Agenda item

(A) European Union Referendum

(to follow)

25 February 2016

(A) European Union Referendum

Following the conclusion of HM Government’s negotiations on reforms to the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU), it was announced that a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU will take place on Thursday 23 June 2016. Voters would be asked to decide on the following question: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

 

Given the importance of this matter to City stakeholders, including residents and businesses, a special meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee was convened on 25 February 2016 to consider whether the City Corporation should   adopt a position on the UK’s membership of the EU and, if so, what that position should be. Taking into account the City Corporation’s role in representing the interests of its stakeholders, and after giving the matter very careful and detailed consideration, it was agreed that the City Corporation should adopt an official position on the vote.

 

During discussion at the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee, different views had been expressed on the question of the City Corporation’s position on the matter, including that of neutrality. It was, however, the view of the majority of Members of the Committee that, acknowledging the breath of opinion in the City and taking into account the views expressed by stakeholders, support should be given to the UK remaining in the EU.

It was therefore recommended to the Court of Common Council that approval be given to the City Corporation adopting a position on the UK’s membership of the EU in the following terms:-

 

“Taking into account the views of City stakeholders and businesses, the City of London Corporation supports the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union.”

 

The Chairman introduced the item, explaining the rationale behind the Policy and Resources Committee’s decision and expressing his firm belief that it was in the best interests of the City Corporation to adopt the position proposed. He reminded Members that there was precedent for the City Corporation adopting official views on important matters on behalf of stakeholders, such as on the issue of immigration or airport expansion. He noted that this was not a party political issue and that the proposed position was in support of the Government and main opposition parties’ stance. The Policy and Resources Committee had felt that stakeholders expected the City Corporation to adopt a position and that the strong view of those stakeholders who had declared a position to date was that the UK should remain in the EU.

 

He also took the opportunity to clarify that there was no intention to spend any money on campaigning in respect of this position, with the Committee not having considered any proposed expenditure and there being no intention to commit any funds. He also confirmed that there was no intent to move away from the City Corporation’s traditional role in facilitating debate and that the City Corporation would continue to act as a forum for both sides to engage in full and informative exchange throughout the period. He made clear that any corporate position would also have no impact on individual Members’ ability to speak or campaign according to their own beliefs.

 

Following the Chairman’s introduction to the item, Deputy Alex Deane moved an amendment to split the Motion in to two sections, to facilitate more constructive debate.

 

Amendment – That the recommendation of the Policy & Resources Committee be divided into two parts, thereby enabling each to be debated separately, in the following terms:

a)    that the Court of Common Council approves the City of London Corporation adopting a position on the UK’s Membership of the EU.

b)    consequent upon the outcome of part a), the position be in the following terms:

 “Taking into account the views of City stakeholders and businesses, the City of London Corporation supports the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union.”

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

The Court proceeded to debate part a) of the amended Motion.

 

During lengthy debate on the issue, a number of Members spoke both in support and in opposition to the proposition that the City Corporation adopt a corporate position. The following arguments were made in support of the City Corporation taking a neutral stance:

·         The City Corporation was widely known to be a neutral entity which did not engage in party political issues. On such an emotionally and highly charged issue as this, to adopt a position would be akin to adopting a party political stance and the City Corporation would therefore be best served to remain independent. The fact that several established political parties had already declared positions on the matter would de facto make it a party political issue; having built a reputation for neutrality over several centuries, to risk it now would be misguided.

·         Whilst the City Corporation might have previously adopted a corporate stance on some political matters, such as airport expansion at Heathrow, these had not been of the same magnitude.

·         Further, those occasions when a stance had been adopted were in respect of issues where the general public had had no ability to vote directly on the matter. In matters of plebiscite, it was normal for the Court to remain neutral as all voters had the right to express their own views and did not need nor expect the City Corporation to act as an intermediary, any more than they would in the case of a General or Mayoral Election.

·         With opinion across the nation divided on the issue and with there being a need to work with advocates of both sides of the argument whatever the outcome, passing this Motion would inevitably antagonize key stakeholders and could damage long-term relationships. It was also clear that opinion within the City itself was divided on the issue, with reference made to recent letters signed by prominent business figures urging neutrality or that the UK leave the EU.

·         The mandate of the City Corporation to adopt any position was questioned with it argued that electors had not been canvassed as to their views in any meaningful way. To adopt a stance would therefore invite a direct challenge as to the validity of the City Corporation legitimately claiming to speak on anyone’s behalf.

·         Should a position be adopted in this instance, it was feared that a precedent would be set and there would be an expectation for the City Corporation to take a position on other matters in future.

·         The importance of the politically independent nature of the Court of Common Council was emphasised, with it argued that the potential risks and disbenefits of adopting a position had not been adequately assessed. It was urged that the promotion of any position be left to other bodies such as TheCityUK who, as advocacy bodies, had legitimate roles in the debate.

