The City of London and the Euro

Berbéri, Carine Research Report The City of London and the Euro Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften, No. 14-2014 Provided in Cooperation with: Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Hochschule Koblenz - University of Applied Sciences Suggested Citation: Berbéri, Carine (2014) : The City of London and the Euro, Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften, No. 14-2014, Hochschule Koblenz - University of Applied Sciences, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Koblenz, https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:1105-opus4-257 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/113320 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/de/ Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften Hochschule Koblenz – University of Applied Sciences The City of London and the Euro von Carine Berbéri PhD Vollbeleg: Berbéri, Carine: The City of London and the Euro in: Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Hochschule Koblenz – University of Applied Sciences, Nr. 14 - 2014. Koblenz, Mai 2014 ISSN 1868-3711 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. © Carine Berbéri. Hochschule Koblenz. Das Werk einschließlich seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechts ist ohne Zustimmung der Autoren unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. I WISSENSCHAFTLICHE SCHRIFTEN Mit der Herausgabe der "Wissenschaftlichen Schriften" werden aktuelle Ergebnisse der Forschungstätigkeiten des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften dokumentiert und sowohl in gedruckter als auch in elektronischer Form veröffentlicht. Wissenschaftler, Praktiker und Studierende erhalten Einblick in die wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Forschungsarbeit des Fachbereichs, die sich mit betriebswirtschaftlichen, volkswirtschaftlichen und wirtschaftsjuristischen Fragestellungen befasst. Eine anwendungsorientierte Forschung stellt dabei sicher, dass die Aufarbeitung vorhandenen Wissens und die Suche nach neuen Erkenntnissen von Gestaltungshinweisen für die Unternehmenspraxis begleitet werden. Die Wissenschaftlichen Schriften des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften an der Hochschule Koblenz - University of Applied Sciences erscheinen mehrmals jährlich. Weitere Informationen unter www.hs-koblenz.de/wirtschaftswissenschaften. Schriftenleitung Martina Berg M. Sc. Stephanie May Dipl.-Volkswirtin Prof. Dr. Andreas Mengen Prof. Dr. Holger Philipps Lisa Porz M. Sc. Prof. Dr. Georg Schlichting II THE CITY OF LONDON AND THE EURO Analyzing the attitude of the City of London towards the euro can seem a bit strange today, at a time when Great Britain has still not joined the eurozone and even tries to organize a referendum about Britain’s EU membership. One should not forget that in January 2013 Prime Minister David Cameron promised he would hold such a referendum if the Conservatives were re-elected in 2015. Nevertheless, examining the attitude of the City remains interesting insofar as it reflects the difficult relations between Britain and Europe / Britain and European monetary initiatives. As mentioned by Tony Blair in July 1999: “Yet, we always come back to the same dilemma: in or out of Europe. To be in or not to be in, that is the question. In the end, we have always chosen to be in” (Speech to the London Business School). Furthermore, one can wonder whether the City, which is one of the main business and financial centres in the world and the largest financial centre in Europe, has been much affected by Blair’s decision not to join the euro in 1999. Focusing on the City seems all the more interesting today since the Cameron-Clegg government has increasingly tried to protect London’s financial centre over the past European summits. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to study the impact of the euro on the City so as to examine whether London’s position as a financial centre has been threatened since the late 1990s. It will also try to determine if the City has been influenced by the less and less constructive attitude of the Cameron-Clegg government towards the euro and the European Union (EU). III INHALTSVERZEICHNIS WISSENSCHAFTLICHE SCHRIFTEN ........................................................................................ I THE CITY OF LONDON AND THE EURO ................................................................................. II INHALTSVERZEICHNIS ....................................................................................................... III 1INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2 CITY SPLIT OVER BRITAIN JOINING THE EURO: TWO DIFFENT TYPES OF FEARS ............. 3 3IMPACT OF THE LAUNCH OF THE EURO ON THE CITY ...................................................... 5 3.1Impact following the introduction of the single currency (1999-2003) ............... 5 3.2Evolution since 2003 ............................................................................................. 