Reading Comprehension Test 34

A well-known stock market sell signal is a company splurging on flashy new headquarters. It might then be time to go short the City of London. From the Shard, the tallest building in the European Union, the view is of a crowded skyline of fellow concept skyscrapers. There is the Gherkin, the Cheese grater, the Walkie Talkie and, rising in their midst, 22 Bishopsgate, which will be the Square Mile’s tallest and most capacious tower. The building frenzy is even accelerating. Londoners are waiting to
hear if the 1,000-foot Tulip—with a design that many contend is more phallic than floral—will be approved. None of this suggests a financial centre bracing for Britain’s
departure from the European Union. But as soon as Theresa May, the prime minister, made leaving the single market a “red line” after the Brexit referendum in 2016, it seemed likely that the City would be sundered from its biggest foreign market. Regulators on both sides of the Channel scrambled to ensure business continuity and financial stability. British firms were asked to draw up contingency plans, including opening hubs in the EU27. For much of the City, Brexit happened sometime last year. According to New Financial, a think tank in London, 291 big financial firms have moved some activities or people to the EU 27, or opened legal entities there. Many contingency plans were
triggered before March 29th, when Brexit was supposed to have happened. In the run-up to the extended deadline of October 31st, a wave of staff and their families will head off to new digs, offices and schools. The moves do not seem hasty. Though Brexit’s final form is unclear, only the softest of departures would keep Britain in the single market. And nothing short of that would safeguard “passporting” rights for City firms. These allow financial firms in any EU country to sell in any other and matter hugely in banking and asset management. In 2016, 5,476 firms based in Britain used 336,421 passports to sell in the EU. Around 8,000 firms in the European Economic Area, where much of the EU’s
writ runs, used 23,535 of them to offer services in Britain. Financial services account for 6.5% of Britain’s economic output and 11% of its tax revenue. The sector and its ecosystem of lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and the like employ 2.2m people, not only in the wealthy centres of the Square Mile, Canary Wharf and Edinburgh but also in places like Cardiff and Bournemouth. Yet Britain’s negotiators have treated the industry as a sideshow. The government took the view that the City is strong enough to cope, and made little effort to keep passporting, which would have meant blurring Mrs May’s red lines. Nor did it press hard for “mutual recognition”, in which the EU would accept Britain’s rules
as a basis for future trading as long as they did not diverge too much. The City is likely instead to be left with “equivalence”, a piecemeal status that the EU sometimes grants to third countries.

1.Which of the following is true as per the passage?

I. Britain has been given piecemeal status by the EU.
II. Britain has tried hard but failed to get mutual recognition from EU.
III. EU has accepted Britain’s rules as it did not diverge a lot from what it wants.

A well-known stock market sell signal is a company splurging on flashy new headquarters. It might then be time to go short the City of London. From the Shard, the tallest building in the European Union, the view is of a crowded skyline of fellow concept skyscrapers. There is the Gherkin, the Cheese grater, the Walkie Talkie and, rising in their midst, 22 Bishopsgate, which will be the Square Mile’s tallest and most capacious tower. The building frenzy is even accelerating. Londoners are waiting to
hear if the 1,000-foot Tulip—with a design that many contend is more phallic than floral—will be approved. None of this suggests a financial centre bracing for Britain’s
departure from the European Union. But as soon as Theresa May, the prime minister, made leaving the single market a “red line” after the Brexit referendum in 2016, it seemed likely that the City would be sundered from its biggest foreign market. Regulators on both sides of the Channel scrambled to ensure business continuity and financial stability. British firms were asked to draw up contingency plans, including opening hubs in the EU27. For much of the City, Brexit happened sometime last year. According to New Financial, a think tank in London, 291 big financial firms have moved some activities or people to the EU 27, or opened legal entities there. Many contingency plans were
triggered before March 29th, when Brexit was supposed to have happened. In the run-up to the extended deadline of October 31st, a wave of staff and their families will head off to new digs, offices and schools. The moves do not seem hasty. Though Brexit’s final form is unclear, only the softest of departures would keep Britain in the single market. And nothing short of that would safeguard “passporting” rights for City firms. These allow financial firms in any EU country to sell in any other and matter hugely in banking and asset management. In 2016, 5,476 firms based in Britain used 336,421 passports to sell in the EU. Around 8,000 firms in the European Economic Area, where much of the EU’s
writ runs, used 23,535 of them to offer services in Britain. Financial services account for 6.5% of Britain’s economic output and 11% of its tax revenue. The sector and its ecosystem of lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and the like employ 2.2m people, not only in the wealthy centres of the Square Mile, Canary Wharf and Edinburgh but also in places like Cardiff and Bournemouth. Yet Britain’s negotiators have treated the industry as a sideshow. The government took the view that the City is strong enough to cope, and made little effort to keep passporting, which would have meant blurring Mrs May’s red lines. Nor did it press hard for “mutual recognition”, in which the EU would accept Britain’s rules
as a basis for future trading as long as they did not diverge too much. The City is likely instead to be left with “equivalence”, a piecemeal status that the EU sometimes grants to third countries.

2 .Which of the following is most opposite in meaning to the word capacious as mentioned in the passage?

