Ladies and gentlemen, This morning I am going to address the ultimate City take-over. I hope to show how by regulation in particular the EU intends to control the City of London and take much of our financial business away and in a pretty short time frame. London First, a pro-EMU campaigning group, announced in 1999, ‘Most European business leaders expect Frankfurt to overtake London as a financial centre within the next five years.’ How could that possibly be true? Does it not matter that as one top Japanese stockbroker told me ‘You can only do local business in Frankfurt. In London you can trade with the world’? What is it that we are in danger of losing? Ladies and gentlemen it is no less than the jewel in our economic crown. I am going to refer simply to London or the City but of course the industry is wide spread across the UK. London is the heart of the world's financial business and the centre of financial innovation. And the City itself has no less than 800 years' experience in providing those services. I make no apology for listing what we are supremely good at: we do not often give ourselves a pat on the back! Financial services account for over 15 per cent of UK GDP. They are the single biggest contributor to our economy. They employ around 1 million people, including over 300,000 in London. Last year they generated net overseas earnings of £14 billion. The City has played a key role in establishing the euro as a major international. currency for trading and investment. London is the leading centre for euro trading even though the UK is not in the euro. They could not have done it without us! London is the biggest market in the world for derivatives traded over-the-counter with over one third of global turnover last year. LIFFE is the world centre for euro money market derivatives trading. It is the biggest electronic exchange. The London Metal Exchange is the biggest metals exchange in the world. London is the world's largest fund management centre, with total assets under management exceeding £2,725 billion in 2000. London has the most comprehensive range of specialist maritime services in the world, and despite Gordon Brown’s best efforts, net overseas earnings are around £2 billion a year. London is the world's most liquid spot market for gold, for gold lending and the world clearing centre for gold trading. More foreign companies are listed on the London Stock Exchange than any other exchange including the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ combined. London is the major centre for the international bond market. London is one of the two leading centres for international legal services, the other being New York. Five out of the largest ten law firms in the world are based here. London is the world's largest international insurance and reinsurance market. The London foreign exchange market is the largest in the world accounting for a third of global turnover, more than New York and Tokyo combined, and is six to seven times the size of Paris and Frankfurt combined. And last but not least, there are more German banks in London than in Frankfurt, and more American banks in London than in New York. I think you get the picture! Why is London pre-eminent? It has low tax, low regulation, London straddles the world time zones, we speak English, we benefit from English law, a low level of corruption and a top quality work force. Despite all that, our jewel in the economic crown can disappear with lightening speed if the conditions change. Let me give you one little known but personal example from over 30 years ago. My father was a bullion broker in the City. On a Thursday the British government upset the South African government. On the Friday, the bullion market closed in London as usual, but it reopened on the Monday in Zurich. That is how fast things used to move. Just think how fast they move today. Or as the head of my old firm Morgan Stanley used to say professionals will work anywhere. And they do – they catch the next plane out. We have already seen with the art market what happens when the tax regime changes, this case VAT a Brussels tax. The British art market is on the move from London and much of it is now in New York. Today, Britain’s financial service industry is under attack as never before and from several directions orchestrated by Brussels under its Action Plan for A Single Financial Market by 2005. The plan combines changes in tax, pensions, regulation and creating one stock market. All these issues are equally important but today I am concentrating on the regulatory changes. But may I remind you that we are still fighting off the EU Savings Tax Directive and trying to divert its main focus to exchanging information on savings held abroad, though even that is not satisfactory. So enthusiastic have we become in our attempt to deflect the worst of the tax that our man in Bern is telling his Swiss hosts at every opportunity that they should relax the famous Swiss confidentiality and provide EU tax officials with bank details of suspected tax dodgers. Our ambassador diplomatically says Swiss law is outmoded, immoral and wrong. This disgraceful state of affairs is all because the EU withholding tax on savings would severely damage the City's Eurobond market. And it is setting friends against each other. So tax aside how far has the EU attack got? Starting as early as 1964 Brussels has been sniping at the City. The pace accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s with nine unhelpful directives particularly affecting insurance and banking. That attack is now accelerating. The trigger was the twelve years a take-over directive took in discussion only to be voted down and out. As a result France persuaded the EU Commission to speed things up. France wanted a new super-regulator that could adversely affect the London Stock Exchange and extend EU control over the City. The bottom line is, as usual, a Franco-German stitch up: Frankfurt will eventually get the markets and Paris will control the regulation. At least that’s the plan. In anticipation a voluntary Europe wide organisation was