The great EU debate begins in the North-East

While politicians can debate and speculate, it is vital we listen to the opinions and concerns of those it will affect.

I have launched the first stage of an initiative seeking to do just this.

‘Sedgefield and the EU’ has been developed to open and support dialogue between myself and my constituency; and it has been welcomed by companies such as Newton Aycliffe train builder Hitachi Rail Europe, chemical company Ineos, and radiation detection firm Kromek, based at Netpark, in Sedgefield.

The first phase consists of a survey, which has been distributed to around 200 businesses this week alone.

It investigates their connections to Europe, and provides a platform to voice opinions and concerns.

Granted this is no small task, but its enormity cannot deter us.

A spokesperson for Kromek has said being part of the EU, or not, will certainly have an impact on many businesses.

In a globalised world, the decision to disengage from Europe would undoubtedly have an immense impact.

It will not only affect business leaders, it will also affect the people they employ.

With nearly 10,000 people working at businesses on Newton Aycliffe Business Park alone, it is essential I am as informed as possible.

This is a generation defining issue, which could have extensive economic repercussions on every household.

Businesses in our region not only trade with other EU members, they also benefit from numerous EU funding pots.

The European Regional Development Fund alone provides £460m of investment to the region.

Consequently, the North-East Chamber of Commerce considers the debate on the UK’s future in Europe is a vital one.

After all, our membership of the EU has helped the region develop a strong record of inward investment.

Combined with the factors of trade and funding, there exists a compelling economic argument for remaining in the EU.

I, however, want to distinguish the extent to which businesses in my constituency have benefited.

What concerns me most about the referendum, and a potential withdrawal, is the unpredictability Sedgefield and Britain would be subject to.

The risk of failing to attract inward investment from companies such as Hitachi, who have invested £82m into their Aycliffe site, is a considerable concern.

Karen Boswell, Hitachi Rail Europe’s managing director, has said: “It is vital for us as a company that there are no trade barriers and we can trade freely with other European countries.”

Brexit would subject companies to operating on the fringe of the EU, exposing them to economic uncertainty, while the Government attempted to negotiate new trade deals.

In my view, it’s impossible for Britain to remove itself from the global economic web, in which we are one strand connected and entwined with many others.

Exit from the EU therefore would only ensure great economic uncertainty.

The reality of this referendum is not as simple as the Yes or No, which will appear on our ballot papers.

Granted, there are benefits of EU membership, and uncertainty associated with withdrawal, but it would be short-sighted to assume our relationship with the EU should remain unchanged.

It is crucial we ask is the current system fit for purpose?

I don’t doubt there are aspects of our membership which could be improved.

Many businesses, some of which will have benefited from our EU membership, have expressed they have issues with the regulatory and compliance framework introduced by the EU.

Improvements, however, can only be made if we engage with business and are aware of the aspects to address.

I believe we should stay in the EU and influence Europe’s direction of travel from within.

Ultimately, our membership of the EU should benefit everyone.

The referendum should be about achieving a better deal.

In a changing world we constantly need to reform and renew.

Our approach to the EU should be no different.

To make effective changes, however, we need input from those directly affected.

This initiative is therefore important in discovering what reforms, if any, would benefit Britain.

The first stage of the Sedgefield and the EU initiative is not about me stating whether we should, or shouldn’t remain in the EU, although I do believe we have more to gain from continued membership.

It is about facilitating a debate, and encouraging engagement on an issue which, regardless of the outcome, will affect us all.

I want to see a successful Sedgefield, one that benefits from a big, and better, Britain.

We cannot achieve this by pulling up the drawbridge to Europe, and turning our backs on opportunity.

We cannot achieve alone.

Equally, I cannot deliver the best deal for my constituency alone.

Only by opening up dialogue and listening to constituent’s opinions and concerns can I attempt to fulfil my duty to deliver a deal that suits Sedgefield.

This initiative is my endeavour to do just that.