7 5THE CITY´S ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE EURO TODAY .................................................... 13 5.1A City toughening its stance (2000-2008) .......................................................... 13 5.2Evolution since 2008 ........................................................................................... 14 6SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 16 LITERATUR- UND QUELLENVERZEICHNIS ........................................................................... 17 AUTORENPORTRAIT ............................................................................................................ 21 SCHRIFTENVERZEICHNIS................................................................................................... 22 1 1 INTRODUCTION As it is quite well known, European monetary initiatives have been problematic and divisive issues in Britain. British governments have always been reluctant to adhere to them, hesitating a lot and generally refusing to join them at the outset, as exemplified by Britain’s entry into the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System in 1990, 11 years after its birth. Today, Britain has still not adhered to the single currency although the latter was launched in 1999. Since May 2010 the relations between the UK, the City of London and the eurozone even seem to have become more difficult because of the policy followed by the new Cameron-Clegg government. Indeed, although the previous Blair and Brown governments (1997-2007/2007-2010) had adopted a cautious attitude towards Britain joining the euro, they had maintained a positive discourse, insisting on the meeting of five economic tests, and done their best to help the eurozone countries to solve their economic problems. Five tests had to be respected: there should be sustainable convergence between the business cycles and economic structures of the UK and the rest of the eurozone countries; there should be sufficient flexibility in the UK and in continental Europe to adapt to change and other unexpected events; joining EMU (European Monetary Union) should create better conditions for businesses to make long-term decisions to invest in Britain; it should have a beneficial effect upon Britain’s financial services industry; it should promote higher growth, stability, and a lasting increase in jobs. Since May 2010 the new coalition government has adopted quite a different policy and clearly behaved as an “awkward partner” during European summits, thus creating difficult relationships with the other European countries. Besides, they have clearly said that their government would “not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament” (HM Government 2010). From the start, the City of London has played a special role in the debate over Britain joining the euro. First, a great number of opinions about Britain’s membership of the euro have been associated with London’s pre-eminence as a financial centre. Second, the City of London was ONE of the five economic tests defined by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown to assess whether Britain could join the euro (during the Blair and Brown governments). Indeed, as mentioned in test N°4, it was important to ensure that entry into EMU would “have a beneficial effect upon Britain’s financial services industry”, i. e. the City (Brown 1997). The special status of the City has also been confirmed by the attitude of the new coalition government which has tried to protect the financial center as much as possible over the past few years. The importance given to the City is quite understandable since London has been a major financial center for more than three centuries. 2 At the end of the 1990s the City was one of the main business and financial centers in the world and the largest financial centre in Europe, with more than 500 international banks located in this area of London. It was the most important place for the global foreign exchange – with a share of more than 30% of worldwide daily turnover (Jung & Oestreich 2005). The financial services sector employed about 230,000 people in London and it was one of the largest contributors to the British economy. Consequently, this paper will first try to analyze the reactions brought about by the launch of the euro in 1999 concerning the status of the City. Second, we will study the impact of the introduction of the euro on the City so as to examine whether London’s position as a financial centre has been threatened and we will try to understand why. Third, we will focus on the main factors which threaten the City today so as to understand the measures which have recently been taken by the Cameron-Clegg government to protect London’s financial centre. Finally, we will try to determine if the City has been influenced by the less and less constructive attitude of the British government towards the euro and the EU and we will analyse the viewpoints of senior City executives on these issues today. 