The ‘out’ campaign to persuade Britain to leave the EU has no tangible benefits to show voters and can only offer an abyss of uncertainty and risk, according to Martin Temple, chair of the EEF.
Speaking at the EEF’s annual dinner, Temple laid out the economic and political argument for staying in the EU and called for the UK to take a leading role in driving reform from within.
Highlighting the importance of the EU economically, Temple said, “Our manufacturers, big and small depend on access to it, its supply chains and production networks. Large and easy access to market matters far more than just its spending power. It matters because it is a platform for scale. Big domestic markets allow their companies to grow quickly and take a strong global position.
“The EU is a useful whipping post for populists but the facts of our economic lives in Britain are European. The job of our elected politicians is to commit themselves to using the power and influence they have to make it work better, rather than make excuses about the limitations they face, and simply giving up and taking us out into an abyss of uncertainty and risk.”
Being in the EU gives us certainty, whereas those who argue we should leave can only offer uncertainty and risk
Temple also highlighted the attractiveness of the UK being in the EU as a magnet for Foreign Direct Investment and the risk to high value, high skill jobs should the UK leave: “In short, the great risk of leaving is that our country would be economically poorer. Being in the EU gives us certainty, whereas those who argue we should leave can only offer uncertainty and risk with few, if any, real tangible benefits. The risk our companies might be less prosperous, the jobs of the people who work for them less secure, their future pension worth less. We have to convince people, in a language they understand that, economically, they and their families have a quality of life which is better for us being a member.”
Were we to leave the EU now nobody knows what will happen
Temple also warned of the political risks of leaving and a diminished role for the UK in world affairs: “Were we to leave the EU now at a time when the continent faces challenges, perhaps greater than at any time since its creation, from a volatile middle east and, a turbulent world economy, nobody knows what will happen. But, what I do know, there is a risk it will create considerable uncertainty and could make these dangers still more threatening.
“Domestically, an English exit majority, with the potential opposite outcome in Scotland, would put even greater strain on the Union. Internationally, leaving would diminish both our, and the EU’s, place in the world and significantly affect the relations countries such as the United States, Russia and Asian powers have with the UK and Europe.”
Temple added however, that Europe cannot remain where it is and that a ‘one size all fits’ policy cannot be the only option going forward. Praising the Prime Minister’s attempts to fight for change he will say: “The Prime Minister may, or may not, have agreed a good deal for us last week. That’s a matter of personal opinion but, what he is fighting for is worth having. The recognition there is more than one way forward than “ever closer political union”, the stress on the importance of competitiveness, lower business costs and protection for countries outside the eurozone are important in themselves.
According to a recent EEF survey on the topic, 61% of EEF members want the UK to remain in the EU, while just 5% support a ‘Brexit
“They also have a broader importance in the shape of a rebuff for the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy, a recognition that the social market needs a bit more market and, that the problems facing countries from the Balkans to the Baltic to Iberia cannot be shoehorned into a single ‘one size fits all’ policy.”
According to a recent EEF survey on the topic, 61% of EEF members want the UK to remain in the EU, while just 5% support a ‘Brexit’. Respondents said that the main advantage for business of remaining in the EU is that it makes it easier for UK companies to start exporting (81%), whilst the main disadvantage is red tape (72%).
That’s a big ‘Snow Job’ ,look at the Billions we save in payments!! etc. Look what is left in your Wallet at the end of an EU day. Look at the services you used to have!!!
Project fear.
Are we sure that press release didn’t come directly from No. 10? Sounds remarkably familiar.
How many times will people hide behind the risk of uncertainty to stop change and progress?
Think of all the great innovations, revolutions and institutions of the world. They didn’t come from the known but from facing up to the unknown and finding opportunities where others saw risk.
Moreover these are silly bi-polar arguments: they’re predicated on the belief that Brexit would be akin to pulling up the drawbridge and turning our back on Europe, which is clearly not the case.
Good grief, it would take years under Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to negotiate a leaving settlement and establish our independence once more. Nothing is going to change over night and all sensible parties will work to establish a new relationship that is beneficial to all. Pure economics and pragmatism will win out in the end either way.
As for security and world influence. Norway with its one vote at the global round tables and committees has exactly the same power as the one vote the entire EU has. Yes it has to follow EU implementation of these dictats because of its EEA status but it gets to decide equally with the EU what those will be. That’s a lot more influence than we have, with our 10% voting rights in the EU bloc. If we leave the EU, we get our vote back and our voice is once more heard at a global level.
Moreover, please remember that Germany, unilaterally invited 1,000,000 migrants into Europe: they didn’t ask the rest of the EU, they didn’t even debate it and in doing so we now have an estimated 5000 jihadis with the right to move freely through the EU. And remember it was the EU’s disastrous interventions in Ukraine which precipitated Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Easter Ukraine. The list goes on of the EU’s incoherent foreign policies and in fighting.
