It’s getting pretty difficult these days to go anywhere without some mention of the EU Referendum. Obviously in my day job this is an issue I have a great deal of interest in and I am slightly worried that the few facts that are available are getting lost in a mixture of half-truths, complacency and scandal laden headlines.
 
I think it’s important then that the Chamber has identified a crucial role to play in this and act as an honest-broker in making sure that when you vote on 23rd June - and please use your vote - that you can do so after having had the benefit of well-informed, fact-based and well-reasoned articles, debates and analysis.
 
And this isn't just for our members either. I hope that the work that the Chamber team are committed to can be used by other people too whether they're in business or not. For example, only a few weeks ago my daughter got some mail from the leave campaign - completely unsolicited - and outlining in quite attractive detail why the UK should leave the EU. So far nothing similar has been forthcoming from the stay campaign. The information may be right, it may be wrong but without considered analysis most people would never know.
 
So please get involved with this campaign and don’t just look at this from a personal perspective. One of the big things that I am keen on members doing more of is involving their employees in work like this. As President I sit on the Policy and Campaign Committee for the Chamber and when we were discussing activity on the back of this campaign, it was very clear that the call to action should be as widespread as possible so look out for more information on this as we move closer to the big day itself.  I believe that it is crucial that we debate the issue with our employees to ensure everyone understands the facts.


Read Wayne's full column in the April edition of 53 Degrees.

We are now just a few weeks away from the start of the official campaign period ahead of the EU Referendum on 23rd June though it already feels like this has  been going on forever.
 
So far we have been fed a mixed bag of politics, personalities and white noise. What there hasn't been so far is a concerted effort by either side to present to business, in fact the British public in general, any reasoned assessment of why we should remain in or leave the EU.
 
The Chamber will take an even-handed approach that will try to deal with the alarming ambiguity and conflicting data. Our primary goal is to do everything we can so that our members, indeed anyone that accesses what we are producing on this issue, can make a better informed decision come 23rd June. We will remove the relentless rhetoric that adds no value and try to set out the case for and against in a succinct and understandable way.
 
Promoting the case for both sides  doesn't mean being bland; it doesn't mean that we can’t and won’t highlight and myth bust on both sides’ claims; it doesn't mean our members can't have opinions, but it does mean that we can and must set out the case for and against in an even-handed way.
 
Our members have already made their views clear in recent surveys done as part of the BCC’s work on this with nearly 60% wishing to stay, 30% wanting to leave and 10%  undecided. This may and probably will change as June draws near.
 
As June 23rd comes ever closer I believe that a good many people will actually start to realise the importance of this vote and its potential implications. We must encourage as many people to vote as is possible. We must persuade the apathetic and reluctant.
 
We have one shot at this; let’s make sure that we use our votes and most importantly, we use them wisely.

The financial times does a “poll of polls” that aggregates every poll conducted on the referendum. The most recent set of results saw 'remain' at 46%, 'leave' at 38% and 'undecided' at 16%. Since the first poll in February 2015, 'undecided' has remained fairly steady at around the 16% mark, whilst the in/out positions have slowly converged on each other. They have actually jumped apart recently; an earlier YouGov poll in January put 'In' and 'Out' at 41% and  42% respectively – the closest result we have seen yet and the first to show a majority of 'Out' supporters. If anything, the result is becoming harder to predict. The picture within the business is perhaps even more interesting.

There has recently been a letter circulating with 198 signatures from 36 FTSE 100 companies stating their support for continued EU membership. Obviously, these companies are all big, high growth companies that hire large numbers of people and trade globally. It is no real surprise that they support Britain's membership of the EU. A vote to remain is the less risky of the two as things are most likely to stay just as they are it would be business as usual. Throw in potential uncertainty in the economy and financial markets and it is easy to see why these big companies are being risk averse. 

A recent British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) survey seemed to support this mentality, with 75% of companies with more than 250 employees wanting to 'remain' against 53% for small companies. Similar rifts appeared amongst exporters – 76% of EU-only exporters support EU membership, whilst 57% of non-EU exporters support an exit. Overall, the remain/leave split across all respondents was 60% against 30%, with just 10% undecided. Again, this showed a slightly smaller majority than the previous BCC survey, where the result was 63% for 'remain' and 27% for 'leave'.

A YouGov survey published in January paints a similar picture. Interviews with a handful of big private sector firms from the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 found that all but one supported continued EU membership. The 501 leaders of small and medium enterprises however, were split more akin to the general public – 47% to remain against 42% to leave. An earlier poll by the Federation of Small Businesses showed the same split between in and out, with 50.5% of those surveyed saying that EU membership benefitted the economy – a slim majority.

