On 21 May, 19:11, 1506 wrote:
On May 21, 10:19*am, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 21 May, 17:05, 1506 wrote:

On May 21, 7:55 am, The Real Doctor wrote:
Nope. People with a financial interest in having it built have
proposed a very modest benefits to cost ration. Even then, we'd do
rather better, as I recall, sticking the money in a building society
account.
One wonders if you will still think this is true when Europe's
fianancial center has moved to Frankfurt?

Ridiculous scaremongering. If Europe's financial centre moves to
Frankfurt, it won't be because the commute in from Maidenhead hasn't
been reduced by ten minutes.

Ian

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.

Many US companies favor London as a European base of operations.

For several years now US companies have been under the thumb of a
nasty piece of Legislation called Sarbanes Oxley. *One partial
solution to this is to de-list on the US stock exchanges and list on
an oversea exchange. *London has until now been the exchange of
choice.

Another method of reducing the impact of state and federal legislation
is the creation of upstream, offshore holding companies. *Again
England & Wales is the obvious choice. *Although Dubai seems to be
competing well for offshore incorporation and banking.

Against these advantages US CEOs and CFOs have to consider the
following:

London's expensive second rate hotels.

Dumb UK airport rules. *One can deplane with two pieces of hand
luggage, but enplane with only one.


If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the country,
thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland Security. I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy

Jonn