What irony there is on the FT’s front page. The EU accuses the US of protectionism! The objection, as you may have seen, is to US proposals to require US-based subsidiaries of EU banks to hold adequate capital. It will not, of course, have eluded Michel Barnier that the UK applies similar obligations to foreign banks in London. Is it an outrage, or is it sensible regulation?

Regulators have a well-based horror of regulated entities with inadequate capital. If something goes wrong with such a beast, compensation funds are called on, or worse still, taxpayers fund the losses. We may not be able to escape that for domestic banks, but surely any country is wise to minimise that risk through proportionate requirements. Hardly a protectionist outrage.

The EU, on the other hand, has few qualms about imposing protectionist measures. AIFMD is full of them. Funds from outside the EU (third country funds) can’t be promoted within the EU unless all sorts of steps have been taken by the third country in question. Instead of leaving it to investors to be discerning – and we are talking about professional investors – promotion is banned.

It is pretty clear who the protectionist is.