I strongly suspect the UK won't be able to continue any passporting[1] arrangements because it would greatly benefit Germany's financial sector if foreign banks had to establish a European presence to trade within the EU. That is an existential threat to London's finance industry. Obviously it depends on trade negotiations with the EU as the UK leaves, but really, what benefit is there to the EU to let it continue the way it is? Why would they want the UK to carry on as it is now?

[1] https://www.eba.europa.eu/regulation-and-policy/passporting-...

The referendum result was 52-48, with some people regretting their decision since they only meant it as a protest against the current government. Others are furious that the things they thought they voted for (money for healthcare, much reduced immigration) have already been backtraced upon by politicians.

We live in interesting times.

(I'm British and live in Denmark, so I have a clear bias in this.)

Historically the EU plays hardball with dissenters. The leavers are gambling that our trading relationships are essential to the EU - but unfortunately they really aren't. So it's unwise to expect anything too conciliatory from Brussels.

What is clear is that if the UK does leave it will have spent the last forty years building up the City as the key European/World financial center, and then thrown away that advantage through the actions of a small clique of overly ambitious and utterly dishonest politicians.

And if you take away the City, no one in power has any idea at all how to build a 21st century economy - never mind a 20th century economy, or even a 19th century economy.

While the rest of Europe will be developing new startups, England will be playing with its union jack and wondering if maybe it should build a big navy again.

The EU FFT is a prime example of why finance in Frankfurt or Paris is unlikely to be in a position to compete with London, NY, Hong Kong, or Singapore.

An indication of this will be on July 4, when LSE votes on the Deutsche Boerse merger.

Not only is it jumping the gun, it's an absurd proposition. London is the world's top financial center. It has been for the better part of two centuries (sometimes jockeying for the top spot with New York). Nowhere else in the EU comes close.

Reading the discussion it seems like there's no real obvious choice for a European city which might end up owning Finance in the way London has. After all London earned its status as financial capital a long time before the EU was created and has a long history supporting this industry. The legal system and services that formed around it are unlikely to be able to be easily transplanted, so despite other cities wanting to offer themselves as substitutes it's not Banks could move without losing some economies of scale.

This is of course assuming that our government attempts to negotiate for us to stay in the 'single market' and that the finance industry itself lobbies for Europe to play ball and keep business as usual.

Of course, it is possible that we could see some decentralisation, which could weaken Europe's banking industry in relation to the US.

[0] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/whi...

A striking example would be the move of the entire banking industry from Montreal to Toronto, due to the growing separatism in and around Montreal.