British business recognises that the UK belongs in the EU

The EU is an asset for Britain, not a hindrance. Unlike Tory MPs, our businesses haven't forgotten that.

"Britain could be an island completely adrift in 20 years."

Richard Branson’s new year message, including the stark warning quoted above, suggests that the silent majority of British business opinion are rousing themselves over what up until now has been a politico’s debate about Britain’s place in Europe. As Branson points out, the world is going to need its regional blocs to do its business. And as he pointed out in his interview with me in the New Statesman in July, the European Union is an asset for Britain, not a hindrance.

The truth is that the UK has never lost a vote on financial market regulation in the EU. We pay about £1 per person per week for membership, and for that don’t just get access to the world’s largest single market, but also shape its rules, and get the benefits of EU clout on global trade (trade agreements with 46 other countries). The tragedy of government rhetoric over the last two years is that it has demonised the status quo in Europe, without advancing an alternative. The fantasy island occupied by Boris Johnson of a club that is all single market and no social, environmental, or judicial cooperation doesn’t exist.

I hope the irony was not lost on anyone that the Prime Minister’s announcement of his big idea for his G8 Presidency – an EU-US trade deal – depends on, yes, the agreement of the EU operating by qualified majority. In the absence of global government, regional associations like the EU are going to become more important in the modern world.  If it looks like Britain has forgotten that, and certainly that is the impression from large swathes of the Tory party, then the rest of Europe is going to say "shut up or get out". In fact we should do neither: we should be advancing serious ideas for the EU to advance an agenda appropriate for all 28 members, including Britain.

The European Union flag flies with those of its member states in front of the European Parliament. Photograph: Getty Images.

David Miliband is the  President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee
He was foreign secretary from 2007 until 2010 and MP for South Shields from 2001 until this year. 

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496