I. Abundant
II. cramped
III. Frenzied
IV. Ample
V. narrow

A well-known stock market sell signal is a company splurging on flashy new headquarters. It might then be time to go short the City of London. From the Shard, the tallest building in the European Union, the view is of a crowded skyline of fellow concept skyscrapers. There is the Gherkin, the Cheese grater, the Walkie Talkie and, rising in their midst, 22 Bishopsgate, which will be the Square Mile’s tallest and most capacious tower. The building frenzy is even accelerating. Londoners are waiting to
hear if the 1,000-foot Tulip—with a design that many contend is more phallic than floral—will be approved. None of this suggests a financial centre bracing for Britain’s
departure from the European Union. But as soon as Theresa May, the prime minister, made leaving the single market a “red line” after the Brexit referendum in 2016, it seemed likely that the City would be sundered from its biggest foreign market. Regulators on both sides of the Channel scrambled to ensure business continuity and financial stability. British firms were asked to draw up contingency plans, including opening hubs in the EU27. For much of the City, Brexit happened sometime last year. According to New Financial, a think tank in London, 291 big financial firms have moved some activities or people to the EU 27, or opened legal entities there. Many contingency plans were
triggered before March 29th, when Brexit was supposed to have happened. In the run-up to the extended deadline of October 31st, a wave of staff and their families will head off to new digs, offices and schools. The moves do not seem hasty. Though Brexit’s final form is unclear, only the softest of departures would keep Britain in the single market. And nothing short of that would safeguard “passporting” rights for City firms. These allow financial firms in any EU country to sell in any other and matter hugely in banking and asset management. In 2016, 5,476 firms based in Britain used 336,421 passports to sell in the EU. Around 8,000 firms in the European Economic Area, where much of the EU’s
writ runs, used 23,535 of them to offer services in Britain. Financial services account for 6.5% of Britain’s economic output and 11% of its tax revenue. The sector and its ecosystem of lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and the like employ 2.2m people, not only in the wealthy centres of the Square Mile, Canary Wharf and Edinburgh but also in places like Cardiff and Bournemouth. Yet Britain’s negotiators have treated the industry as a sideshow. The government took the view that the City is strong enough to cope, and made little effort to keep passporting, which would have meant blurring Mrs May’s red lines. Nor did it press hard for “mutual recognition”, in which the EU would accept Britain’s rules
as a basis for future trading as long as they did not diverge too much. The City is likely instead to be left with “equivalence”, a piecemeal status that the EU sometimes grants to third countries.

3 .Why is being a part of the ‘Single Market’ so important for Britain?

A well-known stock market sell signal is a company splurging on flashy new headquarters. It might then be time to go short the City of London. From the Shard, the tallest building in the European Union, the view is of a crowded skyline of fellow concept skyscrapers. There is the Gherkin, the Cheese grater, the Walkie Talkie and, rising in their midst, 22 Bishopsgate, which will be the Square Mile’s tallest and most capacious tower. The building frenzy is even accelerating. Londoners are waiting to
hear if the 1,000-foot Tulip—with a design that many contend is more phallic than floral—will be approved. None of this suggests a financial centre bracing for Britain’s
departure from the European Union. But as soon as Theresa May, the prime minister, made leaving the single market a “red line” after the Brexit referendum in 2016, it seemed likely that the City would be sundered from its biggest foreign market. Regulators on both sides of the Channel scrambled to ensure business continuity and financial stability. British firms were asked to draw up contingency plans, including opening hubs in the EU27. For much of the City, Brexit happened sometime last year. According to New Financial, a think tank in London, 291 big financial firms have moved some activities or people to the EU 27, or opened legal entities there. Many contingency plans were
triggered before March 29th, when Brexit was supposed to have happened. In the run-up to the extended deadline of October 31st, a wave of staff and their families will head off to new digs, offices and schools. The moves do not seem hasty. Though Brexit’s final form is unclear, only the softest of departures would keep Britain in the single market. And nothing short of that would safeguard “passporting” rights for City firms. These allow financial firms in any EU country to sell in any other and matter hugely in banking and asset management. In 2016, 5,476 firms based in Britain used 336,421 passports to sell in the EU. Around 8,000 firms in the European Economic Area, where much of the EU’s
writ runs, used 23,535 of them to offer services in Britain. Financial services account for 6.5% of Britain’s economic output and 11% of its tax revenue. The sector and its ecosystem of lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and the like employ 2.2m people, not only in the wealthy centres of the Square Mile, Canary Wharf and Edinburgh but also in places like Cardiff and Bournemouth. Yet Britain’s negotiators have treated the industry as a sideshow. The government took the view that the City is strong enough to cope, and made little effort to keep passporting, which would have meant blurring Mrs May’s red lines. Nor did it press hard for “mutual recognition”, in which the EU would accept Britain’s rules
as a basis for future trading as long as they did not diverge too much. The City is likely instead to be left with “equivalence”, a piecemeal status that the EU sometimes grants to third countries.

4.Which of the following could be a possible consequence of businesses moving out of Britain?

