Article 50

Tuesday 29th March 2017 was a rather insignificant day in the grand scheme of things, but it marked a further milestone in the history of the United Kingdom.

As the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson put it in 1962, “Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role”

In 1973 we found a role, of joining with our European neighbours, which had for too long been our enemies, to become a modern European nation and to help, and indeed lead the way, in rebuilding and reshaping Europe for the fast changing world we were witnessing.  And we did, the single market which you hear so much about was a British idea, ironically led by Margaret Thatcher who was a European, pragmatically if not culturally.

The world changed faster than we foresaw, and perhaps faster than we as human beings with complex emotions could deal with.  Certainties around our world, our homes, our jobs and our families were upended and many people struggled with the change, and struggled to see how they fitted into it.

The EEC, later the EU was often blamed for things over which it had no control.  People in my part of the country blamed the EU for the loss of trade on the docks, but it was the automation of containerisation and handling of bulk commodities which changed the workforce on the docks, indeed trade is higher now than in the so called boom years of the 1950s, albeit serviced by a workforce of 400 instead of 6000.

The EU is blamed for making cosmetic improvements, for instance funding an artwork, rather than building a new place of work.  But remember ‘what’ the funding is spent on is decided locally not by a civil servant in Brussels.  It is someone in your town hall who wanted the artwork, not a “eurocrat”.

It is very true that areas of the UK have been left behind, if a large factory closes in your town, its effects are devastating to the whole community, and whilst the EU can fund a replacement building, and train our young people in the new skills needed, it cannot bring back the quantity of jobs lost.

Of course I’m writing this from a city which has benefitted enormously from EU funding, and the voters here could see how much we gain from co-operation with our European neighbours, but equally I can see how if you are from a former industrial town which has declined, and continues to do so, no matter how many fancy new buildings and artworks have been put up, the option in the referendum to carry on as we have was hardly a tempting offer.  Who can blame them therefore for accepting the offer from the Leave side who offered them something different, even though the offer was false at worst, exaggerated at best.

The 44 years we have so far been in the EU have seen enormous advances on our continent.  Who looking forward from 1973 could have seen the fall of the Berlin Wall; the collapse of the Soviet Union; the amazingly smooth transition of former Soviet states to proud independent European nations; peace and cross-community governance,  albeit still fragile, in Northern Ireland.  And although we all, worldwide, live in uncertain and indeed dangerous times, we are much more prosperous than our parents and grandparents were, even if for some, that prosperity is unequal and unfairly distributed.

So the leaving process has begun.  The focus now falls on the teams put in place to deliver the negotiated settlement.  No longer can David Davies, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and Theresa May smile and just say everything will be fine, or tell us how excited they are for the future.  They need to now explain how and when things will change.  What the people of the country need to do to be ready for that change.  And what will happen if the change isn’t for the better.

We cannot accept a situation where we leave the EU whatever the conditions, whatever the damage to our country, whatever the cost.  As an elected politician and as a duly appointed Prime Minister, Theresa May’s overriding duty is to protect the country.  If at the end of the two year negotiation period it is shown to her that leaving the EU is wrong for the country, then she must stop the process.  To do otherwise is to knowingly cause damage to her own nation and the electorate will be her judge.

Nine months have passed since the referendum and I have yet to hear a single reason why this country will be better off, economically, politically or culturally outside the EU.  I have heard abstract concepts about democracy and sovereignty, and of course plenty of comments about immigration, both reasoned and downright racially prejudiced.  But I have not heard anyone explain what we will be able to do in March 2019 that we cannot do now, which will make this country better.

To name four key areas:
Sovereignty – we have it, never lost it, otherwise how are we doing what we are doing now.

Immigration – the UK Government has the power to limit immigration from other EU countries – Directive 2004/38/EC of 2004 – but chooses, except in limited special cases, not to utilise it.

Democracy – the European Parliament is elected, and on a proportional basis.  I find it amusing that UKIP, unable to have a single MP* elected to Westminster, has 20 MEPs (making them the joint largest UK representative party) yet continues to accuse the EU of being undemocratic!
*Douglas Carswell being a special case in that he was already an MP.

