Westminster Hall

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Monday 12 October 2026

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

Rejoining the EU

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 749128 relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.

I thank Robert McMaster from Reading Central, who started the petition and is in the Gallery, as well as the 111,687 people who signed it, including 199 of my constituents. One of Mr McMaster’s biggest frustrations with Brexit is that it was never defined. It was not about what our future relationship would look like; it was simply about leaving the treaties on the European Union, and our post-Brexit relationship with the EU has left Britain worse off than if we had remained a member. People can feel that, and polling shows that most of the British public now regard Brexit as a mistake.

In whose interest was Brexit? It was certainly in the interest of countries such as Russia that want to see Britain’s influence weakened and Europe fractured. With Brexit, that is what they got. With Russia doing everything it can to provoke further division and war in Europe, this petition is a good opportunity to ask ourselves not just whether we should rejoin the EU, but the much bigger questions of what relationship we want with Europe, why, and how we get there.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents voted to leave the EU because they were bombarded with lies, from the mythical £350 million a week for the NHS that never appeared to the lie that immigration would come down when it actually trebled. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s announcement of the new national centre for information defence will help protect our constituents from foreign state influence as we consider our relationship with the EU again?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend raises a fundamental point. These are very real things that have been known for a long time, but we have not moved quickly enough to address them. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement about that threat centre, because it is the only way that we can drill down beneath the surface of what is being said online and understand who is influencing our politics.

The answers to those questions about what our future relationship should look like will determine how we secure our prosperity for the future.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Two thirds of my constituents recognise the folly of Brexit, because they realised that 20,000 jobs in Glasgow city depended on the EU, and now they realise that there is an additional £250 on their food bill. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that solidarity is always better than separation, that the unintended consequences of smashing apart our union are evident in the Brexit conversation, and that the optimal arrangement for my constituents in Glasgow South West and for Scotland is to be part of a strong United Kingdom inside a better settlement with the European Union?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is not what just his constituents think; the polling shows it is what most people across the country think.

My hon. Friend alludes to not just an economic argument but a much wider one about where we belong. I will dwell on the economics, because it is important to start with that. My constituency of Folkestone and Hythe is a good place to look at where things have gone wrong. We are home to the channel tunnel, which is one of the main gateways to Europe; for us, the relationship with Europe directly affects whether lorries move, whether businesses can recruit and whether exports reach customers, as well as whether our young people can seize opportunities abroad.

It is fair to say that Mr McMaster’s case is, above all, an economic one. He argues that our relationship with the EU has made our economy smaller and our trading relationship with our nearest and largest markets more difficult.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

As a former MEP and as MP for one of the youngest constituencies in the country, it is important for me to say on the record that Brexit has been a disaster for young people. Opportunities that the EU offered, such as the ability to live, work and learn alongside our friends in Europe, are now gone, and Brexit’s devastating economic impact has been felt mostly by young people. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a closer relationship with the EU would positively impact our young people, including those in Manchester Rusholme?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree, and that is why it is so vital that progress is made immediately on the youth experience scheme, about which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister later.

Every single economist agrees with Mr McMaster’s assessment that we have been left in a much worse economic position, and the experience of businesses in my constituency is proof that he is right. Alcaline, a major local employer, is an international haulage company that serves customers across Europe. Nearly a quarter of its fleet is currently off the road, not because it lacks work, but because its British drivers can only spend 90 in every 180 days in the Schengen area due to post-Brexit rules and EU drivers are hard to find because they need a work visa and have to deal with all the friction at the UK border. This is a major local business that should be expanding but, because of Brexit rules, is struggling to survive. It is a travesty that haulage firms across the country are going bust because of these kinds of post-Brexit rules.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Vaughan, a very large number of people want to take part in the debate, and I am endeavouring to get in everybody who wants to give a speech. Perhaps you might bear that in mind before taking too many interventions.

[Tony Vaughan]

I am grateful, Sir Edward. I will bear that in mind. I will take a very brief intervention from my hon. Friend and will be sparing thereafter.