set up. The Federation of European Securities Exchanges is based in Brussels. Since 1999, the Federation has organised conferences on financial markets, in close co-operation with the Frankfurter Institute based in Berlin. In July 2000 the EU Commission appointed a committee of so-called Wise Men to examine the regulation of the securities markets, which rapidly reported only eight months later. That tells us how badly they need our money! A Belgian, Baron Lamfalussy, headed the Wise Men. He had been on the Delors Committee in the 1980s that led to the euro, and was later President of the European Monetary Institute, forerunner of the European Central Bank. A thoroughly sound man! The "wise men's group" was rightly seen in London as an attempt to harmonise stock exchange rules. You may remember that Laurent Fabius, the French Finance Minister, charged that he had been unable to read a British counter plan for financial regulation, because the British had not faxed it until midnight on the Sunday before the initial meeting, and he did not have a fax machine in his hotel room. The British plan focused on competition and flexibility and let each country set its own rules. Some hope of that! No wonder a Frenchman did not want to read it! In November 2000 the wise Belgian, Baron Lamfalussy, and his men decided there should be no European version of America's Securities and Exchange Commission - yet. The Wise Men noted the incompatibility of legal systems and business cultures in different states. Corpus Juris will of course sort that problem out! And the mind boggles at the vision of a European version of the American SEC when it does come, kicking down doors in London, confiscating documents and ordering Anglo-Saxon capitalists to answer questions. Meanwhile the report proposed a committee of EU regulators, the European Securities Committee. And it has recently started work in Brussels. Broad principles are established through primary legislation, under the codecision procedure, with the details left to the new European Securities Committee (ESC). Amazingly this unelected committee has legislative power and decides by majority voting. So decisions may well go against the interests of some member states - for that read the UK. This is some committee! An EU Commissioner chairs it and monitors the whole process. Its members are at secretary of state level. To maintain a residual member state interest that committee is advised by the new European Securities Regulators based in Paris (note, not even in the same country as the parent committee) and chaired by a member state representative. In summary, the EU Commission runs the first committee in Brussels, which legislates, and the member states can advise from Paris. The whole system will be reviewed in 2004 when member states, and democracy itself, can expect to be further demoted. There is no doubt that the ESC is an embryonic Securities and Exchange Commission. The Stock Exchange told me that the French are talking very seriously about this proposal, nicknamed EuroSec, and it is causing concern in London. So what is being enacted? The Lamfalussy Report laid down a 4-stage procedure for implementing 42 items of securities legislation by 2004 from the principle to enforcement. The four most important directives out of the current 42 are: The City thinks this is contrary to an Anglo-Saxon free, flexible approach and we don’t need it. Unfortunately Continental companies have no history of being good at putting out price sensitive information on an ad hoc basis – they have no flexibility - and it is to that level they wish to reduce us. So quarterly reporting is likely to be introduced which will be more costly and less flexible - somewhat like the US. Again going backwards. With these four directives, and the other 38 in the pipeline, the EU expects that there will be fewer markets and ultimately one market, an EU market. Nor is this all. You would think that such a great success story as the City would have few serious detractors within, only those trying to make it even better. Unfortunately there are Quislings. Not only are some of the banks like Deutsche Bank firmly on the EU side, as we would expect, there is now a branch of the Britain in Europe campaign in the City set up just over a year ago with over 50 members on its council. Many superannuated politicians now have remunerative and influential positions in the City. Here are just a few of the old favourites active in the City in Europe: Lord Brittan and Lord Tristran Garel-Jones at UBS Warburg; Lord Tugenhat Chairman of TU Fund Managers; Lord Howe at JP Morgan; Peter Sutherland Chairman of Goldman Sachs; Lord Dick Taverne, Chairman of AXA, and Adair Turner, Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe. Interestingly the Chief Economists of both KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers are both members. Perhaps they are anxious for the many lucrative contracts put out by Brussels. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, we in Britain are being lined up to take the financial strain from the struggling German economy. And French and German envy and their need to dominate and control are paramount. As a result we will be very second rate, on the fringes of Europe. I am sad to say as a Conservative that my party in Strasbourg not only voted for the Single Financial Market, but in speeches enthusiastically supported it. There can be no excuse for cheering at the destruction of the City of London. (C) Lindsay Jenkins, London November 2002 Lindsay Jenkins is the author of Britain Held Hostage, The Coming Euro-Dictatorship (foreword Frederick Forsyth) andThe Last Days of Britain, The Final Betrayal (foreword Lord Lamont of Lerwick) Ladies and gentlemen - It is an honour for me to deliver a short speech concerning the federalization of the European Union. Firstly, I want to mention that Estonians are still thankful to Britain, because the British fleet under the leadership of Admiral Sinclair came to help our state in the year 1918, when Estonians and British together stopped the advance of the Soviet communist army in Estonia. So Estonians gained time - 22 years outside of the federal communist Empire. On Monday in Cambridge, I met a former Russian dissident and political prisoner, Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky. He spent altogether twelve years in prisons of the federal Soviet Union. He told me honestly, "I don't want to live in a new Soviet Union, therefore I will try to stop this monster under a new name -'The United States of Europe' or maybe more realistically sounding - European Union of Socialist Republics'." I understood his feelings. I and many people from the former Federal Soviet Empire feel the same way. I think that our own experience is immensely valuable in our lives. This is also extremely important for the life of states and nations. We were rid of the Federal Soviet Union eleven years ago. And Estonia was the first occupied territory or member state who declared that our own legislation was supreme over federal Soviet law. We started that political and legal clash as early as 1988. Other member states followed us. What happened after that - you already know. The Federal Soviet Empire disappeared from the surface of the earth. Thank God. But the Empire strikes back. I will present some comparisons here for you. Try to find three differences. The Soviet Union had and the European Union has: For the Republic of Estonia - there is no such term as accession to the EU. Vice-versa. The EU is coming to Estonia and not as a good friend but as a new owner. After joining the EU we lose our statehood again and we will be among the northern provinces of Federal Europe. Our state will be totally helpless against the juggernaut of the EU. The European Union is - as the Soviet Union was - a dictatorial power-system, which avoids any kind of democratic control. All real decision- making happens behind closed doors. Communism, just like Euro-federalism, is , based on an anti-democratic understanding that adult citizens are not mature enough for making decisions. This communist-guardianship for people fits Eurocrats well. The real masters of Europe are the members of the EU Commission, members of the new non-elected Politburo of the Soviet System with their totalitarian power. I can't understand how everywhere passionate democrats give away their power to the euro-communist bureaucrats in Brussels. The goal of the competition policy in the EU is supremacy of big enterprises. The Europe of giants is near. It is reminiscent of the dominance of the state enterprises in every sphere of life in the Soviet Union. The current development in the EU is leading to total socialization of the economy and to total centralization of economic policy. One important part of the EU activity as in the Soviet Union is distribution of resources via EU foundations. Their goal is to use EU monetary reserves for unifying all member states. The Unification of living standards between poorer and wealthier EU member states. This is typical Soviet redistribution policy. The result of this redistribution will be that the living standards of the wealthy will fall to the level of poorer countries. There will only be "common poverty" after that. A very important ideological similarity between the EU and the Soviet Union is that both are fully materialistic and atheistic. For example - in an interview the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Hans Hennann Groer, said: "The big vision about a united Europe can change to a bad dream, where any Christian or traditional values are lacking. We are moving towards a concentrated system of power and we don’t know who controls that power. The United Europe can prepare the way for the big dictator already described by Hugh Benson and Solovjov.” Many people naively think today that the EU will develop into a certain kind of "United States of Europe" with some kind of new "European freedom-nation." In reality freedom and nation have nothing in common with the EU. The End station for the EU is namely the Super-Soviet Union. So it will be a very communist dictatorship. There is no understanding of the legitimate demands of European nations for maintaining their cultural identity and traditions. During my short speech, I couldn't speak about many questions but I wanted to stress some important similarities. Yet I can also say that this topic wasn't only theoretical. Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky has discovered materials about the plans of the Soviet Leadership for creation of the Federal Europe. The Leaders of the United States and Germany considered their plans very seriously. But a mistake was made - the Eastern European nations couldn't wait anymore - they rushed out from the communist block. One plan for a federal socialist Empire has failed. The new plan is being implemented now. Look out!
What future the EU?
Lindsay Jenkins
Saturday 2nd November 2002 The Great Hall, King's College London
As the Convention on the Future of Europe attempts to push the EU towards federation; as the European Union faces the challenge of enlargement;as the CAP and CFP fall apart; as the eurozone economies slow down, we ask "What future the EU?" 
Nigel Farage, MEP (United Kingdom Independcence Party) 
Michael Ancram, QC, MP (Shadow Foreign Secretary) 
Dr Anthony Coughlan (Secretary of the National Platform, Ireland) 
Lindsay Jenkins (Author and Financial Expert) 
Jan Zahradil, MP (Czech Shadow Foreign Secretary) 
Dr Richard North (UKIP Director of Research) 
Anti Poolamets (Advisor to Estonia's “No to the EU” campaign and Independence Party) 
Professor Ganado (Chairman of the Maltese Campaign for National Independence) 
Rolf Englund (Swedish author, political consultant, member of Citizens against EMU) For further details of this offer, or to purchase your video, contact: Robert Oulds, Director The Bruges Group, 216 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street London, W1B 5TB, UK Tel: +44(0)20 7287 4414 Fax: +44(0)20 7287 5522 E-mail: info@brugesgroup.com Lindsay Jenkins
The Ultimate City Take-Over
Anti Poolamets
Our past is our future
Friday, 19 June 2009
Posts