Finally, please remember NATO has secured Europe’s border for the last 50 years, not the EU which only came into existence in the 1990s.
Yes there are benefits to staying in the EU. Yes there will be drawbacks to leaving. But let us have a more balanced and open debate; not scaremongering by large multinationals and their representatives: the well known champions of international justice and democracy.
A few years ago I was a little involved with EEF and they then represented the interests of company owners rather than managers and engineers. However, it is interesting to read their views in trying to decide how to make my (probably insignificant) mark on a piece of paper.
If the UK leaving the EU is going to weaken so much, why aren’t they prepared to negotiate appropriately.
My partner has a friend who refuses to leave her abusive husband as she is scared of the unknown ….
To me the britexit seems as if this is turning out to be the usual question of what’s good for big businesses (stay in), that do not pay tax or less than 1%, and the majority of small to medium size who do pay taxes (exit) who pay 40% and upwards. From what I have been reading it is the big business “leaders” that want the UK to stay in Europe. They are also minority employers. And minority tax payers. More people in the UK work for small to medium companies.
The comments thrown about by “Big business” about safety and security bring to mind the comment by a famous politician that “the person that gives up freedom for security achieve neither.” We can become slaves of the state under Napoleonic Laws and EU Stazi.
(http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2016-006-eu-replacing-english-common-law-with-repressive-corpus-juris/ )
Or throw off the yoke of oppression, hidden in the name “security”.
The UK was a great place to live and work, and could be again if we were not stifled by the mediocrity that is over governance and petty bureaucracy. The EU is run by unelected bureaucrats that will soon have the power to have you detained without trial. The police in the UK are already arresting and deporting without a shred of evidence. (Julian Assange fled into the embassy of Ecuador in London.)
Yes we went through a bad patch in the seventies with the Unions. But we grew as a nation. To be industrious, inventive, and forward thinking. We should remember that we first signed up for the “Common Market” not a Federal state run by un-elected and faceless people.
I feel sick when I hear “Out” people saying how easy it would be to negotiate favorable trade agreements with the EU and in any event we should be making our main trading partners China, India and Brazil, without the distraction of the EU. Dream on …
If we weren’t in the EU we would simply be told what our specifications and standards must be without any say in the matter. What kind of independance is that?
Last time I was in Germany, everybody had the same doubts and frustrations about Brussels as we have. Let’s get together to sort it.
Understandably there are concerns about the numbers of Syrian refugees and general economic migrants. Clearly France, if we were out of the EC, would have no incentive to stop them moving on to the UK. Arranging concerts, I see the number of superb musicians who were born overseas. Recently, my wife had two serious health problems. The quality of health care was superlative and the concern and reassurance was beyond the imagination. And many of the consultants and other staff were not born in this country.
Let’s count our blessings and not want to hark back to the 1950’s when we had a Commonwealth to trade with.
Consider these points that the others claim:
1.We’ll have control over our own laws. No. We won’t, we will still need to harmonise with Europe. The only difference between now and then is that at the moment we get to influence those laws. If we leave we just have to adopt them (See Norway).
2.British courts can make the final decision. More complex this one but, in short, no. They can’t. At least not any more than now. The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU. The European Court of Justice is the final arbiter of EU law (not national law)… see point 1.
3.We can control our own borders. Er… We already do. You remember that passport thing you have to show the man?
4.We can control immigration. In theory, yes, we could. We could pull up the drawbridge and fill in the tunnel too. But it won’t happen because we lose more than we gain.
5.Staying in makes terrorism more likely. One of the more facile claims, this is so brilliantly stupid that it is almost genius. Staying in the EU makes us a hotbed for terrorism whilst leaving means we’re all safe. There you have it! The only problem is, it’s not true. First of all, see point 4 above. Then consider that terrorists are just like multi-nationals – they don’t respect national borders, they don’t play fair and they don’t care about you.
6.We’ll renegotiate free trade deals to replace the EU. We won’t. Certainly not quickly at least. We’ll trade with the EU as a member of the EEA so we get pretty much the same as now but we lose the power to influence any future changes. Again, see Norway. And the US has already made it clear it has no interest in a FTA with a newly isolated and rapidly sinking UK. But if you believe we can do instant deals why don’t you start with Scotland. As it will undoubtedly leave if the UK leaves the EU. As eventually will Northern Ireland. And then Wales… starting to feel like the ugly kid at the school disco yet?
7.We’ll be strutting our stuff as world power again. Newsflash! The UK is a world power. It has a seat on the UN Security Council. It punches enormously above its weight on the international stage. This is in part because of its connectedness to Europe and its power within the EU. Leave and what are you left with? There is momentum building to review the UNSC membership, what do you think are the odds that an isolated UK will still be there?