[Tulip Siddiq]

On the topic of local businesses, 87% of my constituents voted to remain in the EU, but kitchen designer Neil Lerner told me that he had to close the doors on a family business that had lasted for more than 30 years because of a severe downturn in sales caused by Brexit, a local bakery told me that its paperwork nearly doubled before it closed because of Brexit, and—this is my personal favourite—John Atkins, who ran a flower stall next to the Royal Free hospital for nearly 40 years, said that, because of post-Brexit bureaucracy, the cost of tulips has gone up by 50% since 2020. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Brexit has made our high streets significantly worse?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will give her a further example—it will be my last. I have a sole trader in my constituency who has for three decades hand-made stringed instruments and exported his craftsmanship across the world. In some years, most of his sales went to the EU, but under post-Brexit rules, one Italian customer had to be charged around €1,000 in import costs on an instrument worth €3,200. That business faces post-Brexit red tape that is making it extremely difficult for him to compete. He describes it as

“nail after nail being hammered into a coffin”

for his business.

We have heard of three different businesses that are in quite different environments but tell the same story: these post-Brexit trading arrangements have added cost, delay and uncertainty to British businesses that should be focusing on investment and growing. How can we be serious about reindustrialising our country while our British manufacturers are being hammered day after day by trading rules that are purely a creature of Brexit? In 2026 we cannot accept that status quo any longer.

I fully support what the Labour Government have been doing to strengthen our ties with Europe—the work on the agrifood agreement, a youth experience scheme, Erasmus+ and a security and defence partnership are useful steps—but the measures that would make the most difference to our country are not in those draft agreements, at least as it appears so far.

Given the need to reindustrialise our nation, the economic challenges that we face, the need to address irregular migration and, most fundamentally, the need for democratic and rule-of-law-respecting states to pull together and stand up for our values against Russia’s vile war of aggression in Ukraine, we cannot, as a country, afford to keep taking small steps away from the disastrous Brexit settlement that we have now. Instead, we should be looking at all the options for fundamentally refreshing our relationship with Europe, which I believe is strongly in the interests of British people, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to be calling for a more ambitious approach.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will take interventions a bit later. I will make some progress.

Many of my constituents who voted to leave the EU, whose decision I respect, agree with me that, 10 years on, the world is changing. Technology is changing, migration flows are changing, our climate is changing, and wars start, spread and are fought differently. All that leaves us as a nation far more exposed to external shocks. I think that most people are pragmatic enough to see that when the world changes it is a good idea to ask ourselves how we should change with it.

As a country, we have formidable strengths: the English language, the rule of law, a trusted legal system, world-class universities, financial and professional services, and leading science and research. Our future economic model should be to combine all those strengths and be the best place in Europe to invent, make, finance and export, but we will not achieve that by keeping rules that make it difficult for manufacturers to access their nearest market, for exporters to sell their goods or for companies to operate across borders.

I want very quickly to say something about asylum and immigration, because it is an important element of why we must have closer relations with Europe. When we left the EU, we lost the returns agreement that we had with it and were left with no returns agreement at all. Small boat crossings then shot up. Today we are left negotiating one-off, ad hoc arrangements with individual countries—most recently with France—which are hard-won but too limited in scope to tackle the problem fully.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I need to press on, because of the time.

We now have no access to the Eurodac fingerprint database, so we do not know how a person has travelled through Europe or whether they have already claimed asylum elsewhere. Despite all those constraints, the Government are making huge strides to reduce irregular crossings, but we could be making infinitely more progress if we were working inside the EU or more closely with it. We need practical co-operation with all our European partners, including action against people-smuggling networks, intelligence sharing and stronger enforcement, all of which will drive a faster, fairer asylum system here at home.

In conclusion, I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to investigate and set out the long-term options for our relationship with Europe, and I urge the Minister to make sure that membership is on the list of possible options. I am also keen to hear from him on the following points. First, what progress are the Government making in securing the agrifood agreement, access to the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence loans programme and the youth experience scheme? Secondly, what action are we taking to ensure that British manufacturing does not suffer as a result of the EU’s “Made in Europe” scheme? Thirdly, do the Government see any way forward based on our current—or even future—arrangements to negotiate away the 90/180 rule that has been so devastating to hauliers? Finally, what consideration are the Government giving to levying tariffs on imports of Chinese electric vehicles so that we can have alignment with the EU and protect our domestic car industry?

Mr McMaster, the petitioners, businesses and many people in Folkestone and Hythe who want a closer relationship with Europe are not asking us to turn back wistfully; they are asking for hope again. They are asking for recognition that we are all paying a Brexit bill: our manufacturers, our farmers, our universities, our young people, our hospitality sector—I could go on. Brexit has not served our national interest. The world we now find ourselves in demands new choices about how we can prosper in the years ahead. I thank the petitioner and those who signed the petition and look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister about how we move forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. A large number of colleagues wish to take part in the debate—I see very many Labour MPs—and I want to accommodate you all, so I am afraid that I will have to impose a four-minute limit on speeches. I remind you that we have worked that out so that everybody can get in, so the more interventions you take, the more likely you are to be stopping a colleague getting in and giving a speech that they have written so carefully.

16:43

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Brexit weakened the UK economically and politically. That is why it was supported by Putin, Trump and the Member for Mar-a-Lago and Moscow. I expected little else from them but remain bemused that the Conservative party went along with that folly despite the views of many of its MPs, including my honourable predecessor in Wimbledon, Stephen Hammond. But we are where we are. It falls to us in Parliament now to repair the damage that Brexit has done.

I was consequently encouraged to hear the Prime Minister’s more positive words today. He was, however, markedly more ambivalent when he campaigned in Makerfield, and even now he remains wedded to his predecessor’s red lines on the customs union and single market, which necessarily means that any progress in the much-delayed EU summit will be severely limited. But at least he is doing better than the Tories, who are still in denial. Just last week, their deputy leader vowed to reverse any progress made in re-engaging with Europe. I tell my Conservative colleagues to wake up and stop digging, as all they are doing is burying our one real chance to swiftly grow the UK economy.

Speak to any business owner trading with Europe and their verdict is the same: more paperwork, more checks, more delays. That the true cost of Brexit.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is not just business owners who can see the cost, but the workers. I was struck when a constituent who works in the Mini plant in Oxford wrote to me. He supported Brexit at the time, but he has since seen how the racist rhetoric is making it harder for him to be in his community, and his job feels precarious. He now says he would happily rejoin. Does my hon. Friend agree that workers as well as owners are seeing what has happened to their jobs after that disastrous deal?

[Mr Kohler]

It is damaging to our businesses, workers, communities and relations—and to the EU, of course. It is damaging to everybody. That is what Putin and Trump knew.

In south Wimbledon, a local Italian bakery La Bottega del Pane faces endless form filling. In Wimbledon village, the florist Gardenia of London faces similar hurdles. A small error in complex documentation can leave crucial deliveries tangled in red tape. Stale bread and dead flowers—a fitting epitaph to Brexit. It is not only businesses that are being harmed. A generation of young people is set to miss out on the life-changing opportunity of working abroad, from a winter season in the French Alps to a summer in Greece. Those are the formative experiences that our young people are currently being denied.

The time has come for a clear and pragmatic road map to rebuild our ties with the EU, as the Lib Dems have been calling for since the last election.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

May I take my hon. Friend to the far north of Scotland, which I have the honour to represent? The EU helped to pay for harbours, roads and all sorts of infrastructure. We have the signs still—they are fading, but they have all the stars on them, and we were damned grateful for it. We do not have that money any more. What does that mean? Opportunities are going and young people will start to think about moving away—the old curse of highland depopulation.

[Mr Kohler]

I agree entirely. Sadly, the EU did not shout enough about all it did. It was forgotten or not seen by many. Those were crucial things that we should have shouted about more, and we must shout them about now.

I urge the Prime Minister to go to the forthcoming EU summit with a plan to not only agree a youth mobility scheme but begin negotiating a growth and defence partnership, a customs union and the terms under which we might join the single market. The negotiations will not be easy, but the UK has much to offer and even more to gain. Let us proclaim loudly that the aim of this re-engagement is to one day, in my lifetime, become full and active members of the EU once more.

16:48

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York for Europe’s consistent polling in York shows a clear aspiration from my constituents to rejoin the EU, which I support, with 262 of them signing the petition.

How we progress our relationship is as important as the relationship itself. The geopolitical landscape has changed. In this new world order, we have leaders of core nations who assume dominance and build disruption, volatility and protectionism rather than bridges. That neither builds stability nor advances our collective interests as progressive nations interested in providing optimised opportunities for our families and communities in our countries.

Mark Carney has delivered two significant statements. The first was at Davos highlighting the importance of the new world order, with the power sat in the hands of the middle states to determine economic opportunity, national security and a union of nations working for the advancement of society against the headwinds of global challenge. Then, at the European Parliament in September, he set out a new model of associate EU membership.

As we have just heard, on 20 November, our Prime Minister will lead the discussions for a £10 billion opportunity to advance our economy. Nations of common interest will join together to address the destabilising pressures of Trump, Putin and Xi, to protect our economy base and to ensure border and national security. That is progressive politics, and it is our opportunity to ensure that we put forward an alliance for the future. The question then follows: to what extent? The EU has signalled its willingness to work with our Government to secure the best possible relationship.

[Warinder Juss]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I won’t have time today.

I recognise that in 2016 people did not know that they were going to be £3,000 worse off. They did not know that the cost of living crisis was going to bear down on them as a result of that. Businesses and agriculture did not know how bad the barriers would be. People did not expect the economy to be 6% smaller and our financial industries to look to Frankfurt and Ireland rather than remain in the City. I also recognise that people were not informed that migration issues would get worse as a result of coming out of the Dublin agreement. They were not told the cost of that. People did not know that their public services would have huge backlogs because they were not told.

Now evidence has come to the fore about the crisis that has been created by being outside of the EU. Therefore, it is appropriate that we look at how we move forward. People are poorer, have fewer prospects and feel insecure, services are failing and the UK is disempowered, so it is right that the Prime Minister looks at how to advance this.

How we conduct our discussions to form a new relationship with the EU over the next couple of years will really matter. Can we build an in-depth, deliberative process where citizens from all our communities help to shape the next manifesto commitment and what the relationship with the EU should look like? Can we call for participation from all our communities so that every resident can have a say? Can we ensure that verified material is accessible to all so that people can consider all the options available to them?

Only if our residents are at the heart of shaping our future relationship with the EU will it succeed. The Prime Minister has opened up a tremendous opportunity, as we heard in the House this afternoon. I hope the Minister will be willing to work with MPs and our communities to deliver this.

16:52

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Listening to this debate is amusing, but rather depressing in other ways. There is a heartfelt hope among a great many people here that rejoining the EU would somehow be transformative for the British economy, which they think has done much worse as a result of being outside the EU. [Interruption.] That is the thesis, isn’t it? Let’s look at the facts.

The UK economy has outgrown France and Germany since we left the EU in 2021. In fact, some of our economic growth is a direct result of leaving the EU. We have not over-regulated our tech sector in the way that the EU has, so we are getting the lion’s share of inward investment and far greater gross value added in that sector than France or Germany. Interestingly, the tech sector has been excluded from the EU reset talks.

Before covid, the City of London employed some 500,000 people. Today, over 680,000 people are employed in the City. The financial services sector is booming outside the EU because we have scrapped MiFID II, the bonus cap and regulations on derivatives trading, and all the people who left because of the fear campaign are coming back.

What is the basis for saying the EU has damaged our economy except for these two forecasts, which are conjectural projections and not things that have happened? They are not facts. They are quoted by the OBR and the Treasury and the Prime Minister believes them, and I am sure there is sincere belief in those figures across Westminster Hall today, but they are not facts. The only facts are that the UK economy has grown by 7.9% over that period, while France’s economy has grown by 6.8% and Germany’s economy has grown by only 1.1%. I was not aware that Germany or France had left the EU and that their economies had been damaged by their leaving, but that is the basis on which we are being told that we have damaged our economy.

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, I will not give way; I am going to be very brief.