9 London has consequently retained its position as one of the main financial centres in Europe (Figure 2) and the world since the launch of the single currency in 1999. Nevertheless, it has been increasingly threatened by measures taken by governments following the economic and financial crisis (since 2008) as well as by the policy followed by the new coalition government towards Europe since November 2011. 10 4 DIFFICULT CONTEXT FOR THE CITY SINCE 2008 4.1 A tougher regulatory framework Despite the City’s strengths above mentioned, one should note that since 2008 the City has been increasingly affected by a greater number of rules in the UK, which means that “the UK’s regulatory environment for financial services has become more ‘continental’ than it used to be”, owing to the financial crisis (Whyte 2012). Thus, the UK’s regulatory framework has become much tougher to react to the problems banks had faced during the crisis – some of them had had to be rescued with taxpayer money. More precisely, the new rules are aimed at compelling banks to meet stricter capital and liquidity requirements and to draw up recovery and resolution plans explaining how they can be restructured if they run into trouble. The Financial Services Authority (FSA), which had been set up in 1997 to regulate the financial services industry in the UK and was considered as too flexible, was also abolished in 2013. Its responsibilities are now split between two new agencies (the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority) and the Bank of England so as to ensure a more stable financial system. Finally, the UK financial sector has been targeted by changes in the tax system: The previous government introduced a one-off tax on bank bonuses, raised the top rate of income tax from 40 per cent to 50 per cent, and introduced a levy on bank debt (in effect, an ex-ante tax on the risk that banks pose to financial stability). Britain’s current government did not renew the tax on bonuses and recently reduced the top rate of income tax to 45 per cent. It has also strongly opposed EU proposals for financial transactions tax (FTT). Set against this, however, the coalition government has kept – and increased – the levy on bank debt (Philip Whyte, Britain, Europe and the City of London, 2012, p. 3). All this means that since 2008 a great number of new rules have been imposed on the City by the British government, which followed the same type of policy as eurozone countries to react to the financial crisis. The fears of EU overregulation, brought about by Britain’s membership of the euro, have consequently been exaggerated. The increasingly Eurosceptic discourse of the British coalition government has also generated much unease in the City of London. 4.2 An increasingly Eurosceptic coalition government Indeed, since November-December 2011 the Cameron-Clegg government has increasingly tried to protect British interests and adopted a much less constructive discourse. This was particularly exemplified by David Cameron’s attitude at the EU summit in 11 Brussels in early December 2011: the British Prime Minister decided to use his veto to block treaty changes so as to protect Britain’s financial services. Although the 26 other member states of the EU had agreed to enforce new austerity measures and tougher budget rules across Europe to solve their economic difficulties, David Cameron blocked these changes because his demands for greater protection of the City of London had been rejected. The Prime Minister had insisted on a protocol excluding the City from the effects of new measures taken by the EU to regulate a number of financial practices: he wanted the right to impose higher capital ratios on banks than the 9% target sought for the eurozone – which showed that he did not want more flexible rules, keep the European Banking Authority in London, kill off proposals that euro-nominated financial transactions might only be allowed in eurozone markets and ensure that the City was not hit by the proposed financial transactions tax (Gow, Treanor & Collinson 2011). The City was consequently given a crucial role in the negotiations over treaty changes – David Cameron said the finance industry was a “key national interest”. This attitude has been confirmed ever since and Britain has kept strengthening its rhetoric over Europe and opposed more integration, focusing on Britain’s financial sector. Thus, in June 2012 David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne made it quite clear that they would never be part of any eurozone banking union aimed at helping European leaders to tackle the eurozone crisis. The British government even warned that they were ready to wield their veto in Brussels if there was an attempt to impose fresh controls on British banks (Cameron 2012). In February 2013 they also opposed the EU agreement to cap bankers’ bonuses, arguing such rules would drive away talent and restrict growth in the financial sector – and certainly thinking that they wanted to make their own