EU Referendum


EU Referendum: don't mean nuthin'


22/10/2015



000a CBI-022 rules.jpg

The CBI is at it again, telling us how the EU is "good for business". Membership of the European Union has its downsides, it says, "but the disadvantages are significantly outweighed by the benefits we get in return".

The thing is, we've heard it all before and there is nothing the CBI can say that is novel, or of any interest. Corporate Britain has decided, and it thinks that its views are important, compared with the decision we are facing, on how Britain is governed.

Furthermore, in pushing its case, it is making the classic mistake in eliding membership of the EU with participation in the Single Market. The two are not the same, and the one is not dependent on the other.

This is something Ukip and others are going to have to come to terms with. If they want totally to destroy the CBI case, they are going to have to live with the idea of preserving the Single Market, and it is inevitable that this will require, pro tem, continued adoption of the EU's freedom of movement and establishment provisions.

While that is clearly sub-optimal, what I find difficult to understand is why there should be such rooted objection to this as an interim solution. After all, if it is a case of adopting a purist position and losing the referendum, or adopting a compromise position and winning, then the choice is pretty obvious.

The other thing that too many people seem to have difficulty with is the idea of a phased extraction. We have spent more than forty years going through increasingly complex processes of political and economic integration, encompassing thousands of agreements within the framework of successive treaties. It is not credible to expect that we can withdraw in one hit.

However, the idea of an interim solution and a phased withdrawal means that the optimal solution is not reached immediately. But the ultimate objective is still to go for the optimum.

What we need to do is break out of the Brussels-centric market, and go for a genuine European Single Market, which could be arranged under the aegis of UNECE, based in Geneva. That would also release us from the EU's "four freedoms", as we would not longer depend on Brussels for market access.

In terms of a final solution, not even this is optimal. What we really need is a global single market. And, for this, the CBI provides the rationale. "One set of rules not 28, cutting costs for business", it says – thus extolling membership of the EU.

But surely, what's good for 28 countries is even better for 161 countries – the current membership of the WTO. We need one set of rules not 161, cutting costs for business. And that means engaging at a global level rather being trapped in the narrow confines of little Europe.

Here then are the antidotes – we take the interim route to extraction, preserving the single market and buying us time for better solutions, initially at a genuine European level – as a precursor to going global.

The beauty of this is that the CBI has shot its bolt, making the same error as the other campaigners, in starting prematurely. We now have two years to tell people how and why the CBI have got it wrong – assuming we are able to get our act together as a campaign and adopt the winning arguments.

Failing that, we (or some of us) can continue bleating about negotiating a bespoke free trade area – a non-solution favoured by the likes of Matthew Elliott, ensuring we have no credible exit plan, and thereby doing our best to lose the referendum.

Once again, therefore, we see in the CBI no threat at all. What they have to offer don't mean nuthin'. The problem is our own side, which cannot get behind the solutions that negate the CBI propaganda. And that is a much bigger problem than the CBI.