It’s been open season in the press on the subject of Brexit, with dozens of stories appearing in the nationals to coincide with Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempts to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union.
These were three of the headlines that typified the style of reporting that took place: Brexit could slash sterling by 20%; Brexit could return Britain to being ‘dirty man of Europe’; Brexit could very easily lead to the break-up of Britain. You’ll notice one word that is common to all three headlines – it’s the word ‘could’.
Therein lies the problem with Brexit, it’s a subject that lends itself to conjecture rather than fact. No-one has much idea of what a British exit from the European Union would really look like, and that uncertainty opens the door to lobbyists with vested interests to promote. The result is hysterical discussion from polarised groups at either end of the spectrum.
This is a source of huge frustrations for manufacturers, who have genuine fears that need addressing. The booming car industry, for instance, has questions over what Brexit might mean for export tariffs. Aerospace giant Airbus – with plants in Bristol and north Wales – has voiced concerns about the additional bureaucracy that any break-up might have on its business. JCB, on the other hand, thinks Brexit could reduce its administrative load and wants the benefits of departure discussed without the level of scaremongering seen to date. These are important topics, yet they get obscured by smoke and mirrors.
What’s needed is a more considered, informed approach to the subject of Brexit – from political, trade and legal points of view. That’s why an event taking place on 3 March in London is to be welcomed. Britain’s Future in Europe looks like it could be one of the first serious attempts to discuss Brexit in a calm and measured way.
The half-day event, taking place on 3 March at the Carpenters’ Hall in London, has attracted a range of high-profile speakers, including Dr Wolfgang Schauble, Germany’s finance minister; Juergen Maier, chief executive at Siemens UK; and Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
Additional speakers include Lord Peter Mandelson; Lord David Owen, independent social democrat peer; Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Business for Britain; Nicola Horlick, chief executive of Money & Co; and Alan Halsall, CEO of Silver Cross.
The speaker and panel line-up isn’t weighted towards either the ‘in’ or ‘out’ campaign. It’s a good mix of those from both sides of the fence, along with others with an open mind.
The time for misinformation about Brexit needs to come to an end. And Britain’s Future in Europe provides a useful starting point for more balanced conversations to begin.
* For more information on Britain’s Future in Europe, organised by the German British Forum, go to www.gbf.com/conference/britains-future-in-europe-gbf-conference-2016/
Lee Hibbert is Content Director for Technical Associates Group
I am one of the previously committed Europeans who is now wavering and less certain.
We certainly need informed debate rather than the hype presently being served-up.
My concerns are that apart from a few areas (like auto / weapons / aeroplanes) our export industries are close to totally failed. Industry provides about 10% of GDP now, surely a recipe for disaster. Our trade balance with Europe is apparently unfavourable and has probably suffered from ease of closure of UK factories compared with European factories, which has led to the UK closing its industry as soon as a competitive loss occurs (steel, refineries etc.).
The UK has almost self-destructed through the stupid CCA and our on-going coal-fired power station closures. It appears that the UK is controlled by an anti-industrial lobby that will even stop fracking, despite this being probably the only hope of lower cost energy in the long term.
However, would leaving the EU improve things or make them worse?
Maybe the UK needs a Donald Trump to shake things up?
Unfortunately Donal Trump seems to shake things up by virtue of living in his own world with its own facts.
In that respect he’s a pretty good metaphor for what is wrong with the debate on Europe where the statements that don’t have to be proven receive the most attention. While I expect a brexit will neither seriously hurt nor solve business issues in the UK one of the few manufacturing industries were we do especially well (aerospace) is one that relies on a great deal of European partnership.
Maybe the UK needs a Donald Trump. We are going to get one only his name is Boris Johnson and he will arrive after we vote to leave!
I believe the question asked of the Minister by Lord Digby Jones (former CEO of the CBI) in the ‘House’ a week or so ago gets to the heart/root of this nonsensical affair. ” Never mind the economics or the financial implications, its going to be a grubby vote about immigration, isn’t it!”
The wishes for rational argument and proper evidence? In any ‘system’ based upon an adversarial approach (almost alone in Europe we have such) the first casualty is truth: I say black, you must say white. The lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum.
The UK economy is now almost entirely a service-economy. This means that employment is purely decided by the whims of investors who could shut-down this sector in weeks.
House building and property prices have starved all investment in manufacturing for years: I would certainly not invest in risky business development when property has been guaranteed for years.
I have to agree with Mike that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, how do we take it back???
I agree with Jack Broughton, having been a committed EU advocate for many years I too am wavering to a large degree. The article by Lee Hibbert makes the point clear, manufacturers must have a say in our future, and it cannot be left to the financial services sector or to politicians that have vested interests. Therein lays the rub – in order for us “common” folk to make informed decisions we need far more information than just “immigration” or “benefits” for non-EU nationals. Indeed the “could’ s or “may-be’s” need to be clearly spelt out. I am saddened to have seen the way the 27 countries have reacted to the immigration crisis, each has its own agenda so I cannot see how they will ever get to be a closer Union of states, or European Federation. As the fifth largest economy in the world we should not be frightened into making a decision based solely on the financial implications – our Sovereignty should be more than just that. Our Independence, ability to self-govern without having to comply with European Directives should weigh strongly as we vote on 23rd June. I am willing to be persuaded either way if rational arguments are put forward, however at the moment I am inclined to vote to leave the EU.
Indeed, the lunatics have taken over the asylum and they are nearly all from Brussels.
Vote to come out and we will no longer have the EU crutch to lean on (and blame) for stuff what goes wrong!