·         It was also argued that with the vote some months away taking a position now would be precipitate, as changing circumstances or new information emerging in the interim might make any position taken now unrepresentative of stakeholder views come the referendum.

·         Concern was expressed with regard to the legitimacy and inaccuracy of the statistics provided in the report before the Court. It was noted that the British Chambers of Commerce had declared they were retaining a neutral corporate position on the referendum, with it therefore suggested that to take their polling and draw a different conclusion would be disingenuous. The validity of the TheCityUK Ipsos-MORI poll was also challenged, with it noted that the report erroneously stated that the polling was conducted in 2015, when it was in fact 2013. Given the small and limited sample size, as well as the fact that views could change significantly in a three year period, disquiet was expressed that the data had skewed the view of stakeholder opinion in the City and might misrepresent the true position. As a matter of integrity, the City Corporation should, therefore, not consider making such a decision on the basis of inaccurate information.

·         The City Corporation’s established role as a convener and facilitator of debate was emphasised, with it observed that the City Corporation had a responsibility to ensure full and equal debate, promoting accurate information and allowing others to take their own informed positions. It was argued that the City Corporation should be proactive in inviting all sides to debate at Guildhall and that this would be made easier by remaining neutral, standing above partisan debate and ensuring it remained respected and trusted by all sides as a facilitator of discussion.

·         A Member also questioned the Electoral Commission’s guidance and interpretation of the legislation concerning campaigning. It was argued that the legislation made clear that the City Corporation’s normal convening activities would not be captured by the legislation and therefore the City Corporation would be eligible to remain neutral and not register as a participant, whilst maintaining its traditional convening role, if it so wished.

 

The following points were advanced in support of the view that the City Corporation should adopt a corporate position:

·         With the question of continued EU membership being of such fundamental importance, it was argued that there was an expectation from the electorate and other stakeholders that the City Corporation take a view on the issue and demonstrate it was relevant on the strategic issues of day.

·         The wisdom of staying silent on the issue was questioned with it suggested that neutrality could potentially invite greater disrespect than advocating for one side. The City Corporation would not be the only organisation adopting a position which would need to work with all sides after the referendum; divisions and disagreements on issues were common and responsible organisations and individuals would continue to work together regardless of the outcome.

·         The distinction between independence and neutrality was also commented on, with some Members also suggesting that seeking to remain neutral in this instance would be interpreted as tacit support for the UK withdrawing from the EU.

·         It was noted that Members were elected as representatives, not as delegates, and were therefore fully entitled to take a view on the issue. Having been elected to express their views and act according to what they felt was best for the City, it would be unthinkable to remain silent on such a vital issue. Indeed, should the decision be taken not to adopt a view, electors might reasonably ask what Members and the City Corporation were there for. Three Members, having conducted informal canvassing in their own Wards, advised that there had been support amongst their electorate for the City Corporation adopting a corporate stance.

·         Several Members challenged the statement that the City Corporation had been historically neutral, pointing to instances such as the Court’s support for William Beckworth, Oliver Cromwell and the Earl of Warwick as occasions where the City Corporation had taken a political and potentially divisive position on matters of great importance, often contrary to the position of the government or the monarch.

·         The proposition that the City Corporation was neutral in the current era was also disputed, with the Heathrow position noted as being contrary to the stated position of the elected Mayor of London and the two leading candidates to succeed him. It was also observed that the City Corporation often advocated or attempted to intercede on behalf of the interests of the City, which arguably did not constitute neutrality.

·         It was suggested that it would be irresponsible for an elected body whose primary function was to support and promote the City on a global basis not to have a view on this issue. The suggestion that advocacy be left to TheCityUK and others was referenced, with it put forward that this would simply marginalise the City Corporation in an area where it is used to having a leading position.

·         Several Members observed that, with the City a major trading and financial centre, what the City Corporation did or failed to do to support the interests of business could materially impact thousands of people who relied on the City for their livelihoods. Businesses in the City were primarily of the opinion that continued EU membership was of importance to jobs and growth; if the City Corporation wished to claim to represent the financial and professional services industries, taking a position was essential and it was incumbent on the Court to speak out on an issue which would affect its stakeholders fundamentally.

·         With reference to the issue of a mandate, a Member stated that it would be important to set out what this was and what capacity the City Corporation claimed to speak on peoples’ behalves. Whilst there may be no mandate to speak for individual electors, the City Corporation could and should speak in the capacity which it had held for hundreds of years as representing the City as a global centre for trade. If anyone could claim to run the City, it was the City Corporation, and in that capacity it would want to facilitate market activity and participants to the greatest possible extent. Therefore, adopting a position would be representative of commercial, not political, interest.

 

Motion – That, in accordance with Standing Order 11(9), the Question be now put.

 

There being no Member wishing to second the Motion, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to fall.

 

Discussion recommenced, with Members making the following comments:

·         Several Members expressed the view that it was vital that the City Corporation demonstrate strategic leadership on such an important issue, arguing that it was both a privilege and obligation of Members elected to lead to show these qualities. Leaders were expected not to shy away from difficult decisions, but to step forward and articulate a clear position. As politicians, Members were expected to take views and act in the best interests of the stakeholders they were elected to represent and to whom democratically accountable.

·         Other Members countered that nobody had comprehensively surveyed residents or workers and thus it was not defensible to claim to be speaking on behalf of stakeholders; the historical examples provided as evidence of precedent for the City Corporation having taken controversial positions were also argued to be moot as they related to non-comparable events at a time when the City Corporation’s role was not the same. The key role of the City Corporation in the modern era was as a convening body and facilitator of debate; this was what should be upheld foremost.

·         It was also argued that neutrality was not the preserve of the euro-sceptic; large numbers of people were genuinely conflicted on the issue or felt it was not appropriate for the City Corporation to take a stance, regardless of their personal views.

 

Motion – That, in accordance with Standing Order 11(9), the Question be now put.

 

Upon the Question being put, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion not to be carried.

 

Further debate was interrupted by the sounding of the fire alarm, which necessitated a forced adjournment at 2.55pm. The Court subsequently reconvened at 3.05pm.

 

At the conclusion of the Court’s deliberations, Deputy Alex Deane and the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee summed up the arguments on either side of the debate.

 

Upon the Question being put, the Lord Mayor declared part a) of the Motion as amended to be carried.

 

A division being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

 

For the Affirmative 58   ALDERMEN
Anstee, N.J. Bear, Sir Michael Bowman, C.E.B., Sheriff Estlin, P. Gifford, Sir Roger	Gowman, A.J. Hailes, T.R. Haines, G.W. Howard, R.P.S Judge, Sir Paul	Keaveny, V.T. Mainelli, Professor M.R. Russell, W.A.B Wootton, Sir David Woolf, Dame Fiona

 

 

COMMONERS
Anderson, R.K. Barrow, D., Deputy Bennett, J.A., Deputy Bensted-Smith, N.M., J.P. Boleat, M.J. Bottomley, K.D.F. Campbell-Taylor, W.G. Chadwick, R.A.H., Deputy Challis, N.K.	Fraser, S.J., C.B.E. Fraser, W.B., O.B.E.,Deputy Fredericks, M.B. Gillon, G.M.F. Haines, Revd. S.D., Deputy Harris, B.N., Deputy Hoffman, T. Hyde, W.M. Jones, G.P., Q.C.	McMurtrie, A.S., J.P. Merrett, R.A., Deputy Morris, H.F. Patel, D. Pleasance, J.L. Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy Rounding, V. de Sausmarez, H.J. Scott, J.G.S., J.P.

 

Chapman, J.D., Deputy Dudley, Revd. Dr. M.R. Dunphy, P.G. Edhem, E. Eskenzi, A.N., C.B.E., Deputy	King, A.J.N., Deputy Littlechild, V., J.P. Lord, C.E., O.B.E., J.P. Martinelli, P.N. McGuinness, C., Deputy	Simons, J.L. Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy Tomlinson, J., Deputy Welbank, M., M.B.E
Tellers for the affirmative – (Affirmative) Graeme Martyn Smith and Deputy Alex Deane (Negative).
For the Negative 37   ALDERMEN
Malins, J.H., Q.C.
COMMONERS
Abrahams, G.C. Absalom, J.D., Deputy Bain-Stewart, A., J.P. Barker, J.A., O.B.E., Deputy Boden, C.P. Colthurst, H.N.A. Cotgrove, D. Dove, W.H., O.B.E., J.P. Fernandes, S.A. Fletcher, J.W. Ginsburg, S., J.P., Deputy Harrower, G.G.	Holmes, A. Hudson, M. Lawrence, G.A. Lodge, O.A.W., T.D. Lumley, Professor J.S.P. Mayhew, J.P. Mead, W., O.B.E. Moys, S.D. Nash, J.C., O.B.E., Deputy Newman, B.P., C.B.E. Packham, G.D. Pembroke, A.M.F.	Priest, H.J.S. Punter, C. Richardson, A.F.M. Rogula, E. Seaton, I.C.N. Shilson, Dr. G.R.E, Deputy Starling, A.M. Streeter, P.T. Tumbridge, J.R. Woodhouse, P.
Tellers for the negative – (Negative) Mark Wheatley and Deputy Alastair Moss (Affirmative).   Whereupon the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to be carried.

 

The Court then proceeded to consider part b) of the Motion as amended.

 

Motion – That, in accordance with Standing Order 11(9), the Question be now put.

 

Upon the Question being put, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to be carried. Part b) of the Motion as amended was therefore put forthwith.

 

Upon the question being put, the Lord Mayor declared part b) of the Motion as amended to be carried.

 

Resolved – That:-

a)    approval be given to the City of London Corporation adopting a position on the UK’s Membership of the EU; and,

b)    said position be in the following terms:

 “Taking into account the views of City stakeholders and businesses, the City of London Corporation supports the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union.”