THE massive scale of the distraction created by the Brexit vote and the colossal amounts of time and money swallowed up in negotiations and preparations have been highlighted this week by Confederation of British Industry director-general Carolyn Fairbairn.
Ms Fairbairn, who made some very good points in this regard as she addressed the business organisation’s annual conference in London on Monday, certainly seemed a lot less enthusiastic about Brexit than Theresa May. The Prime Minister appeared to truly believe her own wildly positive spin yesterday as she talked up a draft political agreement on post-Brexit relations between the UK and European Union, somewhat astonishingly trumpeting a “brighter future”.
We should all know by now that Brexit will, over coming years and decades, cost the UK very dearly in terms of lost growth. But it seems it may take a while longer for the folly of leaving the single market to become clear to those who would take us down this painful road. The brightness will be in the rear-view mirror, not ahead.
Ian McConnell: Tory Brexit tale of sound and fury but this is ‘unhinged self-sabotage’
The business community is tending to fall in behind the draft withdrawal agreement between the UK and EU that Mrs May is attempting to push through Parliament.
The Institute of Directors, publishing a survey of more than 800 of its members this week, declared that the view of these business leaders is that a “withdrawal deal has to be the priority”.
Stephen Martin, director-general of the IoD, declared: “A second referendum is not an easy way out of the political bind we are in.”
The survey shows nearly three-quarters of business leaders consider it important that a withdrawal agreement is ratified before the UK leaves the EU, with two-thirds believing a no-deal outcome would be bad for their organisations.
The IoD emphasises ratification of a deal would enable the transition period to run from the Brexit date, of March 29, 2019. This is what, for very understandable reasons, is now the crux of the matter for many businesses. But the fact this is viewed as crucial should not be confused with support for Brexit itself. What business is focused on at this stage is damage-limitation – this is not some kind of cheerleading for Brexit.
However, there is surely a question over whether business is now setting its sights too low. It seems to be taking too much of a safety-first approach, like the central defender who concedes possession by hoofing the ball out of the park instead of looking for a pass out of defence and taking the initiative. Then again, maybe many businesses feel that the pressure is so great – with political turmoil and deep division in the country bearing down on it like an old-fashioned centre forward – that it has no choice but to clear the immediate danger and worry about the rest later.
Whatever the case on this front, what Ms Fairbairn highlighted this week is the time and money absorbed already in the run-up to Brexit.
She used the word “consuming” to describe the effect of Brexit, flagging the hundreds of millions of pounds spent by UK businesses on preparing for a worst-case scenario.
Summing up the absorption by Brexit of time and money, which she emphasised would have been better spent on other things, Ms Fairbairn told the CBI conference: “Brexit is consuming government – every politician, every civil servant. And it is also consuming British business. Our firms are spending hundreds of millions of pounds preparing for the worst case – and not one penny of it will create new jobs or new products.”
Read More: Ian McConnell: Two wildly contrasting views on Brexit but which one reflects reality?
Ms Fairbairn also warned that investment was “flooding out” of the right areas such as skills and technology. And some investment was leaving the UK altogether, she noted. She highlighted the big issues on which government and business leaders should be spending time, such as the robotics revolution, the rise of China, climate change, rising inequality, and global protectionism.
It was interesting to hear Ms Fairbairn continuing to flag the danger of a no-deal by accident.
Ms Fairbairn, who has estimated the amount spent by Scottish businesses on Brexit preparations at tens of millions of pounds, said the draft withdrawal agreement was “not perfect”. But, seemingly in keeping with the pragmatic view of the business community, she declared it was “progress”.
These are undoubtedly times of great uncertainty and fear. And businesses are right to be worried. However, given what will lie in store for the UK once any transition period comes to an end, businesses should perhaps be bolder by continuing to oppose Brexit and not focusing only on the deal versus no-deal scenario.
Read More: Ian McConnell: Brexit fears at record but Government lacks leadership to call a halt
It is also important that no businesses get drawn into thinking that, because they have spent time and money on Brexit, that it might as well go ahead, even if they do or did oppose it. These are sunk costs.
What was heartening to see this week was that members of the IoD, in spite of the business organisation’s focus on ratification of the withdrawal agreement, narrowly favour a second referendum on EU membership, even if it is not an “easy way” out of this mess.
Of the 816 IoD members who responded to the survey, 46% said such a referendum would be in the interests of their organisations, with 44% declaring it would not.
Given the seemingly considerable reluctance among businesses to upset the apple-cart at this late stage because of fears that such action might increase the chances of a no-deal scenario, it is telling indeed that more business leaders favour another referendum than do not.
This signals clearly that many business leaders continue to have grave (and utterly justified) fears over the impact of Brexit, even if there is a deal and a transition period.
This gets us back to the question of why it has to be a choice between the deal on the table – with its very damaging exit from the single market and grave dangers in terms of Brexiters’ clamour for reduced immigration – and a cliff-edge departure.
We are nearly two-and-a-half years on from the referendum and that has left plenty of time for the empty promises of the Brexit campaign to be shown for what they are.
The UK Government’s continuing determination to proceed with this folly, whatever the cost, remains astounding and must not go unchallenged.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel