Mr.  Mϋller-Őtvös is the CEO of Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.  A short while ago - we are not certain of the precise date - he sent a letter to the employees of Rolls-Royce Motor Cars setting out the company's view on Brexit - the UK's pending referendum on whether to remain in the European Union or leave.  Today's quote, an excerpt from that letter, is a clear statement of the company's position.  It wants the UK to remain in the EU.

Rolls-Royce Motor Cars does indeed trace its history back to the partnership between Henry Royce, an engineer, and Charles Rolls, a salesman, and Rolls-Royce Ltd., the company they formed in 1906.  But today's Rolls-Royce Motor Cars is a different company.  It is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW, which also owns and produces the MINI.  The workers at the MINI facilities in the UK got the same letter.  As for Rolls-Royce Holdings, the firm that makes the aircraft engines, it shares some of the same history, but it is a different company.  We're not sure what they are saying about June 23 referendum.

To return the car company's letter, it has understandably gotten a lot of attention.  While we have highlighted, essentially, the beginning of the letter, many have focused, understandably, on something nearer the end.  The penultimate paragraph reads:

We've put the statement "Our employment base could also be affected" in bold lettering, and it is worth a moment's reflection. Is it a threat or simply the statement of a fact that the company's employees need to be aware of?  Certainly some have read it as a threat.  In any case, it is now part of a building war of words, one that includes letters for and against a British exit from the EU from various companies and business groups.

The man who was the Director-General of the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) last month, John Longworth, is at the center of one such controversy.  At a BCC conference on March 3, he shared with the group his personal view that Britain would be better off leaving the EU.  Shortly after that he was "suspended" from his position.  And then he resigned.  Was the "crime" at the center of all of this Mr. Longworth's for violating the Chamber's declared neutrality on the issue?  Or was it that of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron for improperly interfering in the workings of a private business association?  In a sense, it doesn't matter.  The point is that this fight is getting nasty, and it is likely to get much nastier before it is over.

Our own view is that there are strong arguments on both sides of the Brexit issue, and obviously there should be a vigorous debate.  Ideally, however, it would be a debate tempered by a recognition of the need to make the best of whatever outcome British voters produce.  In that sense we tend to think that those on the "leave" side of the debate are right to argue against painting too bleak a picture of the consequences of taking the UK out of the EU.

To go back to Mr. Mϋller-Őtvös's letter, he explains that "Free trade is important for international business," as indeed it is.  And the EU has been engaged for some time in an aggressive policy of expanding its ring of free trade agreement.  It is already an impressive list, covering countries from Mexico to Korea and Ecuador to Egypt (and soon perhaps Canada).  Is it really the case that the EU and the UK couldn't manage such an agreement?  More broadly, is it really the case that the policy makers in London in Brussels would be incapable of making positive adjustments to whatever result the people of the UK produce?

Finally, there is the political problem which, in an eerie way, feels similar to elements in the U.S. presidential election.  The referendum on the EU's membership in the EU is said to be very close.  Stated differently, no one is discounting the possibility that more than half of the British electorate will vote to leave the European Union. 

OK, but where are the parties?  Prime Minister David Cameron is the leading champion of keeping the UK in the EU.  Yes, members of his party are free to vote their conscience, but, at the top, the Conservatives are in the "remain" column.  Labour too is for keeping the UK in the EU, and from what we have seen from the leadership of the Liberal Democrats, we'd put them in the remain column as well.  So the question is, who represents all of those people who seem likely to vote for leaving?  It's clearly not the established parties.  Rather there seems to be a disconnect between the parties and the people, which in many ways is more unsettling than either of the choices that will be presented to UK voters on June 23.

 
On this side of the pond, there is no single issue that underscores the phenomenon, and yet one senses it: a profound disconnect between the electorate and the parties that purportedly represent them.

A Letter to Employees is a link to a Reuters article of March 3 which includes the text of Mr. Mϋller-Őtvös's letter to the employees of Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.

An Earlier Separation is a link to the TTALK Quote from March 1, which also deals with this issue.

Labour in the Remain Camp is an article from The Guardian of September 17, 2015, on Labour's declared support for keeping the UK in the EU.

The Longworth Imbroglio is one of many articles about John Longworth's departure from the British Chamber of Commerce.  This one is from The Telegraph of March 7, 2016.

A Lib-Dem Caution is an article from International Business Times of February 11, 2016, which reports on remarks from Tim Farron of the Liberal Democratic party highlighting the costs to the UK of a leave vote.

EU Trade Agreements is a link to a page on the website of the European Commission with information on the EU's various trade agreements.