Lloyd’s chief warns on Brexit services plan

The Lloyd’s of London chief chief says that the plan of the government for relations with the EU after brexit accelerated the departure of businesses from the United Kingdom.

Inga Beale told the BBC that the white paper would go to the 300-year-old insurance market, “full speed ahead” for the construction of its branch in Brussels, and inspire others.

Service-sector groups say that the plan to reduce jobs and is a “real blow”.

However, non-service groups were more likely to be positive.

Services, including banks, insurance companies and investment firms make up 80% of the British economy and are one of the most successful exports in the EU.

The government wants the British financial services in the future, to assuming a beefed-up version of the system already in use by certain non-EU countries, including the USA, Japan and China, wherein they agree to keep certain EU rules of access to the Block.

These rules are equivalent to each other in some areas.

Ms Beale, the chief executive of Lloyd’s, said: “Professional and financial services are not really offered and it is very disappointing. We basically make 80% of the economy of the UK.

“Lloyd’s is a subsidiary in Brussels, so that we have full power, and many other banks, insurers and other financial service providers to go at pace now.”

She said the plans would make a real impact: “We will no longer be licensed to write business or provide insurance in the EU-27 and this may be the same for personal protection.

“If you have insurance for your pet, and you like to travel to the continent for a holiday, it is the question of whether to cover your policy, you – so this is really a serious thing.”

Huw Evans, director-general of the Association of British insurers, said: “whatever the end result, the insurance industry is too important a rule taker.

“Without compliance with the financial regulations, we have nothing to say about the worst possible scenario for our world-leading insurance companies, we will strive to make the government to negotiate a better result than this.”

The City of London Corporation, which governs London’s financial district, said the case of the push for mutual recognition for the so-called “equivalence” to curb business opportunities with European colleagues would, and was a “real blow”.

Equivalence v mutual recognition

Alan Bloom, business correspondent

What is the difference between the mutual recognition and equivalence?

A justification for the Brexit, the United Kingdom can choose their own standards and regulations, and get rid of all the bureaucracy in Brussels. But in order to ensure the smooth of the trade, how is that possible, it also wants to have these standards automatically recognised in the EU. This is the mutual recognition and the EU, with its cake and eat it, too, and therefore not acceptable.

In the case of equivalence, the EU would decide that the UK regulations in a particular area to achieve the same regulatory goals, even if you don’t follow the exact same EU law. But the catch is that the EU is examining whether it meets the third country concerned, up to your standards. It is a rule of this industry, by the industry, and it can withdraw its approval, in the very short term.

Accounting for the equivalence of the services (including financial services) are, therefore, unpopular with many businesses, which had hoped that the Treasury, the election campaign was hard for mutual recognition, would fight their corner.

‘Step forward’

TheCityUK, the professional services lobby group, called the proposals for the services of the “unfortunate and frustrating”.

Trade association UK Finance, said that if one is rules only to existing equivalence arrangements would access any financial institutions with effective market, but it said the government was right to try to strengthen and expand equivalence.

Other groups in the industry welcomed the paper as a progress.

The EDF, which corresponds to the major manufacturers, called it a “very positive and constructive step forward” but said more work was needed.

The CBI welcomed the plans and said, “the protection of jobs and investment now and in the future is the guiding star for both negotiating partners should”.

The British Chambers of Commerce, called it “a welcome starting point” for the company.