The weeks that followed the Conservative party’s election victory have been filled with comment and input on the question of renegotiating Britain’s EU membership. Most of these interventions have been from business lobby groups or individual company leaders. We have heard from JCB, Dyson, Airbus, the Confederation of British Industry and Deutsche Bank. In addition, the economic commentary has been ramped up by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney’s public calls for a swift conclusion to the EU question, and his Bank’s accidentally revealed exit risk assessment.
Of course it is reasonable for all such voices to have their say as a referendum approaches. Businesses create jobs and bring wealth to local areas. However, both sides of the debate should be wary of recreating the worst parts of the Scottish Independence referendum, when large firms presented simplistic scare stories which made economics the only valid conversation.
Leaving the EU would certainly have an economic element, but would equally create the possibility for changes to British governance, to international standing, to the lives of normal individuals. The interests of normal individuals do not normally align with those of Deutsche Bank or the CBI.
For example, businesses in the debate usually focus their criticism on regulatory red tape. “Red tape” sounds annoying and unnecessary, so when a multimillionaire director says we should get rid of it, they can be convincing. There are, though, numerous EU laws that employers consider red tape which most Eurosceptic voters would be keen to keep after exit, and which any government immediately after Brexit would be very wary to tamper with. These include rules guaranteeing four weeks’ holiday per year, or those governing overtime pay, or sick leave, or treating agency workers as employees after 90 days.
Of course, Parliament could recreate these rules itself, and probably would. But this kind of question is a blind spot in debates between, say, Business for Britain against Business for New Europe, where both parties are against most regulation and tariffs but differ on how to escape them. They are unlikely to discuss how we might actually improve road safety laws or clean beach directives, how we could ensure UK students’ access to Erasmus programmes after exit, how we could drop supermarket shelf prices by reforming or scrapping CAP. Nor do they highlight regional issues like Welsh and West Country access to structural funding, or scientific cooperation.
One commentator who has considered this issues is pro-European filmmaker Bill Emmott, who set out a ten-part campaign plan that rejects all talk of econometric models, scaremongering and ‘fat-cat business people’. Eurosceptics are unlikely to be convinced by Emmott’s arguments but should take serious note of his emphasis on positive visions, consideration of young people, use of non-British voices, and repeats of subtly biased television shows. Anyone who has seen ‘Yes, Minister’ knows that both sides can play that game.
Jonathan Lindsell is EU research fellow at Civitas. Softening the Blow considers how exit from the EU could avoid the pitfalls pro-European debaters often raise.