Services exports to the EU have rocketed, because there is no single market in services and we export a huge amount to the EU, as we do to the rest of the world. Overall, our trade has boomed since Brexit; our trade with the EU and the rest of the world combined has grown very substantially.

Does anybody know what proportion of GDP is represented by goods exports to the EU? Hon. Members are quoting all these businesses from their constituencies, but how representative are they of the economy as a whole? The EU may be our single biggest export market, but it represents only 6% of our GDP. Hon. Members are looking very puzzled, because people have brainwashed themselves. They think that trade is the entire economy, but it is not; trade is only a proportion of the economy.

Our trade with the rest of the world has expanded much more in comparison with our period in the single market. For example, between 1997 and 2019, when we were in the single market, goods exports to non-EU countries grew by 85%, but goods exports to the EU fell from 10% to 7.8%. Our exports to the EU were already declining. Why was that? It was because the internal market is a failure. The countries that form the internal market today represented 30% of global GDP when we joined the single market in 1992. These are Library figures that I am citing, by the way; Members can go and check them out. Today, the EU represents 17.3% of global GDP. It is declining; it is losing global share.

The United States had 25% of global GDP in 1992 and it still has 25% of global GDP. Why is that? It is because its economy is much less regulated, it has much lower taxes, it rewards enterprise and risk, and it is not mired in the Code Napoléon and the way of cautiously regulating everything that the EU is. If the EU could deregulate, it would possibly be in our economic interests to join it, but it is incapable of deregulating. Therefore, the case for joining the single market has collapsed in the few minutes in which I have been speaking.

16:57

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

I hate to bring real people into this argument and into the statistics. However, there is a Spanish-Italian delicatessen in my constituency—I am sorry that for some people it has no importance—and it has gaps on its shelves. I asked the staff why, because their customers are there and the owner is there. What they told me is missing is the food, and that is because the small supplier of this Spanish-Italian deli has had enough of the reams of EU red tape that he has had to deal with since we left. The gaps on that deli’s shelves are what leaving looks like to its owner and to me.

As we have heard, more than 111,000 people have signed this petition to say that it does not have to be this way, and many of my constituents have urged me to support it. I agree with them. Since attending my first Prime Minister’s questions I have made one case and I will continue to do so: the fastest way for this country to grow is to lift the barriers that came down on British firms when we left the European Union.

Consequently, I welcome the Prime Minister’s readiness to look at every option: a customs union, a single market and full membership. All these things should be looked at in an honest way. The closer we get back to the EU, the quicker the shelves in my local deli will fill up again.

Some people worry about the considerable cost of rejoining the EU. A chunk of that money will come straight back to farmers, regions and our scientists. In addition, the boost to trade—despite what is being claimed about GDP growing internationally—would bring in billions more in tax for our NHS, our police, our schools and our defence. Those are all the things that we need to spend money on, but we in Labour found the cupboard was bare when we came in after 10 or 12 years of Tory misrule.

The return would comfortably outweigh the investment. However, EU membership would also mean more than money. One area where I have to declare a personal interest—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Coleman]

No, I am sorry, I am not giving way. I have been encouraged by our Chair to move on, so that everyone gets a chance to speak and not just the hon. Gentleman.

One area where I have to declare a personal interest is in enabling our musicians and performers to tour freely again. They are people like my nephew Freddy and his band, Caroline. British acts played 21% fewer shows in Europe in 2024 than in 2019—and that is because we left the EU.

Some worry that free movement means that anybody could come here, stay and claim benefits—well, it does not. In the past, we applied too lightly the rules that say it does not. Belgium and Spain insist on the rules, and so can we if we rejoin. Some worry about sovereignty. Well, our exporters have to follow EU rules, but we have no say in setting them. Membership would give us a seat and a vote—that is more control, not less.

Our partners will want to know that our return is for keeps, and so should we. A decision this big must be the settled will of the British people. That is why I believe we need a manifesto pledge to negotiate joining the European Union and then a referendum on the deal. I realise that other people may have other views, but I think that would be the best thing.