8.The economy will thrive if we’re outside the EU. Seriously? It’s hardly even worth bothering trying to answer this one! The statement is just so blatantly devoid of logic. We’re not Norway. we sold off most of the family silver years ago. And what’s left is rapidly being outsourced and sold off too. And that great shining generator of wealth (for a small few), the financial sector? That will move to Frankfurt, did you ever see a bank with loyalty?In short, if we leave, we get to live through a fire sale at the sunset of a once great economic and political power.
9.The EU is incompetent, badly run and a drain on resources. Yes. It is. It is beyond incompetent in many cases. But we’re stuck with it one way or the other – leaving does not change that. It might be hard to change it but at least it’s possible from the inside (now more than ever). What can we do from outside? It’s also worth pondering that many of the problems with supposed-EU dictates lie in the local implementation (remember, it was the UK’s fault it didn’t impose the moratorium in immigration in 2004, as Germany and others did).
10.What’s it ever done for us anyway? Nothing much. Other than working time directives and other ways that protect your rights at work, protect your children. Then there’s consumer protection and European peace. Not to mention the wholesale transition of Eastern Europe from volatile authoritarian states into thriving democracies. Maybe you don’t care about any of those things. But you should.
In short, the idea of leaving the EU is somewhere between bat-shit crazy and economic suicide.
Perhaps the most depressing thing is that this referendum, and an entire country’s future, is at risk of being decided through ignorance. Ignorance led by mis-information and a false sense of identity that fails to grasp that this is 2016, not 1816. We’re being fed a diet of half-truths and outright lies based on short-termism when the real issues are not just complex but fundamental to our economic and geopolitical future.
And herein lies the difference between the two camps and their approaches.
I’m pro-European, spend a lot of time in Europe but don’t believe our best interests are served by being part of the EU. And for that I’m called “bat-shit crazy”.
More fear, more denigration, more mockery. This is the pro-EU campaign.
Moreover most of the points given above are superficially true but under closer examination lose their strength.
If we leave, of course there’ll be change. Of course there’ll be compromise and of course it won’t be easy. But most things in life rarely are.
I will re-state what I wrote previously. Change will be slow and the hefty weights of economics and pragmatism will force an equitable solution. We’re not suddenly going to pull up the draw-bridges or stop co-operating out of petty spite.
Project Fear II..
‘Uncertainty” claims the EEF? Their ‘certainty’ is yet more regulation, intervention, restrictions on UK goods, open access for Europeans to UK markets while we can’t even get a toehold in, for example, the French engineering market!
Why doesn’t the EEF stand up for British industry and the dying species of ‘British manufacturer’, for once??
Plus the certainty of having to ask the Germans (the Germans!) for permission to add border controls to keep out the huge tidal wave of migrants the Austrians, French, Hungarians, Czechs and Bulgarians don’t want..
One can label what one doesn’t want to believe as “fearmongering” but if you think about it, what can the “IN” campaign do other than point out disadvantages of leaving?
Do we really want to take some decision based on “positive thinking”?
If we leave, at least we would be able to change our own destiny and not be paying for the luxury of being dictated too by the majority.
Someone please tell me of an advantage we will get in the future from staying in….. there must be one thing that is good that will definately happen??
It is repeated that Scotland might/would seek to leave the UK if it is a EXIT vote that wins through, are we to ignore the fact that the population of the whole of Scotland matters no more than 1/2 of London?
I’m not entirely sure what has happened to the concept of reasoned debate but the responses to this article seem to be tarring the holders of the opposite viewpoint as idiotic extremists.
The reality is that both sides of the argument have valid points to make and neither side has the answers to all of the questions.
However as the decision will be made by majority vote in the referendum the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ are going to have to work a lot hard to get their points across – and petty name calling won’t help either case.
EU regulations or ‘market forces’ de-regulations?
Easy question to answer: EU regulations, of course.
Another question: If we leave the EU today, does that mean billions of pounds will rain on us from China and India tomorrow (or next year for that matter)?
Answer: No.
We put billions in the EU and we get billions more back, the question is who gets these ‘extra’ billions? Its not us, the hard working majority.
EU is far from perfect however 2016 could be the year that major improvements start and the UK, for sure, will be at the forefront of this process.
The macaroon has opened a genies-lamp in going for the referendum to appease his own party only. I am still wavering but enjoying the debate and points raised above: still no idea about where to place the x.
It seems that in the short-term it makes little difference which way the UK votes. I am personally seeking answers to:
1. Is the European project a long term benefit to the UK? The USA’s dominance of world trade is almost over as China rises and Russia and India become more significant players.
2. Would a more united Europe be the place to be for the UK’s trade and security future, e.g. does the UK gain from more immersion in co-operation with France and Germany plus developing EU countries, and,
3. What is the alternative model, e.g. should the UK try to be a Switzerland?
Any answers please!