With a week to go until the 2016 EU referendum, it's still unclear which side will win, or indeed if either side will be able to say they've won. Neither side come out of this exercise with any glory, and both sides of the argument have made ridiculous claims about what will, would, could, may, or may not happen if they or the other side emerge victorious.
I was 9 years old when we entered the then EEC, and have always accepted membership of it, and the later EU, as a fact of life, in the same way that my city is in the UK, or the UK is in NATO and the UN. I look around the world and see different systems of government, but I accept that the UK has a parliamentary monarchy, it's neither better or worse than other systems, it's just what we have.
For a number of years, some, mainly on the right have argued that anyone of my generation and younger have not had a say in being in the EU. I have never understood that argument as my generation, and others, have never been asked do we want to be in the UK, or do we want the UK to be in the UN, or whether we should have a monarchy. Perhaps we should be like Switzerland and have referenda about everything, but we don't and I accept that as a fact of life. We elect a government every few years and that government makes the decisions, be they good or bad, and at the end of their term of office we renew their mandate or choose a different path. Sometimes we agree with the outcome, and sometimes we don't. And on the whole the system works, albeit sometimes we need to use a little direct action or lawful disobedience to keep the government in check.
But for a number of reasons, here we are, about to make a decision which will set our country on a course for the foreseeable future.
The question on the ballot paper is a clear In or Out, whereas I suspect most people's views are more nuanced. There are some who want to remain In the EU despite what direction it takes, and some, a larger number I think, who want to come Out, and will never change their minds on that. Most people, again I suspect, are in between.
Myself I'm "in between", but with a marked leaning to In. I see the advantages the EU has brought, and shake my head at some of the things it gets wrong. Like any organisation it has rules and procedures which appear pointless and wasteful, but the same applies to the UK government, the monarchy, even our own city council.
The world is a very different place to the one we inhabited in 1973, and almost every aspect of our lives has changed. One of the arguments in this campaign is whether the EU has been a cause or effect of those changes.
One of the charges laid against the EU locally is that as the Port of Liverpool lies on the "wrong" side of the country, membership of the EU led to the demise of the port. This is untrue. The decline in the port came about due to changes in world trade, and particularly containerisation. In latter years the amount of cargo being handled by the port has risen back to and beyond that handled prior to our entry into the EU, but of course with automation needs far fewer workers. This would have happened with or without the EU.
Our hinterland of Lancashire suffered from changes to world trade, particularly the manufacturing of clothing and again new trades have eventually replaced the old, and again this was a global change which would have happened anyway.
Because of the seismic shift in those trading patterns, Liverpool suffered more than most places as business relocated away from the port it no longer needed, indeed an option put to the then Thatcher government was to allow the city to go into "managed decline", instead of attempting to attract new business, it should encourage the workforce to move to where the jobs where, which in a way makes sense, its how the city grew in the first place by people following the work. The problem of course is what do you leave behind. However some, notably Michael Heseltine and some of our more progressive local politicians, saw an alternative and kick-started the reinvention of the city particularly into the cultural and knowledge sectors. EU, and UK, grants have been instrumental in providing investment into the infrastructure of the city to underpin those and other sectors.
Another argument against the EU at this point is that the money we get back is merely money which came from the UK in the first place, and yes, this is true, however the question is would the city have received that funding from Whitehall alone. The answer is, in my opinion, no, it would not. An example here is the Cruise Terminal. Built at a cost of £21m, it required grants from the EU and UK of approx. £8.5m each. However when because of the success of the terminal ship operators wanted to not only call here but start cruises from the port, the UK grant had to be repaid, as it had "port call only"conditions attached which the EU one did not. There are many other examples of UK funding being given but only to match what the EU had provided and not instead of such assistance.
In summary Liverpool was going through a rough patch at the time of accession to the EU, and has benefitted hugely from EU investment to become the thriving city it is today. This however is in the past and the city will not receive such sums in the future, other cities, towns and areas in this and other countries will have a greater need for investment in the future. And that is OK, its part of what being in a Union is about, be that the EU or the UK. We invest in the weaker parts in order to increase their viability and allow them to stand on their own two feet. Yes there are parts of the EU which require a great deal of investment, but as their economies grow the level of assistance they receive will reduce. An example here is Ireland, it's weaker economy required a great deal of investment but it eventually grew to become a net contributor to the Union. Of course it was then dealt a heavy blow due to the economic crash but that was for different reasons, notably borrowing in a short period more than it could afford to repay, but the country's growth is now once again out performing other countries.
The country with the leading growth figure currently is Poland, and as her economy grows her population will be able to find better paid work within their own country, and the opportunities for people from other countries including the UK to do business there will increase.
Above all however the UK is a trading nation, we do business with the entire world, and despite what some think, ships still sail from Liverpool to the Americas, to Africa and beyond. But we also trade with the largest single market in the world, the EU. Cutting ourselves off from that market, or having restrictions or costs imposed on trading with it, when we currently do so freely, makes no sense whatsoever.
The next point I want to address is sovereignty. Some see the EU as being a dictatorship which rules over us. And yes on some issues the EU makes rules and regulations which we have to abide by, but that is no different to the UK parliament making rules or the UN making resolutions. If we leave the EU it will continue to make rules, and in order to trade with the 27 other countries we'll still have to abide by those rules, the difference being we would no longer have any say, any influence or as a last resort, any veto over those rules. We live in an interconnected and global world, a lot of the things which enable us to live in the modern age are decided in other capitals or indeed boardrooms around the world. We have little say in how those things are decided. So self governing sovereignty is one of those things that sounds noble but is pretty meaningless in the 21st century.
Lastly, what happens if we leave the EU. It's pretty much accepted that there will be an economic shock, how long it lasts, and how severe it is, is pure guesswork. What happens after that is unknown. What I have observed however is those who plan to vote to leave are not only doing so for different reasons, but hope for vastly different outcomes. Some are believers in small government, where you keep what you earn and look after yourself and will be only too happy to see most employment laws and the NHS consigned to the history books; others think that the money we currently give to the EU will instead be spent at home and that the NHS in particular will receive much more funding. Well both can't be right and one end of that spectrum will be sadly disappointed in what transpires, and with the Leave campaign headed up by the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove I strongly suspect it will be the latter.
If the country does decide to leave the EU, then I think there will be a difficult period ahead, and a lot of people who can ill afford it will suffer hardship, in the short term at least. But in the long term the country will adapt and survive, like it always has.
If we decide to remain then it is imperative that the UK Prime Minister, both present and future, uses the UK's power and economic might to assume a greater leadership role in the EU and ensure it continues to adapt to the challenges of the world we live in.
I firmly believe, however, that being a member of the European Union continues to be in the UK's best interests, and I will be voting to Remain next Thursday.
