One-sided debate on Europe could force unnecessary 'Brexit' The European debate has more heat and less light. The Westminster-City-Brussels debate is rarefied and disconnected: the richest, most influential 1pc of the population, who gained from the credit crisis through huge asset inflation, discuss issues with each other while the rest feel left out. Our fathers and grandfathers who went to war in Europe were part of a 99pc who wanted to stop it ever happening again. Tying Europe closer together was their answer, but the project was captured by the 1pc, who thought ever closer integration, with member states giving up ever more control, was inevitable and irreversible. By the Nineties, mainstream business opinion said Britain had to join the euro or stay stuck on the sidelines. But Europe is neither a single nor a unified market, and the costs of trying to unify 28 countries are prohibitively high. As an economic experiment the single currency created a disastrous straitjacket for many peripheral and southern European countries. The young unemployed in Spain and Italy are paying heavily to prove an ideological point. If we had been in the eurozone, the rules would now require us to cut our 6pc deficit to 3pc to stay in the club: a double dose of unnecessary austerity. In the UK, like Germany, the US and Hong Kong, recovery has left real wages flat or lower. Too many of our 1.8m new jobs are low quality, unskilled and insecure. Most of them have been filled by foreign-born workers. So the EU's pillars of free movement of goods, capital and people haven't helped the 99pc. They have moved on and are questioning the consensus. The 1pc need to catch up - or face a potential post-referendum "Brexit" without having really aired the issues. If the Scottish debate scored nine out of 10, the European one is at best a four. So, here are three ways to improve it. First, be clear what "renegotiation" means. No-one has articulated this yet. Even the strongest supporters haven't specified what a "good" result would be. The politicians concentrate on procedure and tactics. But whether or not invoking clause 50 of the Treaty of Rome is the starting pistol for renegotiation is arcane and it doesn't resonate outside Brussels or Westminster. Anyone trying to make a business plan would rather know what we actually want to achieve. Ending "benefits tourism" is probably negotiable, but closing our borders probably isn't. Reducing our budget contribution may be achievable, but radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is a red line for France. Business regulation probably could be reduced, but does that mean not completing the single market for services? Second, connect Europe with real-life economics. Jean-Claude Juncker has outlined his plan to create jobs and growth through £250bn of pan-EU infrastructure investment. Legal & General has urged the idea for several years. I'm encouraged when he says there will be political endorsement, but not political "fiddling." The trick is to deliver in a sensible timeframe. Europe, like the UK, needs shovel-ready projects that are economically and socially useful. More low-cost generation capacity and regeneration around improved railway stations and routes, including in the North, rather than an HS2 that just shaves a few minutes off journey times to London. Europe also needs to sort out its banks. The US repaired the credit crisis damage quickly; the UK is making slower progress, but the eurozone banks desperately need more equity to recapitalise. Without this, the eurozone will have too many zombie banks, propping up too many zombie companies. The temptation to recycle troubled loans through private equity may flatter balance sheets, but it merely postpones the problem. Third, get real about trade and regulation. The UK runs a trade deficit with the EU for goods. A significant proportion of UK-EU trade is intra-company or trade along supply chains. So this is not UK or eurozone citizens deciding to buy domestic or imported goods. A "German," "British" or "Japanese" car will have been made in many places. We need more honesty about how trade actually works within and across the EU. This applies also to services. We are a great service exporting country, but the EU single market in services is not complete. Does it need to be, when professional providers can just as easily operate in federated networks? Everybody wants more trade. But if the price of a level playing field is more regulation, could it be too high? UK financial services and the City are fortunate that Lord Hill has this key European Commission portfolio. We have good regulators in London, but we need a dose of pragmatism. The UK insurance industry has spent more than 20 years and £4bn on a new pan-European regulatory framework. It hasn't changed much, and meanwhile most UK and European insurers have become less active across European borders. Many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) don't export, and aren't in direct competition with eurozone companies. They don't need a full single market and would benefit most from a bonfire of regulations. This would be a starting point. The eurozone is struggling - and Mario Draghi has acknowledged that without economic improvement the single currency itself looks precarious. The UK referendum may be the catalyst that hastens breakup. That's why we need higher quality debate. Nigel Wilson is Group CEO of Legal & General