In 2016, people voted on an idea—an ephemeral thought. Next time, they would vote on a deal: they would know what being in the European Union costs and what it buys. Before any of that, of course, I hope that the delayed UK-EU summit, which is now happening on 20 November, will finalise the deal on the table. That will keep down costs on food and drink and energy; it will let young Brits and young Europeans work in each other’s countries, for a limited time; and it will build trust.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

We have heard about the impact on small businesses and, indeed, on bands, but there is a side impact on zoos. I have visited Shaldon zoo in my constituency. The loss of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement means that we cannot move breeding animals from zoo to zoo, so we are losing species because of Brexit as well. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Ben Coleman]

I have absolutely no reason to doubt what the hon. Member says. This does not just come down to GDP; it comes down to the detail—the minutiae—of the pain that we are going through as a country in all sorts of areas as a result of not being in the European Union.

For years, we were a problem for the EU and it used to think about us, but the EU has moved on and we need to recognise that. Its problems now are Russia, China and an unpredictable United States. Too many people in Brussels simply do not know us the way they used to, so I would suggest to the Minister that we need to think now about ways we can become part of the furniture there again, starting as soon as possible. For me, the logic points inexorably towards joining, but I can assure my constituents that I will listen, as well as arguing that case.

If I may, I will end on a personal note. As a student, I lived in divided Berlin—before the wall came down. I crossed into the communist east through Checkpoint Charlie; I saw the watchtowers in no man’s land. From there, I went to Brussels: I was a trainee at the European Commission and I worked every day alongside people from every European country. What I could see was that, in Berlin, Britain was helping to keep half a city free; in Brussels, Britain was at the table. We were not just looking on; we were part of it. I want us to be that again, and this time for keeps.

17:02

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners for bringing forward the petition. In the referendum, South Cambridgeshire was one of the strongest remain-voting constituencies in the country, and many of my constituents have signed this petition. We all respect the result, but 10 years on, we have a responsibility to look honestly at the consequences and costs of Brexit and the relationship that we do want with Europe, so that we can strengthen our economy, security, immigration, energy independence, climate and nature recovery.

In South Cambridgeshire, we see the impacts and consequences clearly. Our farmers have faced costs and red tape because the UK lost alignment with EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules, leading to additional, burdensome checks on animal and plant shipments. Our universities and life science research have faced barriers to world-class collaboration, particularly in relation to our exclusion from Horizon until 2024. Our young people have lost the right to live, work and travel across Europe, and I ask the Minister to confirm that we will rejoin the Erasmus scheme. Cambridgeshire chamber of commerce told me that in its latest survey, one in five businesses reported falling overseas sales, alongside increased paperwork and higher export costs.

On the cost of living, by taking the UK out of the EU’s energy market, the Conservatives created barriers to trading electricity with our nearest neighbours. According to Energy UK, that has increased the cost of electricity imports by up to £370 million a year, with cumulative costs potentially reaching £10 billion by 2030. Will the Minister confirm that the upcoming UK-EU summit will enable the UK to rejoin the EU internal electricity market?

Brexit has also had an environmental cost. Many Brexiteers wanted environmental deregulation, and since Brexit, we have seen Britain diverge from European standards, including in areas such as tackling deforestation and saving primary tropical forests, on which we have been far outpaced by the EU.

The lesson of the last decade is clear: Britain benefits when it works closely with its closest European neighbours. Will the Minister confirm that he will scrap the red lines and join the Liberal Democrats in calling for a new growth and defence partnership with the EU? By joining the customs union, the single market and the internal electricity market, we can collectively boost growth, create jobs, strengthen immigration, raise living standards and make Britain safer, as well as recover our nature and tackle climate change together.

17:05

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

None of us wants to go back to the Brexit debates we had in this place. Looking around, I see that most Members present for this debate were spared the horrors of 27 votes in one night and the fisticuffs that took place—[Interruption.] Yes, not all Members here were spared that. I am grateful that nobody else has to go through that horror, but we do need to look again at Brexit. When we look at the real GDP per capita growth since the vote and see that the eurozone countries—Italy, France and Spain—have all outpaced us, I can only ask the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin): are these Brexit benefits in the room with us now? Can anybody else see them?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I will not give way; we have already had to listen to the hon. Gentleman. It would be easy to be angry about our performance in Brexit, but these debates are too often fuelled by blind beliefs rather than careful consideration—witness the hon. Gentleman.

