After Brexit vote, most CEOs in Britain are looking at relocating

A majority of CEOs in Britain say they are considering moving some of their operations elsewhere so that they may retain ties to EU markets following Britain's exit.

Chris Radburn/PA/AP/File
A European Union flag is hung behind the statue of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as pro-Europe protesters take part in a March for Europe rally from Park Lane to Parliament Square, in London, in early September.

The furor following Britain’s “Brexit” vote has calmed somewhat in recent weeks, as the economic armageddon predicted by some has failed to materialize.

Nevertheless, two new reports into UK-based businesses are prompting forecasts of a gloomy future as this island nation prepares to depart from the European Union. 

One report, conducted by the  global auditing firm KPMG, found that three-quarters of executives would consider moving their headquarters or some operations out of Britain; another survey, specifically of financial services, showed a drop in optimism for the third consecutive quarter.

"We hear it time and time again that business needs certainty," said Simon Collins, KPMG's UK chairman, in a statement. "Policy makers should be really concerned about a leaching of British business abroad and should engage with business early to understand what assurances they can offer and closely monitor any shifts overseas."

Yet digging into the survey’s results a little more deeply may allay some fears. Alongside the finding that 76 of the 100 executives polled said they would consider moving some part of their business beyond Britain’s shores, 69 of them expressed confidence in the country’s growth prospects over the next 12 months – a larger share than were confident about the global economy.

Moreover, as Eurosceptic blogger Tim Worstall wrote in Forbes, the survey finds only that CEOs are “considering” the future location of operations, not that they have decided to move.

“My point [is] that their job is to consider such things, this is what they are paid for,” wrote Mr. Worstall. “And that consideration is supposed to be a permanent matter. Brexit being just one of those events dear boy, events, which change the economic landscape.”

The second survey, the CBI/PwC Financial Services Survey, sought the opinions of 115 firms in that industry and displayed what Danica Kirka of the Associated Press described as “the longest drop [in optimism] since the global financial crisis in 2009,” having now fallen for three quarters in a row.

Yet this, too, finds a counterbalance in a recent reversal by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, an intergovernmental organization of 35 wealthy democracies. Having originally predicted dire financial consequences of a vote for “Brexit,” the OECD revised its growth forecast upwards for 2016, after stronger-than-expected performance in the first half of the year.

Nonetheless, as the British government ponders its approach to the forthcoming negotiations over its exit from the EU, consideration of economic consequences, particularly on the financial sector, which provides employment for two million Britons, will likely be topmost on their minds.

As Andrew Kail, UK financial services leader at consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers, said, the worry is about "the domino effect on people, productivity and position as a financial hub that must be guarded against."

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.