Anthony Hilton: Brexit is driven by the old British love of complaining

Sir Arnold Hall — a leading industrialist from a generation ago — had a way of dealing with young men whose bright ideas he thought were half-baked. He would ask the question: “What problem do we have which is so serious that this could possibly provide the answer?”

It is relevant today to the debate on leaving the European Union.

The challenges most often cited are Europe’s slow growth compared with emerging markets; the burden of regulation; immigration and the loss of sovereignty. But if these are the problems of membership, is taking the risk of leaving the only way to solve them?

Brexit campaigners say that EU membership means we are missing out on the much faster growth in the rest of the world. But EU membership has not hampered Germany. Its biggest trading partner is China.

Indeed, Germany is far more successful than we are in most emerging markets because its export effort is far better organised and it produces things these countries want. If Germany can do it from inside the European Union then clearly so could we.

We do not need to leave the EU to boost our exports to China, India or Brazil, and we do not need to wait for a dedicated set of trade deals to do so either. We would achieve far more simply by organising our export drive efficiently, and providing proper financial and advisory support rather than trying to do it on the cheap.

Free movement next. A central plank of the Brexit case is that we need to regain control of our borders but that once in the departure lounge we would strike a favourable trade deal with Europe that would give continuing access to the single market.

But they gloss over the fact that there are two sets of negotiations.

The mandatory two-year negotiation is solely concerned with organising our departure. A trade deal to cover the future terms of engagement is a quite separate issue, and one which might not be put in place for years during which time no one will know where they are. We may well be in quite a desperate state by the time it does come along and that will most probably mean we have to continue to pay and accept free movement. This is what Wolfgang Schäuble, the German Finance Minister made quite clear in London earlier this month. At the British Chambers of Commerce conference he said that a condition of any trade deal would be the maintenance of free movement and the continuation of some form of payment into Brussels.

Trade deals also have an impact on sovereignty. Brexit campaigners should take note of what happened in Singapore: chewing gum used to be banned in that country because it was deemed by the Government to be a public nuisance. US chewing gum manufacturers lobbied the US government and it became a condition of the US/Singapore trade deal that the chewing gum ban was rescinded. So much for Singaporean sovereignty. The lesson is that having “got sovereignty back” by leaving the EU, we would then have to surrender it again with each new trade deal.

But for us it would not be chewing gum. In any trade deal we might do with the Americans for example it would be hard to resist the power of their agricultural and drugs lobbies. Both have already said as much. They would love the opportunity to sweep aside quaint British traditions such as the NHS and family farms.

Returning to immigration, we should also be honest enough to recognise that in spite of the social tensions which it creates, free movement is in fact one of the great benefits to come to the UK from the EU. It has allowed our elderly and retired criminals to go off to Spain and become a burden on their health service and it has created a massive brain drain in our favour as we suck in thousands of Europe’s brightest young people.