Just to be clear, you're saying that the legal burden of being a member of the European Economic Area is identical to the legal burden of being a full member of the EU?
Those in the UK who want to leave want to leave because they think the EU takes too much of their sovereignty. What you and they seem to not understand is that leaving can *only* result in one of two scenarios: Economic decline as the UK becomes fully sovereign... or maintain its economic access and actually give up more sovereignty than it would by staying in the EU.
I think what they want to do is reduce their participation in the EU to economic only. So, keep economic and trade agreements, but ditch the 'ever-closer union' in terms of political and legal constraints. Obviously in some cases those aren't separable. You can't have free trade with the EU without adopting their minimum standards, their import export regulations, and so on. But that still leaves a lot.
Secondly, the EU will almost certainly not agree to negotiate with the UK on equal terms.
It's a difficult situation. On the one hand, the EU has a lot that the UK wants, including valuable markets, economic ties, police cooperation, political influence, etc. and so on. On the other hand, the UK has a lot that the EU wants, including a healthier economy, and international links. A break up would be bad for both. We can argue about who it would be worse for, but having one of the world's largest economies leave your club is not a good thing by any measure, and nor is declaring your most immediate geographic and economic neighbours impossible to work with.
Indeed, that is what they publically say. You'll note concerns over an EU exit were also mentioned in the article; and indeed one would have to be quite gullible to just blindly trust what the bank says publically as to their reasoning.
They're leaving for tax reasons, because most of their business is in the Far East and is growing faster, and because HQ functions employ a lot of admin staff who are much cheaper over there. It doesn't have anything to do with recent politics, or the EU.
The DEUTCHE BANK has only CONSIDERED leaving as you mention and no decisions have been made on this as shown here.
Right; because the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet.
The fact that they're telling you they're considering leaving if the UK *does* leave, though, is incredibly telling.
It's really not. They considered leaving when the EERM broke down, when the UK didn't adopt the Euro, when the EBA was founded, and a few other times besides. The problem is that all the expertise, and all their colleagues, are in London, not Frankfurt. There have been any number of predictions of banks all moving to Frankfurt, but they can't. The staff don't want to go. Those who do go are desperate to return. Even the EBA in increasing it's presence in London. London is a global financial centre, Frankfurt isn't. Moving to Luxembourg would make more sense.
Such a major financial institution leaving also tarnishes London's position as a financial center power, which will have many unforeseeable ripple-effects.
Very slightly. It's a lot worse for Deutsche Bank than it is for London.
If the UK leaves, it will instantly lose access to the single market. It would have to re-negotiate access in order to gain that same sort of privileged trading relationship that Norway and Switzerland have... and the EU has absolutely nothing to gain from giving the UK that for free.
It gains a fair amount actually. Free trade is mutually beneficial, it's not a favour you grant to people you like.
Again; Norway is an economic vassal state of the EU.
No, that's not a fair way to describe the trading relationship.
