 13.9 percent tax on his $21.7 million of income, most of which came from his time as a private equity baron.

There is certainly something ugly about the way politicians – who themselves bear some responsibility for the economic mess – have turned bankers into a scapegoats. But the public isn’t in the mood to show sympathy to bankers these days. The issue is not so much the amounts they are paid. In the same week that the banker backlash was gathering force in the UK, Facebook announced its initial public offering. Nobody batted an eyelid at the prospect of Mark Zuckerberg, the founder, being worth over $20 billion. The difference is that people think Zuckerberg deserves his billions but the bankers don’t deserve their millions.

Hara-kiri, British style

Hugo Dixon
Dec 12, 2011 04:21 UTC

The opinions expressed are his own.

The UK’s self-immolation beggars belief. The government’s clumsy attempt to extract concessions from euro zone countries in their time of need has set off a chain reaction which could undermine Britain’s interests and even drive it out of the European Union.

It’s not clear what David Cameron thought he was doing at the European summit in the early hours of Dec. 9 when he demanded vetoes on financial regulation in the EU. Was the prime minister asking for something he knew was unacceptable so that he could return to Britain and parade as a hero in front of the euroskeptics in his Conservative Party? Or did he just vastly overestimate his negotiating position, thinking that the euro zone countries were so desperate to save their single currency that he could bounce them into accepting the British demands by presenting them with a take-it-or-leave-it offer in the middle of the night? If it was the former, Cameron was cynically putting his personal interests above those of the nation; if the latter, he was just extraordinarily inept.

Cameron did little to win allies for his position, not even circulating his list of proposals in advance of the summit, according to Reuters. Even worse, he put Britain in the position of seemingly being prepared to blow up the single currency if he didn’t get his way. In fact, Cameron didn’t have the power to stop the 17 euro zone countries from agreeing to sign a new treaty committing themselves to fiscal discipline. They just sidestepped the existing EU treaty. What’s more, they got all nine of the other countries which are part of the EU but not the single currency to sign up too. So all Cameron achieved in the middle of the night was to irritate Britain’s partners massively and isolate the UK 26-1.