Do we really understand how bad the Tory hard Brexit has been for this country and the scale of the challenge we face? The challenge is not just about the economic impact of leaving the largest trade bloc in the world. I was just shocked by Tory shadow Ministers in the Chamber being surprised to realise that their hard Brexit means that we do not get information in real time from our European counterparts to help British farmers with bio and food security alerts. We also left Eurodac—for all the people who are concerned about stopping the boats and who might want that asylum data—because, again, they hated the term “Europe”. Countless bands will never get the chance to be the Beatles or Oasis because of the 90-day rule, and 20,000 businesses have given up on trading with Europe altogether, because the only Brexit “benefit” that anyone can quantify is the amount of paperwork it created.

The second blind belief, however, is that it would be simple just to go back. We have to be honest. The British problem is that we too often think that the difficult bit is us deciding what our future relationship with Europe should be, and then we tell the Europeans, as if they do not read our newspapers. Some humility is needed, to say the least. In the last 10 years, the continent has faced war and the antics of President Putin and President Trump. It now has new deals on migration and asylum, a new green deal, and trade deals of its own with Canada and the South American Mercosur nations. It has challenged Chinese exports so that “Made in Europe” is now a serious prospect. We are simply an afterthought and casualty of that process.

None of that is an argument against looking to the future, but if the status quo is not acceptable, we have to be honest with our constituents about what is and what we should be fighting for. Frankly, we should look at how others have approached Europe. To go into a negotiation and saying what we do not want—“No, no, no”—is to act like a toddler, yet that is too often what the red line approach has been for this country. Let us contrast that with the approach of Mark Carney, who has talked about the shared challenges and the issues facing all of us in the world today. Perhaps the biggest lie of all those told to us in this place was about cakeism and cherry-picking, as if Europe is not flexible and does not want to find ways forward, when it is very clear that it does.

The truth that must now be told is that we need to do more than repeat the mistakes of the past. We left the European Union without knowing what leaving would entail. We must not make that mistake again. We must seek the consent of the British people and ask them what rejoin would be and about our future relationship with Europe. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is talking about doing. Twenty-one nations have been through accession, taking an average of nine years to do so. This country deserves better. We need to take the Brexit blinkers off and look to our future—a future that is clearly with Europe.

17:09

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I congratulate the petitioners, but I am afraid the heart sinks in this debate. I think it took less than three minutes before we heard about the 350 million quid on the side of the bus, which is one of the great canards. Of course, that was paid; one of the few things that Theresa May actually did for Brexit was make that very significant increase in the NHS budget. We have heard about the migrant return scheme under the EU, which was never used and never actually returned any migrants.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Danny Kruger]

I am just going to keep going. I do not think we are actually having a debate; we are just exchanging our speeches, so I will not give way.

I sympathise with the points we have heard, such as those made about zoos, Spanish delis or Freddy and his band. It is clearly very frustrating how the EU has treated its close friend, the UK, after Brexit, and that has had very unfortunate consequences for those businesses.

We need to look at this issue from a much bigger perspective, and here the facts are much more contested about the overall benefits and costs of Brexit. When we talk about these always cited statistics on the decline in GDP since 2026, we are comparing an unknowable counterfactual with what has actually happened in the real European Union and the UK. Here, as the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the UK has done better than our European competitors.

Let us just be straightforward about this: the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, has suffered economically over the last decade. Different sectors have prospered and suffered in different ways. Although we have not suffered in services exports, we have suffered in goods exports, and I recognise that. However, those goods losses overlap with stupid political choices made by our sovereign United Kingdom, particularly in respect of energy policy.

Where we have also suffered and struggled is where our regulations have remained aligned with the EU. The fact is that European regulations have caused Europe to decline, and where we have also declined, it is because we have remained aligned with them. Mario Draghi, the former Italian Prime Minister and chairman of the European Central Bank, wrote a brilliant report that conclusively demonstrated how much it is the EU itself that holds back European growth, and why it is so regrettable that Britain has remained aligned in so many sectors.

