A Brexit could mean more regulation for small businesses, not less

Questions raised at a recent New Statesman roundtable challenge the ‘better off out’ argument.

‘Britain is shackled to the corpse of Europe’, wrote the MEP and polemicist Daniel Hannan last November. Often central to this argument is the notion that Brussels red tape is strangling the potential of small businesses, which could be a fundamental driver of our economic growth. If we left, we could dictate the terms of our trade with Europe. Recent tumult amongst the Conservative ranks would suggest that Hannan is not unique in this view. However, the idea is rooted in a fundamental misconception about our relationship with the EU- that exit would lead to less regulation for small businesses.

In a recent roundtable held by the New Statesman discussing the methods by which Britain might increase exports amongst small and medium enterprises (SMEs), Dr. Rebecca Harding, CEO of Delta Economics, suggested that exit from the EU will result in more regulation, not less. This is based on previous research conducted by Delta Economics in collaboration with UKTI, which shows that the amount of distance regulation would in fact increase. Non-UK companies outside of the EU but inside European Free Trade Association (EFTA), most notably Norwegian and Swiss companies, have complained of being treated as being both outside and inside of Europe, thereby increasing the amount of bureaucracy that they are forced to face. Further information about this research and the work of Delta can be found here.

Therefore, even if we accept the premise that our relationship with the EU is primarily about trade rather than the more utopian social democratic vision of Europe as a protector of rights and freedoms, it remains in our economic interest to stay in. This strikes at the heart of the economic pillar of the Eurosceptic ‘better off out’ argument. This also questions the oft-touted premise that Britain should, or even could, aspire to a ‘Norwegian-style’ relationship with the EU.

Instead, evidence suggests that small businesses stand to benefit from further economic integration. At the New Statesman round table, Helen Brand showed that even further removal of barriers to the achievement of the single market could provide invaluable trade opportunities for SME’s- potentially increasing trade by 45%. Findings from the progressive think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) further support this- suggesting that further integration of the single market could increase EU consumption by €37 billion, thereby providing ample opportunities for small business growth. Even the prime minister's newly appointed strategist Jo Johnson agrees, arguing in a recent essay that further integration would leave the average EU household £3,570 better off.

The more reasoned political voices on this issue remain oddly silent in the face of popular pressure, despite the fact that it marks a point of accord between the progressive Europhile and pro-trade business lobbies. As IPPR notes, neither the British government nor the EU itself have done enough to convince of its benefits, and myths have abounded. If the argument was centered around our small business economy becoming more competitive and the ceaseless ‘global race’, perhaps our discourse would be more measured.

Research suggests SME's could face more regulation if we left the EU. Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.