Not to pick on Legal & General (LGEN), but the life insurer's recent board statement demonstrated the frustrations of the Brexit debate for companies. After pointing out that it was not intending to influence the outcome of the vote (why bother, then?), its considered view followed. The vote to leave would have "no direct impact" on trading, but it would "create uncertainty for the markets and the broader UK economy in which we operate".
Its conclusion is almost neutered by the board's desire to stay above the fray: "Given the lack of clarity about potential alternative trading relationships between the UK and other jurisdictions, and the market and economic uncertainty, the economic case for leaving is unproven; we will continue to keep the situation under review as more and better data and analysis emerges." Put that on a poster.
But you can understand why the L&G board felt it needed to say something. For larger companies, the annual or half-year results calls have become clogged with Brexit questions, frequently overriding questions on performance and other challenges during the reporting season.
One way to dilute personal views is to rely on industry groups to give a fair reflection of the impact on their members. The CBI has thrown its weight behind the 'in' campaign, arguing the risks of leaving to jobs and prices outweigh those of staying in. "The majority of our members - though not all - have consistently told us that they want to be in a reformed EU," president Paul Drechsler said earlier this month. But the business community is not unified. A letter supporting the 'remain' view garnered the support of 36 companies in the FTSE 100, alongside 162 other businesses. In response, one of the 'leave' campaign groups sent its own letter to The Daily Telegraph, with 200 small business bosses - from one-person companies to 1,500-person firms - calling for the UK to leave the EU.
As in any such campaign, these can be read either way. The reluctance of some FTSE chiefs to sign the letter, and Mr Dreschler's noted minority, demonstrate there are business leaders in favour of leaving. But his claims of a majority of large businesses for 'remain' is backed up by a survey conducted at the end of last year by the consultancy Deloitte. That suggested 62 per cent of large businesses wished to remain, down from 74 per cent six months before.
It is interesting to compare this with the 1975 referendum on membership of the European Economic Community, when a survey of 419 company chairmen by the CBI found just four in favour of leaving. At the time, the majority of the press, including the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express, also favoured staying in, as Andrew Marr wrote in his A History of Modern Britain.
The view from the boardroom seems a bit more of a mix this time around, and real tensions have been exposed. The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), John Longworth, was suspended, and shortly thereafter resigned, after making public his view that the UK would be best off out of the European Union. Leaving the political machinations aside, it is fair to say Mr Longworth's view did not meet that of the majority of his base. A recent BCC survey of its membership showed 60 per cent were in favour of remaining within the EU, as opposed to the 30 per cent that wanted to leave.
It is understandable, given the trust deficit in politics, the misleading statistics and the reductive focus on personalities in the debate, that some have called for employers to give unblemished certainties on the impact of a vote either way. But employers are run by people with opinions and personal politics, and lobby groups need to balance their members' concerns with retaining influence. Most importantly, given that no one can say exactly how the post-Brexit scenario would play out, it is hard for executives - perhaps harder than two years ago - to give clear examples of how their businesses will be affected. Perhaps we should ask an economist. They're objective, right?