I. The nation would probably lose some of its assets.
II. This would temporarily increase business opportunities for other EU nations.
III. There may be a shift of people from Britain to other nations in the EU.

A well-known stock market sell signal is a company splurging on flashy new headquarters. It might then be time to go short the City of London. From the Shard, the tallest building in the European Union, the view is of a crowded skyline of fellow concept skyscrapers. There is the Gherkin, the Cheese grater, the Walkie Talkie and, rising in their midst, 22 Bishopsgate, which will be the Square Mile’s tallest and most capacious tower. The building frenzy is even accelerating. Londoners are waiting to
hear if the 1,000-foot Tulip—with a design that many contend is more phallic than floral—will be approved. None of this suggests a financial centre bracing for Britain’s
departure from the European Union. But as soon as Theresa May, the prime minister, made leaving the single market a “red line” after the Brexit referendum in 2016, it seemed likely that the City would be sundered from its biggest foreign market. Regulators on both sides of the Channel scrambled to ensure business continuity and financial stability. British firms were asked to draw up contingency plans, including opening hubs in the EU27. For much of the City, Brexit happened sometime last year. According to New Financial, a think tank in London, 291 big financial firms have moved some activities or people to the EU 27, or opened legal entities there. Many contingency plans were
triggered before March 29th, when Brexit was supposed to have happened. In the run-up to the extended deadline of October 31st, a wave of staff and their families will head off to new digs, offices and schools. The moves do not seem hasty. Though Brexit’s final form is unclear, only the softest of departures would keep Britain in the single market. And nothing short of that would safeguard “passporting” rights for City firms. These allow financial firms in any EU country to sell in any other and matter hugely in banking and asset management. In 2016, 5,476 firms based in Britain used 336,421 passports to sell in the EU. Around 8,000 firms in the European Economic Area, where much of the EU’s
writ runs, used 23,535 of them to offer services in Britain. Financial services account for 6.5% of Britain’s economic output and 11% of its tax revenue. The sector and its ecosystem of lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and the like employ 2.2m people, not only in the wealthy centres of the Square Mile, Canary Wharf and Edinburgh but also in places like Cardiff and Bournemouth. Yet Britain’s negotiators have treated the industry as a sideshow. The government took the view that the City is strong enough to cope, and made little effort to keep passporting, which would have meant blurring Mrs May’s red lines. Nor did it press hard for “mutual recognition”, in which the EU would accept Britain’s rules
as a basis for future trading as long as they did not diverge too much. The City is likely instead to be left with “equivalence”, a piecemeal status that the EU sometimes grants to third countries.

5 .What does the author mean by the statement- ‘For much of the City, Brexit happened sometime last year’?

A well-known stock market sell signal is a company splurging on flashy new headquarters. It might then be time to go short the City of London. From the Shard, the tallest building in the European Union, the view is of a crowded skyline of fellow concept skyscrapers. There is the Gherkin, the Cheese grater, the Walkie Talkie and, rising in their midst, 22 Bishopsgate, which will be the Square Mile’s tallest and most capacious tower. The building frenzy is even accelerating. Londoners are waiting to
hear if the 1,000-foot Tulip—with a design that many contend is more phallic than floral—will be approved. None of this suggests a financial centre bracing for Britain’s
departure from the European Union. But as soon as Theresa May, the prime minister, made leaving the single market a “red line” after the Brexit referendum in 2016, it seemed likely that the City would be sundered from its biggest foreign market. Regulators on both sides of the Channel scrambled to ensure business continuity and financial stability. British firms were asked to draw up contingency plans, including opening hubs in the EU27. For much of the City, Brexit happened sometime last year. According to New Financial, a think tank in London, 291 big financial firms have moved some activities or people to the EU 27, or opened legal entities there. Many contingency plans were
triggered before March 29th, when Brexit was supposed to have happened. In the run-up to the extended deadline of October 31st, a wave of staff and their families will head off to new digs, offices and schools. The moves do not seem hasty. Though Brexit’s final form is unclear, only the softest of departures would keep Britain in the single market. And nothing short of that would safeguard “passporting” rights for City firms. These allow financial firms in any EU country to sell in any other and matter hugely in banking and asset management. In 2016, 5,476 firms based in Britain used 336,421 passports to sell in the EU. Around 8,000 firms in the European Economic Area, where much of the EU’s
writ runs, used 23,535 of them to offer services in Britain. Financial services account for 6.5% of Britain’s economic output and 11% of its tax revenue. The sector and its ecosystem of lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and the like employ 2.2m people, not only in the wealthy centres of the Square Mile, Canary Wharf and Edinburgh but also in places like Cardiff and Bournemouth. Yet Britain’s negotiators have treated the industry as a sideshow. The government took the view that the City is strong enough to cope, and made little effort to keep passporting, which would have meant blurring Mrs May’s red lines. Nor did it press hard for “mutual recognition”, in which the EU would accept Britain’s rules
as a basis for future trading as long as they did not diverge too much. The City is likely instead to be left with “equivalence”, a piecemeal status that the EU sometimes grants to third countries.

6 .What does the author mean by the statement- ‘Yet Britain’s negotiators have treated the industry as a sideshow’?