The duo faced off in a debate at an event in the heart of London’s City financial district a day before UK lawmakers narrowly voted to remove the Irish “backstop” from a proposed Brexit package. The vote keeps UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s controversial withdrawal plan alive and she is due to return to discuss terms with Brussels. May's plan has been criticised because it would keep the country inside the Customs Union, potentially without an easy departure route, and make it hard for the UK to do its own trade deals with non-EU countries. The Irish backstop relates to a fall-back plan to ensure that the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland remains as smooth and low-key as possible, whatever the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU. 

The gathering at the Tapestry Room in The Ned, near the Bank of England, was organised by the financial services group . The opposing views ended up being less about the pros and cons of Brexit and more a stark reminder that there are just 36 working parliamentary days left to sort out a political stalemate. A looming pragmatism, particularly expressed by Miller, underscored that it doesn’t really matter at this point what side people were on. Rather, what counted was a “practical programme to get us out of this mess”, she said.

Miller achieved notoriety for suing the government to force a parliamentary vote before triggering the Brexit process. She has questioned whether voters understood the issues involved, much to the fury of Brexit campaigners. She also campaigns to make financial services more transparent and accountable. Miller said an overwhelmingly “shallow understanding” of what 44 years of EU integration meant for the UK has left politicians now trying to “basically take an egg out of an omelette.”

Referring to the roughly 800 pieces of legislation that parliament must pass to deliver a deal by 29 March, Miller said “a no deal’ needs legislation, the withdrawal agreement needs legislation; I don’t think Norway has a chance but in the event, that needs legislation” and, given the time left, they are “legislatively impossible” to deliver. (“No deal” refers to the UK leaving the bloc without any agreement in place. In practice, the country would fall under the trade terms of the World Trade Organisation.)

She also said that Brexit could end up in a constitutional crisis based on her own legal team’s probing. “None of us can find anywhere in any international treaty or domestic law stating what happens if the UK is faced with a `no deal’.” There is simply no record of what to do in that event, she said.  As bad as any of the current deals are, a change of government and hard-Left Labour Party politician Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister is an even bigger worry, she said.

Self-rule
Bootle said he backed Brexit because leaving would return self-government and "in the process the quality of our political debate would improve”. The country could then make "good economic decisions about the common agricultural policy, about the common fisheries policy, negotiating our own free trade agreements, and reconsidering a whole web in EU negotiations. Politics first, constitution first, then economics,” he said.

The former HSBC chief economist said the process had shown just how intransigent the EU is, but also suggested that being good negotiators in the short term could turn out to be a winners’ curse in delivering an outcome "that is not good for the EU either.”

Bootle thought the City’s financial services sector would remain robust and not benefit from delaying Brexit. He argued that there is competition for London’s services, but it is not all going to one place, which would be more of a serious threat.

And there are gains from leaving, among them losing the restraints imposed by the EU on capping bonuses. “Only the EU would invent that, and all it really did was force the City to jack up basic salaries,” Bootle continued.

Bootle scorned the EU prospects, saying it had no chance of catching up with the “great economies of the East" and told an audience of industry practitioners: “Don’t be fooled” by the EU - "bad institutions, daft objectives, equals bad decisions. The worst of all has been the euro, which I regard as the greatest self-inflicted wound in economic history.”

During exchanges, Miller and Bootle agreed that the government’s negotiating tactics with Brussels had been poor and had made it easier for the EU to exploit issues such as the Northern Ireland border. They also agreed that the issue had turned a spotlight on the quality of UK policymaking and advice, in often unflattering ways.

Miller’s questioning of whether the public understood the technical issues around leaving the EU prompted Bootle to respond that if voters’ views could be discounted for that reason, then that would invalidate any election result. What voters did understand, he said, was the “We” – the sense that as a country, the UK could and should take back powers from the EU.

What the funds industry thinks
SGG also used the occasion to release its own services sector polling on the aspects of Brexit most troubling fund managers. In a survey of 30 UK-based managers taken as recently as December and earlier this month, 72 per cent said that they would not consider relocating their business as a direct result of Brexit.

More than half of respondents said that Brexit had not negatively hit their business. Their overwhelming worry post Brexit was attracting investors. Three-quarters thought that task would be harder after the UK exits the EU, with a similar proportion seeing fundraising also getting harder.