'National interest' simply has no meaning in today's world

Does it matter if UK business and industry is owned and controlled by ‘foreigners’? This was an issue addressed by Sir Alan Rudge, chairman of the ERA Foundation at a recent Royal Academy of Engineering debate.

He argued: ‘Control is one thing that makes me uneasy. Corporates touch our lives as employers, suppliers and customers; they pay taxes and provide jobs; they host design and production facilities. Does foreign ownership affect commitment to these things? We can only hope not, but assurances to staff in other countries that jobs are not on the line in current cutbacks will not reassure staff here, where no such guarantees are given. It would be naive to believe all national interests have disappeared in this “globalised” world.’

I don’t believe that all ‘national interests’ have disappeared in the modern world. However, it seems to me that the locus of these interests is the nation state and not multinational (the clue’s in the name) companies.

The whole terms of the debate have changed. In his speech, Rudge talks about ‘UK business and industry’. But what meaning can that phrase possibly have in an age of globalisation? To what extent can a business be classed as ‘UK’ when its shareholders and directors are spread across the world? When do they stop being classed as ‘foreign’ and become ‘UK’ themselves? Isn’t this terminology becoming absolutely pointless?

The manner in which this debate is being framed also suggests that the many and varied ‘foreign’ owners of ‘UK’ businesses have an implicit ‘national’ interest that they will protect. I simply don’t buy into this. Companies are out for maximising profits and minimising costs. I fully accept that this may clash with the development needs or living standards of a particular people in a particular territory but that’s a significant step away from picturing a nationalist conspiracy.

‘National interest’ is probably best left to tub-thumping journalists and bored newspaper leader writers.