There certainly seems to be a focus on the thoughts of “Big Business” in the media rather than the real driving force behind the economy – the SMEs. Whether the views of such global behemoths have the best interests of Joe Public at heart, or that they should be the basis of any pro-EU argument is another debate. What is clear is that their resolute support of the status quo looks slightly out of sync with the ever-shifting views of SMEs and the general public. In a debate so devoid of facts the question of whose opinion matters can be as important as what the opinions are. After all, businesses will not be doing the voting, the people will.

Tell us what you are thinking! Will the views of big companies affect your decision? What concerns do SMEs face that bigger firms do not? Should businesses be rallying their workforce?

Alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk
@GMCC_Alex

With the news that British officials have entered the final phase of negotiations to reform the UK’s relationship with EU, an early referendum date is looking more and more likely. June 23rd is the date hot on everybody’s lips, and will become an even safer bet if Mr Cameron is successful in sealing the deal at this weekend’s European Summit in Brussels.  It seems apt then, that this week saw the Chamber’s engagement with this issue become more active, as we hosted the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (BSIE) for a round-table discussion with our members. Headed by former CEO of Marks and Spencer’s, Lord Stuart Rose, BSIE is currently pushing to become the officially recognised “In” campaign, and this week launched their campaign across the North of England. 

BSIE outlines three key areas in which they feel we benefit from being an EU member: the economy, security and influence. They make their view very clear that the best outcome is for the UK to remain a member of a reformed EU. The worthiness and intentions of the proposed reforms was the first point of slight contention in an otherwise uncharacteristically civilised discussion, given the topic. The main concerns seemed to be around the general public’s views rather than that of business, and about how the campaign plans to engage with those for whom the sticking points in the debate may seem to have little relevance in day-to-day life. 

Overall, there was an obvious pro-Europe air in the room. This was perhaps to be expected, as a recent poll of members by British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) showed that 60% of senior business people surveyed would vote to remain. 34% said they would reconsider based on the Prime Minister's reform negotiations, but it was the nature of the discussion after turning to the tactics of the “leave” side that was perhaps most indicative of the failures within the wider debate.

BSIE have the advantage of supporting the status quo, and are opposing a number of squabbling “leave” campaigns that share no unified voice. All the “remain” campaigns have to do is show that the prospect of leaving the EU is a risk, that it entails uncertainty, which at this point is no effort at all. Many options would be available to us should we leave, so people inevitably want to leave for a multitude of different reasons and wish to achieve a multitude of different things if we do so. Bundling this wide array of potential economic and political pathways under the “NO” on the ballot paper could be viewed as counterproductive if we are really striving to have a serious and fair discussion. There cannot be a unified voice within the “leave” campaigns or the “leave” side of the public simply because one does not exist. We will hopefully soon know exactly what a vote to remain is a vote for, this won’t happen for their opposition (If we leave we would have a pro-EU Prime Minister and government involved in the negotiating – a bizarre thought), so the temperament of the business community is unsurprising and entirely reasonable. It is tough to imagine that 34% of them will see anything significant enough to be swayed. This does mean however, that as and when we can arrange one, a similar event with a “leave” campaign should be quite exciting, and seeing both sides in the same room at this year’s BCC conference should not be missed.

Are you interested in us doing more events similar to this? Do you plan to engage your workforce concerning the referendum? Still unable to make up your mind? Get in touch!

Alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk
@GMCC_Alex

In the coming blogs I will break down some of the statistics and arguments most commonly used in the debate. I aim to clear up any common misconceptions, prove that numbers can be made to show almost anything based on the underlying assumptions made, and to show how the lines from both sides on the very same issues often contradict one another. If I seem to give more time to one side than the other, it is because their numbers or assumptions are riper for scrutiny, or reveal something more complicated.

A commonly cited figure is the 3 or 4 million jobs that are “linked to trade with the rest of the EU”. These essentially are any jobs in exporting industries or those linked to the wages arising from such industries. It’s certainly a nice figure to bandy about but what does it actually mean? Within the context it usually appears in it seems to mean: “If we leave the EU 3,000,000 people will lose their jobs”, or maybe: “3,000,000 jobs have been created as a result of being in the EU”, or the slightly less apocalyptic: “If we leave the EU 3,000,000 jobs may be at risk”. In reality the figure is pretty much meaningless in relation to the debate. These figures are not calculated with the intention of reflecting the impact of the UK leaving the EU, as they are linked to our exports rather than our membership status. The researchers at South Bank University who originally reported figures in this ballpark stress that “we do not seek to test this counterfactual hypothesis”; a similar paper from the National Institute of Social and Economic Research (NIESR) warned that: “there is no a priori reason to suppose that many of these [jobs], if any, would be permanently lost if Britain were to leave the EU.” Would the demand that creates these jobs really just disappear if we leave?  Retaining access to the single market will undoubtedly be a priority if we do, and article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty ensures we would have at least two years to conclude an agreement. Even so, if we were able to set our own trade regulations how much would we realistically be able to or want to deviate from current standards? “EU” regulations are far from the only ones affecting us, and most essentially bundle together and enforce a whole bunch of wider international agreements, standards and protocols. We would still need to adhere to such standards and accept global convention in order for us to remain an attractive country to trade with. Even if we strive to achieve more bargaining power in such negotiations, we would unquestionably do everything to avoid risking jobs in export industries.