decisions and not to be subject to a regime set up in Brussels (Traynor 2013). What is paradoxical though is that the City does not seem to have been consulted on these issues and has not asked for any kind of special treatment. As mentioned by Philip Whyte: “Some in the Square Mile loudly welcomed Cameron’s [veto at the EU summit of December 2011]. But many others were quietly furious at having been turned into poster children for British euroscepticism and feared this would weaken their influence in Brussels” (Whyte 2012). We can consequently wonder why the government has decided to focus on this issue. Several factors can explain the less constructive attitude of the coalition government. First, David Cameron has had to face a growing discontent of Tory backbenchers on Europe over the past few years. Above all, Tory backbenchers, who consider that the Prime minister has failed to do enough to protect British interests, want to use the negotiations over treaty changes to secure concessions, calling, for example, for the repatriation of social and employment laws from Brussels or for an opt-out from EU rules that harm the City of London. 12 Second, the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which would like Britain to withdraw from the EU as soon as possible, has forced the Conservative leadership to adopt more Eurosceptic policies. Since 2012 UKIP's popularity in opinion polls has increased. According to a Guardian/ICM poll carried out in May 2013 (ICM 2013), UKIP had even overtaken the Liberal Democrats for third place – support for UKIP had reached 18% (11% for the Lib Dems) at that time. Third, the eurozone crisis has made Britain more Eurosceptic, particularly as the British government has repeatedly blamed economic woes in the eurozone for Britain’s economic difficulties. The prospect of eurozone rescue plans which would threaten Britain’s sovereignty, lead to further European integration – a tighter political or fiscal union – and jeopardize the EU’s single market, has also aroused the fears of Tory Eurosceptics. Responding to these political pressures, David Cameron decided to make a speech on 23 January 2013 and promised he would hold an in/out referendum on membership of the European Union during the next parliament. Thus, British people would be able to decide whether Britain should remain in the EU by the end of 2017 if the Tories won the 2015 General Election. The importance given to the City in the negotiations over treaty changes might consequently be a way for David Cameron to try to put an end to tensions within Conservative ranks. Protecting the City seems indeed quite convincing owing to its value to the UK economy. London´s financial sector accounts for about 9.7% of the total national income of Great Britain. Besides, the financial services trade surplus with the rest of the EU is £17.6bn. How has the City reacted to such a policy? Has it changed its attitude towards the euro since its launch? 13 5 THE CITY´S ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE EURO TODAY 5.1 A City toughening its stance (2000-2008) Since there had been no evidence that the introduction of the euro had undermined London’s predominance as a financial centre, the attitude of the financial community towards the euro toughened a bit between 2000 and 2008. Two opinion polls carried out among senior City executives thus showed that there was a smaller proportion of senior City executives favouring the euro in 2003 than in 2000: 41% in 2003 (compared with 44% in 2000) considered that it would be in the City’s best interest to join the single currency while 40% disagreed (38% in 2000). Furthermore, the financial community was still divided on this issue (IPSOS-MORI 2001, MORI 2003). Nevertheless, the proportion of senior City executives supporting the euro was still higher than that noticeable among British people: about 35% of voters supported Britain’s membership of the euro at that time and about 55 per cent opposed it (IPSOSMORI 2003). One should also note that there was a high proportion of senior City executives who neither agreed nor disagreed – which means that they had still not made up their minds: in the 2000 opinion poll, this proportion amounted to 13% of voters. As mentioned in a report published by the House of Commons Treasury Committee in 2003, the main concern of the City at that time was not joining the single currency but the threat of a link between the EU and “over-regulation ... [as well as] over-taxation” (Treasury Select Committee 2003c). All this shows that it is rather difficult to study the opinion of the financial community, in particular because few polls have been carried out on this issue and financiers have remained silent on the euro. According to a report published by the Treasury Select Committee in 2003, this stance could be explained by the following reasons: the silence of the government on this issue; the reluctance among City people to speak out publicly on the euro to avoid controversy; the City which kept prospering outside the euro; and a large proportion of City people who were not British or worked for non- British institutions – and wished to stay out of British affairs (Treasury Select Committee 2003b). Generally speaking, it seems that most of the financiers remained pro-euro – at least, according to the newspaper articles and reports published at that time. This analysis can be confirmed by the attitude of the Blair government which (until 2003-2004) still expected the City to be part of a pro-euro campaign if they decided to hold a referendum on this issue. Nevertheless, from 2004 onwards neither the governments of Tony Blair (1997-2007) nor that of Gordon Brown (2007-2010) decided to launch a debate on the euro and remained quite cautious, partly because of the Iraq war. 14 5.2 Evolution since 2008 Since 2008 the euro has been mentioned a bit more because of the economic and financial crises and the economic difficulties of the eurozone countries. Even if the City has remained rather cautious, it has sometimes called for Britain to join the euro. Thus, in late 2008, following Iceland’s political and economic crisis which led to the collapse of the three major privately owned commercial banks of the country, several bankers and economists wondered whether Britain should not join the euro right now since it could be threatened by a sovereign debt crisis very soon. They explained that a floating exchange rate could enhance financial instability in nations, such as Britain, which had big banking sectors relative to GDP, and considered that being part of the euro would provide protection from lasting damage to the UK economy (Guetta 2008, Warner 2009, Stevens 2009). Today, the main topic, on which the City can express its opinion, is no longer membership of the euro, but membership of the EU owing to the policy followed by the British government. Concerning Europe, the financial community is divided: after the EU summit of December 2011 some in the City welcomed the UK’s isolation but others criticized David Cameron’s veto which had been motivated by political reasons. They mostly feared that the Prime Minister’s decision would marginalize Britain and the City in the EU and would significantly weaken the country’s negotiating position over future directives, as exemplified by Hugh Savill, director of prudential regulation at the Association of British Insurers (ABI): A financial transaction tax would be bad for British consumers, and the consequences of closer fiscal harmonization are not understood, but the immediate challenge for us will be exerting influence over EU regulations that will affect the UK financial services industry and its customers (City fears over EU isolation as UK misses out on bank talks, The Guardian, 9 December 2011). This was confirmed in 2013 by the City of London’s reaction to David Cameron’s promise to hold an in/out referendum if the Tories were re-elected in 2015. Although some financiers, influenced by the less and less constructive attitude of the government, criticized the new EU regulations such as the cap on bankers’ bonuses, which could undermine the City and make it less competitive, most of the financial community considered it would be madness for the City to leave the EU. They insisted that the latter had clearly benefited from membership – since the City had become the main financial centre in Europe and attracted many of the biggest banks and the brightest financiers from Europe and all over the world – and were worried about a risk of growing isolation for Britain and the City. Thus, they warned that leaving the EU could force big banks, located in London today to have access to the EU market, to relocate 15 their headquarters elsewhere in Europe (Wright 2013). The head of one big US bank even said that “if the UK leaves the EU, the City is dead” (Thornhill & Jenkins 2013). Consequently, the City is not as Eurosceptic as the government. Most of the financial community does not call for Britain to leave the EU but wants the government “to promote London’s capital markets to help solve the problems of the EU banking system” (Wright 2013). A great number of financiers even seem to be disconcerted by the Eurosceptic policy followed by the British government: for example, they do not understand why David Cameron used his veto in December 2011, claiming he wanted to protect the City, although he could have tried to protect the financial centre by remaining at the negotiating table (Thornhill & Jenkins 2013). 16 6 SUMMARY From the start, the euro has been a divisive issue for the City. Even though the latter was split on this issue in the late 1990s, most of the financiers supported Britain’s membership of the euro, fearing that: the competitive position of the City would be undermined at the global and European levels if Britain refused to join, the City would not be able to influence the decisions taken by eurozone countries any longer, and eurozone members would pass regulations that would discriminate against the City. Contrary to what was expected, the fears about the impact of the introduction of the euro on the City have not materialized. Britain has not joined the euro but the City of London has retained its position as one of the main financial centres in Europe and the world. Besides, it is still home to many of the world’s leading markets. Paradoxically enough, the two factors which have mostly weakened the City since 2008 have come from the UK, i. e. the tougher regulatory framework imposed to British banks following the economic and financial crises, as well as the increasingly Eurosceptic discourse of the coalition government, mainly motivated by political reasons. Today, the financial community has, of course, become a bit more reluctant to join the euro and been silent on the euro owing the economic difficulties of the eurozone and the attitude of the British government. The main question is whether or not Britain will remain part of the EU. Obviously, most of the financiers are pro-EU, fearing a risk of growing isolation for Britain and the City if Britain leaves the EU. Consequently, the future of the City will mainly depend on the prospect of the in/out referendum, and on the following factors which could influence such a decision: the evolution of economic problems in the eurozone and the measures taken to solve them – it is quite clear Britain will never be part of a banking union, a middle-way has consequently to be found; the attitude of Tory Eurosceptics in the UK and whether or not they will compel the Cameron-Clegg government to adopt a more Eurosceptic attitude; the relationships between the British government and its European partners which are quite difficult right now. Maybe these problems would be solved if the British government decided to introduce a strategy selling the City of London as part of the solution to Europe’s problems, as suggested by Hugo Dixon in May 2013 (Dixon 2013)? 17 LITERATUR- UND QUELLENVERZEICHNIS Bank of England (2000) Annual Report, in www.bankofengland.co.uk (as of July 27, 2013). Barber, S. & Mandelson, P. (2005) The City in Europe and the World. European Research Forum at London Metropolitan: London. Berberi, C. (2012) Le Royaume-Uni face à l’euro. De la prudence à l’hostilité. L’Harmattan : Paris. Bessin, E. (1997) Euro ou pas, la City cherche une assurance tous risques, in : Les dossiers de News d’ILL, N°2, pp. 24-25. Brittan, L. (2001) Why the City needs the euro, Financial News , 2 July. Brown, G. (2003) Statement by the Chancellor on UK membership of the single currency, HM Treasury News Release, 9 June. Brown, G. (1997) Statement on EMU by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury News Release, 126/97, 27 October. Buerkle, T. (1999) UK Euro Foes Campaign in City of London, New York Times , 16 April 1999. Burn, G. (2006) The Re-Emergence of Global Finance. Palgrave Macmillan: London. Business for Sterling (1999) Policies, in www.businessforsterling.org.uk (as of September 2, 1999). Cameron, D. (2012) Speech in Berlin, 7 June 2012. Cassidy, M. (1996) Quote in: The City joins the Euro-propagandists, The Independent , 4 September. Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation (2003) Sizing up the City – London’s Ranking as a Financial Centre, Corporation of London, June 2003. City of London Corporation (2011) An indispensable industry. Financial services in the UK, September. 18 Clementi, D. (2001) The City and the Euro: Innovation and Excellence, City Seminar on ‘London into the 21st Century, Speech delivered in Tokyo, 13 February in: BIS Review, November 2001. CRA International (2010) Taxation of the Financial Services Sector in the UK. Predictability and Competitiveness, City of London Corporation, October. Dixon, H. (2013) The City as Savior of EU Finance, International Herald Tribune, 20 May 2013. European Parliament (2013) EU Bank Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive, Economic and monetary affairs, 15 April in www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20130412BKG07195/html/EU- Bank-Capital-Requirements-Regulation-and-Directive (as of 29 July 2013) Finch, R. (2003) Unrivalled Expertise & Experience in: Corporate Series, City of London, Section 6, pp. 54-55. Gow, D.; Treanor, J. & Collinson, P. (2011) City fears over EU isolation as UK misses out on bank talks, The Guardian, 9 December. Guetta, B. (2008) Les Britanniques, la livre et l’euro, France Inter, 18 novembre (www.franceinter.fr/chro/geopolitique/73460). HM Government (2010) The Coalition: our programme for government, 20 May 2010 in: www.gov.uk/government/news/the-coalition-our-programme-for-government--1 (as of 18 October 2012). ICM (2013) Guardian/ICM Poll, 14 May (www.icmresearch.com/guardian-poll-may-2013). International Financial Services London (2009) Key Facts about the City of London, November (www.ifsl.org.uk) IPSOS-MORI (2003) Attitudes to Joining the Euro 1996-2003, September (www.ipsos-mori.com). IPSOS-MORI (2001) Corporation of London – Senior City Executives 2000, February (www.ipsosmori.com).