Trade – We can and do trade with the rest of the world.  But why does Germany trade more with our commonwealth partners, India, Australia, and New Zealand than we do?  Being EU members isn’t holding Germany back, so why do we believe it does so to the UK?  We are told that the Commonwealth, quite stupidly referred to as "Empire 2.0" will ride to the rescue as if those nations have been sitting there for 44 years just waiting for our return - what nonsense. One leave voter even said Britain will be OK because "everywhere in the world loves us" conveniently ignoring who those countries celebrate their independence from.

I remain fundamentally opposed to the UK leaving the EU.  I have always agreed that the EU is not perfect and sometimes needs a kick up the backside, but that equally applies to our government whether Westminster or local town hall.

Brexit can be stopped, I believe it should, but I think it’s unlikely to be.  What happens in the future nobody knows, will there even be a United Kingdom in 10 years?  If Scotland is offered accelerated membership of the EU it may well vote to leave.  Northern Ireland is at a crossroads and if the government in Dublin play this cleverly and with more emphasis on the future than the past it may well lead to a United Ireland in my lifetime.

What will happen to the EU?  The more excitable Brexiters not only expect a breakup of the EU, they positively froth at the mouth at the very thought of it.  They are mistaken.  The history of the continent is not the same as the England’s.  Despite all the nonsense about the EU being a dictatorship, a lot of Europeans have actually lived in a dictatorship, they have seen what happens when you divide a continent and will never go back to those divisions.  The EU may well change, I expect that it will.  Perhaps to a less controlling, but more defined federal structure, a sort of United State of Europe Lite.

The world has changed, and is still changing.  I believe the superpower of the next generation will be China.  Europe will need to be strong and united to face China across the negotiation table, already Germany trades with China at 4 times greater levels than the UK.  When China wants to talk to Europe they will do so through Brussels or Berlin.  They’ll speak to London too of course, but we won’t be first on their list.

London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast – these are modern European cities, whose citizens think of travelling, trading and working in Paris, Berlin, Madrid and Rome as no different to doing so in the their sister UK cities.  These modern British Europeans may understand but do not share their fellow citizens opposition to the EU.  And no doubt those who so fervently voted to leave cannot understand our support for it.

Mrs May speaks of wanting the United Kingdom to be fairer and more united than ever before. Unfortunately the country is far too divided for that to happen any time soon.  Whilst any discussion about Brexit is accompanied by talk of Remoaners and Quitlers, whilst both sides refuse to budge in their beliefs, whilst even the Commons chamber echoes to triumphalism and rancour, her wish will lie unfulfilled.  Both sides in this debate are convinced that they are right.  Some will quieten down over the coming weeks and months; some will never accept they are wrong; most will wait and see what happens.

Time to move on

Boris Johnson's ill-conceived garbage earlier today (18 January 2017) was crass and embarrassing. To liken the French President to a Nazi PoW guard showed a total lack of respect. Can you imagine Lord Carrington,  Malcolm Rifkind,  Harold McMillan et al saying such a thing.
David Davis also reached for a WW2 reference today, whilst, less surprisingly the tabloid press used wartime imagary to illustrate May's speech. 
Now, I enjoy watching a good war movie, and laugh along with Dads Army, I'm proud of what our country did to fight fascism and respectful of the sacrifices made by those that served in wartime, but it's about time our country got over its obsession with WW2. Of course we must remember, but it's in the past, not the future, whilst we sit watching "Sink The Bismarck" (and I do) the Germans have got on with making a success of their shipbuilding and maritime industry. Whilst we hum along to the theme tune of "633 Squadron" Germany has got on with exporting twice as much to the US as we do, four times as much to China, even exporting more than we do to the Commonwealth countries of India, Australia and New Zealand.
Theresa May wants Britain to be a successful trading nation, well we all do, notwithstanding our profound disagreement over our membership of the largest trading block in the world, but we'll never do this whilst we continue to be held back by the weight of our history. The horror of WW2 ended 72 years ago, it's time we moved on

EU Referendum - 1 week to go

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.