Leaked EU FTT will likely hit the City too, whether we want it or not

If you can't beat them, maybe you should think about joining them?

The Financial Times' Alex Barker has seen a draft version of the financial transaction tax which is to be implemented by 11 euro area nations, and writes that it:

casts a wider net than expected by adding anti-avoidance measures to the original plan for an EU-wide levy, so that financial business does not decamp to safe havens.

The plan will levy a 0.1 per cent tax on stock and bond trades, and a 0.01 per cent tax on derivatives. It is imposed on any transaction involving a financial institution with its headquarters in the area, or on any transaction on behalf of a client based in the tax area.

It will also apply to transactions based on where the financial product was issued.

The news makes Britain's decision to opt-out from the tax look increasingly questionable. We already have a transaction tax of 0.5 per cent on any trades involving British stock — called stamp duty — which hasn't impacted on Britain becoming a centre of European finance. And the anti-avoidance measures included in the proposed draft will hit a relatively hefty proportion of trades involving the City.

Overall, around €30bn-€35bn is expected to be raised by the FTT, while similar measures implemented in the UK could raise around £8bn for the exchequer, according to the Robin Hood Tax Campaign, who say:

When our European neighbours are making their City firms pay for the damage they've caused it is shocking that our Government is refusing to get our banks to do the same.

With the UK facing welfare cuts and increased austerity, it is incomprehensible that the Chancellor should turn down the opportunity.

While the move looks likely to be effective on a revenue-raising front, it is less so when it comes to altering behaviour — the other key motivation for financial transaction taxes. The EU has less high-frequency trading (HFT) than the US, and the EU-wide FTT doesn't include a measure proposed by the Hollande government in France which would impose a minuscule tax on requests for quotes. That tax was aimed at stopping a type of HFT — quote spamming — which involves very few actual stock purchases; its absence leaves that abuse open.

Similarly, the value of the tax is low enough that it's unlikely that it will promote the "buy and hold" mentality that many were hoping for. Markets will still be volatile, and speculators will still rule. But hopefully the revenue will help.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496