There are many misconceptions surrounding article 50. The idea that the UK will “not be in the room” during any exit negotiations is false: Clause 2 states that an agreement will be negotiated and agreed upon with the withdrawing country, clause 3 states that the two year negotiation period will be extended until a unanimous agreement is made and clause 4 states that the withdrawing country will remain a full part of EU institutions during negotiations. Another often heard line is that the referendum puts our free movement status at risk. This is also not necessarily true. The referendum concerns our membership of the EU, whereas the free movement of people, goods and services results from us being a part of the European Economic Area (EEA). We should have no qualms about retaining our status within the EEA – if we so wish - if we vote to leave. This would be part of what is often referred to as “the Norwegian option” - just one of multiple exit strategies that will be discussed in later editions of this blog.

If your company trades with the rest of the EU please let us know your take on the issue. How does our trade relationship with the EU affect your business? What reforms should we be fighting for? What are your concerns about the result of the referendum?

More numbers in the next post.

alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk

For most, the EU referendum debate is understandably obtuse and confusing. This is a real problem in such an important issue, because it limits our ability to make a truly free and informed decision. In this series of informal blog posts, I am going to dissect the nature of the debate itself and the various In/Out campaigns. This is as much to reveal misconceptions as it is to provide clarity, and in doing so I will do my absolute best to be equally as critical of arguments from both sides. The purpose of these blogs will be purely to stimulate thinking, raise questions and hopefully enable productive debate.

From a researcher’s point of view, tasked with summarising some of the main arguments from both sides, the most prominent feeling is sheer frustration. The usual course of action is to provide statistics to show both sides of the argument, but in the case of EU In/Out campaigns, the numbers mostly crumble under scrutiny. It seems that both sides are more interested in pandering to their supporters than engaging in any sort of detailed debate about the very real implications of the final result. It is because of this that most people’s positions are currently based upon a few issues which they have strong personal feelings towards- immigration being the most obvious and timely example. This kind of talk is effective in stirring emotions precisely because the actual details are so complicated and so easy to be uninterested in. The assumptions people have however, are generally unfounded or altogether too easy to pick apart. At this point it is a stretch to say that leaving will have this effect on this thing, or that staying in will have that effect on that thing. What we do have at this point, is options; many options, many unknowns and a state of analysis paralysis. For example, several detailed exit strategies have been and continue to be developed, but go uncovered by the big campaigns. Instead we are subject to contradictory statements and arguments tailored to a particular audience without a thought for impartiality. It is so important to criticise this kind of work at this point because the intellectual argument is going completely unheard. I do not profess to be an expert - I am far from it, but I am going to try and navigate this thing from an impartial and critical standpoint as much as I can muster. It is the nature of the beast that these blogs may ultimately leave you with more questions than answers, but hopefully you will be asking yourself questions that you weren’t before, and will be better prepared to discuss them if they come up in the pub.

Some housekeeping, first of all. I will be using the handy term Brexit for the most part to refer to the prospect of Britain exiting the EU and the debate in general. This does not mean I am taking a stance for or against Brexit itself. In fact, I will go on record as saying that I genuinely do not know which way I will vote at this point in time.

A note on the campaigns themselves. At the time of writing campaigns on the “Out” side outweigh those on the “In” side - we have Vote Leave, Leave.EU, Leave HQ, Better Off Out, Business for Britain and Get Britain Out. On the other side are Britain Stronger in Europe and British Influence. There may be others I have missed and might be more in the future.

It has been said many times that this referendum will largely be decided by the business community. In this regard, the Chamber would love to hear feedback from any of our members who have something to say about these issues. I am not a businessman, and anything you may have to say about the referendum will help us here at the Chamber to steer our own coverage of the topic, so please get in touch and voice your opinions.

In the next blog, I will start to break down some of these statistics and show how each campaign can spin the numbers to their advantage.

alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk