The EU Referendum is vital for the economic, social, environmental and political future of this country. It also has major implications for the other EU member states, and still more internationally.

Clearly, this is, ultimately, a matter for the electorate (the citizens of the UK) to decide. However, there is a duty and responsibility for charities and others to at least consider the issues at stake, whichever way the vote may go; and to make their analysis of and views on these issues known to their members, supporters and other stakeholders. Indeed, it could be argued that a charity, its senior leadership and its trustees would be failing in their duty if they had not considered the possible consequences of the Referendum resulting in a decision to “Remain In” or to “Brexit”.

Whether a charity is concerned with poverty, children, refugees, the environment, animal rights and protection, health, education, employment or what so ever, it is almost certain the Referendum result will have an impact on their beneficiaries, the policies they are advocating, and potentially on the charity itself.

If, as most economists and internationally respected economic institutions and commentators currently forecast - that a “Brexit” vote will inevitably lead to a weaker British economy and a further squeeze on public expenditure, this will clearly have a major negative impact on the well-being of many charities’ beneficiaries, and at the same make fund raising that much more challenging.

Similarly, if employee protection and rights were to be at risk from “Brexit”, for some charities this would of significant concern.

Likewise, if the standards of environmental protection were to be reduced and ceased to be effectively standardised across the continent, this would be of considerable concern to many charities working in this field.

And the same applies to all charities involved across the full spectrum of concerns, policy areas, client groups and communities that the UK sector addresses.

In addition, for many charities there could be a negative financial impact of a “Brexit” vote given that many are in receipt of EU funding. Indeed, many have recently been involved in the latest round of European Social Fund bids, whilst many others receive money from public bodies that in turn are in receipt of EU funding.

Research undertaken earlier this year by the ‘Britain Stronger In’ campaign found that British charities would lose more than £200m in funding each year if the UK votes to leave the European Union (the research conducted found that 249 charities received £217m from the EU in 2014, the most recent year for which there are available figures).

If the UK were to leave the EU, there is no guarantee that the UK or devolved governments or other public bodies would replace the lost funds from the EU. In fact, and in all likelihood, they could not and certainly would not make up the entire lost funding.
This serious risk to the financial security of charities should be of major concern to senior sector leaders and trustees.

I have no doubt that others may argue that “Remaining In” could have disadvantages to some charities and to their beneficiaries. However, in order to know (or at least, reach a reasonable judgement on these matters), charities do need to ‘think’ and ‘analyse’ the facts and likely prospects as best they can.
If the previous few paragraphs have given the impression that charities should be most concerned about the potential adverse risks of the Referendum results, there are positive considerations to be taken into account too.

Many environmental, social and economic issues, which charities are concerned with, can best and sometimes only be dealt with on an international scale, and through collaboration across politically-drawn national boundaries. Indeed, some require collaboration between governments, and/or between charities and civil society organisations, themselves collaborating internationally.

If the UK votes to “Remain In”, I believe that there will be many more opportunities for UK civil society and charitable organisations to build upon and extend existing European co-operation. This already takes many forms, including: joint campaigns to influence the EU political leadership and its institutions; co-ordinated campaigns aimed at the domestic governments and citizens in member states; joint programmes to address pan-border issues, such as support for refugees and much more; and the sharing of learning and experience between and across member nations.

The UK charity sector is at the forefront of civil society and social action. What could be more powerful and a greater stimulant for a more socially responsible Europe than a pan-EU social movement for change, progress and social justice. In fact, for these last few words, one could easily substitute ‘environment’, ‘climate improvement’ and many other goals core to the mission of so many charities.

My plea to charities, their senior leaders, trustees, supporters and other stakeholders is that over the next week, you consider five key questions and share your thoughts widely on the answers to them. These are:

I recognise that some charities will wish to be silent but this should be a conscious decision and not one born out of a failure to consider the questions.

There may be just a days until the polls open but there is still time for charities to consider and answer these questions - if you believe that they are appropriate, and if you believe it is appropriate to engage in the campaign.

After ten o’clock on the evening of 23rd June, it will be too late - and the die will have been caste.

My personal expectation is that most charities would, if they were to be objective in their approach, want an affirmative vote for the UK to “Remain In”, because this will best enable them to pursue their mission.

And it is significant that some charities have already made their views known - or at least, shared their analysis.

Ultimately, I fully recognise and accept that the decision is one for the citizens of the UK, but charities not just politicians should speak up and do so for their beneficiaries. But let’s remember that it is those same citizens who together form civil society and are members of, work for, support and/or benefit from charities.

And this must particularly be case in respect of the local community and small charity sector, which are the backbone of strong communities and the catalyst for local social action.

Given contemporary social and economic conditions, I am in absolutely no doubt that local social action, supported and facilitated by a vibrant voluntary and community sector, is more essential today than ever before.

Several years of austerity, with more forecast at least until and possibly well beyond 2020, have and will take their toll upon multiple communities, with suffering spread right across the country. Inequality and poverty, especially ‘in work’ and ‘child poverty’, are increasing. Public services are being withdrawn and/or severely cut back. And yet, demand and the need for these services is growing as a result of demographic change and austerity itself. The changes to the social security system are impacting severely on some of the most vulnerable members of society. There is an increase in race crime and sadly, in some parts of the country, there is a racially charged atmosphere post-referendum.

Early analysis of the voting patterns from the referendum indicates that there are large swathes of the country where communities feel left behind, marginalised and powerless. They chose to exercise what power they had by voting for “Brexit” which, unfortunately, is almost certain to lead to even greater austerity. The current Conservative Leadership election sees two candidates who, to different degrees, wish to further reshape the role of the state away from the post-second war consensus.

These two latter paragraphs could have been longer but they contain the key reasons why we desperately need a revitalised movement for local social action, based on the principles of equality, empowerment and solidarity.

Such a movement requires a wide range of civil society organisations including the voluntary and community sector, faith groups, trade unions and others to collaborate at the national and local level. Above it requires a national voice - a strong, loud and effective voice.

The last few years have been extremely tough for the voluntary and community sector. Funding has been cut - and the now inevitable loss of EU funding will hit the sector and many of the communities with whom it works still harder, as will further public expenditure cuts. No wonder sector activists are feeling tired but thankfully most are still determined to make a difference come what may.

So whilst it is clear that the next few years will be more challenging still, let me declare loud and clear to all who may be tempted that this is most certainly not the time to give up or give in.

Many voluntary and community organisations (large and small local and national) will collapse. Some will merge. Some will stagger on. But thankfully, those with the will to do so, and with passionate and effective leaders, will both survive and thrive. They will find the energy and the resources to reinvent themselves. They will be innovative and they will be focused on ends rather than means. They will pursue outcomes for their beneficiaries and communities rather than for self-preservation and self-protection. They will find the journey hard and challenging but resolute leaders will be driven by their missions, their values and the desire to do right.

Local co-ordination, facilitation and development will be critical, which is why the National Association of Voluntary Community Action (navca), of which I am proud currently to be vice-chair, continues relentlessly to make the case for locally funded, independent, sector-led infrastructure capacity. This voice has to be heard. It has to be sustained. It cannot and it must not waver.

As the English devolution and centralisation programmes accelerate, there is an opportunity to build strong relevant voluntary and community sector infrastructure at the sub-regional level as well as locally. This will and can only be achieved with sector-based capacity and commitment.

At the national level, the case for the voice and capacity to champion local social action, underpinned by effective local voluntary and community organisations, is essential too. This voice is related to but very distinctive from the call for greater roles for charities and voluntary organisations to contract for the delivery of public services. It is also different from the voice of the large national charities and wider social sector. Yes, these two voices are necessary but they should never be allowed to drown out the different yet relevant and distinctive voice of local communities and their organisations. It is unlikely that the large national sector bodies can (or are even willing to) make an effective and convincing case for local social action and small community based activity; and this case cannot - it must not be abandoned over the next five years.

The national capacity required will likely have to be very different from the traditional model of national membership organisations but it should retain their mission and values. It may be based on a single body or it may be part of a wider alliance - formal or informal - of existing organisations. However, it almost certainly will be collaborative, involving local and sub-regional bodies; and it will inevitably make much greater use of social media and technology to communicate, mobilise and connect its members and supporters.

Such a body must champion and facilitate those who in turn will themselves facilitate local social action. It must engage with intelligent vigour in contemporary policy, and to some extent practice development and discourse. It must argue for equality and solidarity. It must challenge and when necessary oppose public policy. It must promote alternative policies where necessary too. It must put mission before institution, staff, individuals and egos. It must be relentlessly driven whilst being fully accountable to those engaged locally and nationally in social action. It must offer a voice to those who feel disenfranchised. It must support action and not simply pontificate. It must be fearless.

Above all, it itself must be of and from the movement for social change.

From the my vantage point on the board of navca and from my direct conversations with social activists, and the wider local voluntary and community sector around the country, I am confident that there exists the will, the intellect and the resources ready to be mobilised for the cause.

Leaders across of the voluntary and community sector need to act boldly and not give up the fight. Let us hope that my confidence proves not to be misplaced.

Indeed, whatever the outcome, the referendum will result in what is effectively a new constitutional settlement, which will have implications for many charities. In other words - it matters!

Charities concerned with social wellbeing, fairness, social justice and inclusion, employment, the environment and much more simply cannot ignore the referendum. In particular, they should not assume that the vote on 23rd June has nothing to do with them and their beneficiaries. Quite the reverse - if they value the benefits of EU membership, it most certainly does matter. And I expect that many charities do value the benefits of membership - especially after any analysis of the issues.

Many charities, whether aware of such or not, are in receipt of EU funding, either directly, or via public bodies, or from public bodies that are using EU funds to support programmes involving charities. It is also the case that charities and community groups will be working in places and with communities which are the beneficiaries of EU grants and investment. And they will often be working with people who have enhance employment rights and protections as a consequence of EU legislation. Those charities which fall into this category would be ill-advised to ignore the referendum. It matters.

Some charities contract with the public sector and consequently are subject to EU procurement regulations. For those charities in this category, there is an immediate and direct reason to be concerned about the referendum. And no one should think that if the UK leaves the UK these or similar procurement rules will not continue, so it matters.

My advice to every charity board and senior executive is to ensure that you fully understand and are well briefed on the potential impact of the referendum on your beneficiaries, their communities and for your charity itself. You need to understand what could be at stake if the UK were to vote to leave the EU, including the implications of the inevitable economic turmoil.

Such activity is simply what any responsible board and senior leadership of any prudent charity should be doing; and indeed should be doing constantly in terms of: anticipating political and economic change; being confident of understanding the implications of any national or macro change; assessing the risks and identifying the opportunities; and ensuring appropriate strategies to respond are in place. This is what good governance is all about.

Charity trustees have an absolute and overriding duty to act at all times in the interests of their charity and deploy their charity’s resources only to advance its charitable purposes, for the benefit of the charity’s beneficiaries. So let’s be clear, for in the case of the EU referendum, this may require some charities to use their resources to make their voice heard and to explain why they are so doing. They can and should be willing to explain why their evidence-based analysis suggests supporting staying in or leaving the EU, and what this means for their beneficiaries. Failure to do this could very easily be deemed to be a dereliction of their responsibilities.

Of course, I fully acknowledge that charity trustees and senior executives will wish to avoid being drawn into partisan and over-politicised debates - but this does not mean they should avoid the issues raised by the referendum and engage in it. Far from it.

If trustees decide that a particular outcome of the Referendum is likely to support the charity’s ability to further its objects, they might well and quite reasonably decide to publicly advocate that outcome in the referendum campaign. And in doing so, trustees will clearly need to be mindful of the law and your charity’s reputation. Equally, however, you should also be aware of the risks of damaging this reputation by simply standing aside and remaining silent.

In any event, the Charity Commission has softened its original guidance that sought to dissuade charities from being engaged with the referendum debate. And significantly, the civil society minister has urged charities to speak up in the referendum debate. Rob Wilson, the Cabinet Office minister for the charity sector who backs staying in the EU, said it was legitimate and valuable for the voice of voluntary organisations to be heard during the campaign.

I share Rob Wilson’s view and similarly urge charities and voluntary and community groups to be ready to defend and promote the objectives of their charities and the interests of their beneficiaries.

As you will have gathered, my firm personal opinion is that the UK will be stronger if we stay as members of the EU. I believe that this is in the economic, environmental and social interests of the country and most charities’ beneficiaries. And I would be surprised if most charities, having undertaken an analysis of the issues at stake on 23rd June, did not come to a similar position (and many, like me, will also wish to argue and campaign for reform of the EU’s institutions and policies post-referendum).

There is an opportunity and, I believe, that there would be great advantage from the EU strengthening its current and adopting even more enlightened social policies and frameworks including addressing inequality and poverty across the members states, adopting an more enlightened approach to migration, creating a stronger sense of an Europe of communities as much if not more than of nation states and supporting pan-European social movements and social action. Many charities will agree with this and if Britain votes to remain a member of the EU this case can and should e made with vigour.

Any charities that believe that their beneficiaries would benefit from a “Brexit” should be ready to say so too. I would expect that such charities will be in a small minority.

Some may wish to work with others in the sector and / or with those engaged in the wider referendum campaign. Whatever you do, charity trustees should think and act positively; and above all, decide what if anything you should be doing and saying.

If charities and trustees in particular wake up on 24th June and think “Oh no this result is going to be very damaging for our charity and our beneficiaries” or ‘what a missed opportunity”, this will be too late. Now is the time to do something. It matters - so act.