好色先生TV

With 23 June confirmed for the country鈥檚 referendum on the EU, the first handful of construction firms have begun nailing their colours to the mast.

On Tuesday, 197 businesses signed a letter to the Times backing 鈥渞emain鈥�, including contractors Carillion and Mace, while consultants Gleeds and RLB have told 好色先生TV they too will join the 鈥渞emain鈥� campaign.

Support for leaving the EU has been harder to come by, but industry watchers expect smaller firms will be more likely to join this camp.

A 好色先生TV poll in January suggested the industry is edging in favour of remaining in the EU, but not by much and with a big proportion still uncertain. The results show 50% of our readers thought Brexit would damage UK construction, 39% thought it wouldn鈥檛 and 11% were undecided.

Now as prime minister David Cameron has revealed the terms of the deal on the UK鈥檚 new relationship with the EU, the industry needs to make its stance clear as there will potentially be big implications for the sector.

Construction bosses this week began to share their views on the issues at stake. Morgan Sindall chief executive John Morgan told 好色先生TV he believed UK-centric businesses such as his own would not be significantly affected by the referendum: 鈥淭he key thing for us is that we鈥檙e a UK only business. Economically it might not make a difference to us.鈥�

However, Bovis Homes chief executive David Ritchie said housebuilders would be watching nervously to see if the uncertainty will undermine confidence in the housing market. He said: 鈥淭here will be an influence on the UK consumer and that鈥檚 the thing we have to be wary of. It鈥檚 an unknown.鈥�

Those in support of remaining say leaving would threaten investment and jobs and put the economy at risk.

But those who want to leave argue the economy could flourish as Britain will be free to trade with the rest of the world, while SMEs will be free of red tape and regulation from Brussels.

Should we stay?

The first firms in construction have started to declare their intentions.

Bosses of the two contractors Mace and Carillion, alongside heavyweight clients including British Land, Canary Wharf Group and airports Gatwick, Heathrow and Manchester Airports Group, signed a letter to the Times arguing the UK will be 鈥渟tronger, safer and better off鈥� remaining in the EU.

The letter said leaving the EU would 鈥渄eter investment and threaten jobs鈥� and also 鈥減ut the economy at risk鈥�.

Consultants Gleeds and RLB have told 好色先生TV they will be campaigning to stay in the EU (see below).

The 鈥渞emain鈥� campaigners in the industry argue leaving would worsen an already serious skills shortage, with a lot of construction firms currently relying on labour from Eastern Europe. Even in professions like architecture there鈥檚 a big need for foreign talent.

Investment, stay campaigners say, could also take a big hit with the uncertainty around Britain鈥檚 position and the unknowns about what will happen in the case of a Brexit, meaning investors are reluctant to commit to big projects.

Or should we go?

While the first industry firms to state a public preference this week want to remain in the EU, there is a large amount who are undecided or want to leave.

One senior industry figure - founder of plant giant JCB, Anthony Bamford - has declared his wish to leave the union before.

Writing in the Telegraph last October, he said the price of the UK鈥檚 membership 鈥渉as simply become too high鈥�, arguing that the UK has lost its sovereign control and is over-regulated.

Those words were echoed in the same newspaper this week by mayor of London Boris Johnson, who said that up to 50% of UK legislation now comes from the EU.

The shackles of regulation are something that construction firms, particularly smaller ones, are keen to break. SMEs could also benefit from less overseas competition.

Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, said he suspects his members are more likely to want to leave. He said they recognise dangers with skills shortages, but added that they feel 鈥渦ndercut鈥� by European competitors and burdened with 鈥渆xtra costs鈥� from the EU鈥檚 social legislation.