The vote is not about immigration, it is about the UK’s ability to make decisions that affect the UK, not decisions that will have a casting vote made by a disparate bunch of Europeans, all of whom, understandably, have a vested interest in their own welfare.
We must not let our country be governed any longer by the EU. It has not and will not work any better in the future.
Unfortunately many (all) of us who frequent the hall of TheEngineer are quite Learned and seek a good debate and answers to real questions, but as stated above the argument will no doubt hinge around the ‘immigration debate’ I fear and real issues washed under the carpet.
Can we survive post EU membership (if on the outside). Yes, I think we can, the critical bit is not whether we can adjust but how long will it take to re-adjust and what will the fall-out of a Brexit be? I fear the ‘better the devil you know’ case may win out in the end however irrespective of any real case otherwise.
I would point out , in view of the various (and I believe spurious) soverignty comments that appear to cause fellow bloggers concern: and notwithstanding the fact that Parliaments(s) of all stripes (even if they are simply ‘jurys of purchased persuasion) ‘elected?’ by a once every four/five conn primarily of the ‘right’ and often via the influence of ‘biased’ meja supposedly pass the laws…that our nation has been ‘governed’ by a small group who were never elected, (ie undemocratic) are not subject to the presures of the market place, nor the strictures of capitalism. I have made similar comments for long enough that i am sure those interested will know who I mean. I would suggest to any Engineer that the most important ‘freedom’ they ought to enjoy is that of being able to behave professionally within their organisation: whatever it is. Such has been denied. Think about it.
Mike, it’s often very clear where your arguments and examples go, whether or not one agrees with them. However: “I would suggest to any Engineer that the most important ‘freedom’ they ought to enjoy is that of being able to behave professionally within their organisation: whatever it is. Such has been denied. “confuses me: mine is most certainly not denied, and in fact my employer demands that professionalism be asserted. I stopped and thought about it, for your points are many and often thoughtful and subtle, but this one I do not get.
Conned 4 times over the years?
We were conned in 75 with a Common Market which slid into a political mishmash.
Gordon Brown crept in and signed the Lisbon treaty.
N. Chamberlain waved a piece of paper from the German Leader “I have in my hand a paper signed by Mr. H….”
David Cameron has now arrived with a piece of paper “approved by the German Chancellor…
I for one will not be conned this time, dare I say “at whatever the alleged cost”
Governed by Westminster may at time be fraught by indicision and politcal manipulation, but to have Brussells, the EU and the Judges of the European Court interfering has gone too far.
Vote out, whilst we have the chance, a proud island nation controlling its own destiny once more.
Sadly, at this stage the out campaign is dominated by political zealots, whose self-interest far exceeds the debatable issues. The in campaign is boringly predictable and raises the question “Why did Cameron want a referendum really?”, it was certainly not for the pathetic piece of paper that he is waving!
Engineers are intelligent people, and I don’t like to see our time wasted. In the UK, there are five essentially socialist parties capable of being involved in a National Government. Blue Labour, Pink Labour, Now Very Red Labour, Scottish Nationalist Socialist and Welsh Nationalist Socialist. All have a core policy of keeping the UK in the Socialist construct of Europe. I therefore suggest it’s foolish to think the vote matters, and as Engineers, we should go back to doing what Engineers do; create wealth and try and make the world a better place. In whichever order you choose. On June 24th, we’ll still be in Europe.
Of course “its going to be a grubby vote about immigration” – the whole point is the EU is a socio-political experiment in federalism. It ceased to be simply about a single-market for trade decades ago.
The net migration figures revealed this week show the true extent of the open-border policy. When Turkey enters the EU it will grow exponentially. Plus Turkey’s poor economy (I am talking low GDP per capita) will seriously unbalance the EU financially – who is going to pay for the subsidies they will automatically be entitled to? Why the biggest current contributors to the EU budget, Germany & the UK.
But the above article is about the pros & cons for manufacturing in or out: as rightly pointed out above, our manufacturing base has been in steep decline – but WHILST WE HAVE BEEN IN EUROPE!
The facts seem hard to come by in this debate. It may be the case that a large swathe of voters will take the anti immigration line albeit at the expense of the UK as undoubtedly all great civilizations have relied on immigrant labour to sustain economic growth and to control prices. It seems that the promise of higher wages is a bogus incentive to leave as this will certainly be accompanied by higher prices both for domestic products and particularly for services but also for imported goods as one anticipates that Sterling will weaken on a Brexit.
The potential for a post Brexit economic shock is over played but nonetheless an unnecessary risk were it to be combined with other events and it is not difficult to see a number of areas where other events may come from.
My greatest concern is the eventual denouement of the Euro. EU politics is a clumsy beast and not unlike riding in a car being driven with no brakes and 28 pairs of hands on the wheel. The absence of Debt Pooling places a giant existential threat on the whole of the Euro area and the EU. At some point the proverbial hits the fan. A crazy argument it might be but this alone may be a reason to stay because outside the EU we shall have no way of representing our interests when this crisis eventually occurs. Although contrary to what politicians tell us the idea that we can only decide to leave now is false, we can decide at another time and if we stay we may need to reconsider at some point.
That doesn’t exactly answer the question better in or out. Perhaps that is my point though we don’t know right now and the idea of forcing a decision particularly in times of such uncertainty makes no sense at all and for that reason I am an inner.
Looking through some old documents we found the 1974 Referendum Factsheets that were issued to inform both sides of the debate: you could almost swap Wilson for Cameron and re-issue. It is amazing ….. “Plus change c’est le meme chose…” as someone said.