Let me quickly state what actually works for prosperity and what drives economic growth. Last year’s Nobel prize winners won for their brilliant work demonstrating why there has been sustained growth in the world for the last 200 years. It is not because of market share or market access, as valuable as that is; it is because of innovation and technology. It is because of a regulatory system, largely derived from the United Kingdom, that enables businesses to prosper.

The key aspects of that system are light-touch regulation and legal certainty, which are features of common law and the United Kingdom’s economy. Legal systems matter, and the civil law system that the EU operates and applied to the UK is different, as it involves heavy regulation and legal uncertainty. Where we have remained constrained by EU law, such as in electric or self-driving cars, we do just as badly as the EU. However, where we have diverged—where we have used our Brexit freedoms—that is where we are prospering. Of course, AI technology is the key evidence of that.

[Ms Creasy]

Are the benefits in the room with us?

[Danny Kruger]

The AI that the hon. Lady used to write her speech is the benefit of Brexit, and we all benefit enormously from the UK’s leadership in this enormous sector. We attract as much investment in our AI sector as the whole EU27 combined. That is what divergence looks like, and that is what growth looks like.

What is happening is that the EU—and I am afraid the Government—is deliberately locking the United Kingdom into its regulatory system, so that it becomes increasingly apparent that there will be no opportunity to leave. [Interruption.] I am very unclear about the speech times, Sir Edward. Have I gone over?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

There is something wrong with the clock.

[Danny Kruger]

I have pages and pages to go, but I will end on this point. The opportunity remains for the United Kingdom to prosper from the tremendous decision that the British people took 10 years ago. Because of poor Government choices, made under the Conservatives and Labour, the United Kingdom is suffering. However, the answer is not to take a step back into the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I hope we do not have a Brexit clock.

17:14

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the many tens of thousands of people, including hundreds of my constituents, who signed the petition to rejoin the EU. Today’s debate is timely and important. In my constituency we are proud Europeans, and during the referendum that took place 10 years ago, Battersea voted overwhelmingly to remain, with 78% of voters choosing to stay.

The UK’s relationship with Europe is essential, and the Prime Minister was right when he said he believed leaving the European Union had done “more harm than good” in the UK. Many people voted for Brexit because they were promised greater prosperity and opportunity. However, those promises have simply not been realised. In my opinion, the UK leaving the EU has been an unmitigated disaster and has left us poorer as a result.

If we are serious about growth, prosperity and opportunity, we must look at our relationship with Europe. The economic case is clear, despite what many Members have already said. Rejoining the EU would significantly boost the UK’s GDP. Indeed, much research has shown that, including research from Best for Britain on UK-EU integration, which found that full membership would unlock between 2.5% and 3.6% growth in UK GDP. Moreover, rejoining the EU is an issue that many constituents, including mine, continue to raise with their parliamentarians.

As the co-chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I work closely with colleagues here in Parliament and with Members of the European Parliament. Those conversations demonstrate our shared values and our steadfast commitment to work closely and constructively. They also show how much effort has gone into managing many of the unnecessary barriers and complications that did not exist before Brexit.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. In my Exeter constituency, we were heavily reliant on exports to the EU. Many businesses have simply stopped exporting or shut up shop completely. English language schools have also really struggled. We were a centre for English language schools, which bring children and young people from across Europe to Exeter to learn the English language. That is drying up quite significantly.

My hon. Friend mentioned the other ways in which we lose out from being outside the EU. The previous Government specifically pulled us out of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, which means that our air ambulances face challenges and delays in their missions. This issue is not just economic; it is social and affects the way our society is organised. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of those things could be fixed at the upcoming summit?

[Marsha De Cordova]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right that there are so many areas where we could benefit. It is not just the economy.

Those conversations with our colleagues across Europe have also reinforced my belief that, as our close neighbours and historical allies, we are stronger when we work together. When the PPA meets in London next month, which again is timely, ahead of the UK-EU summit, we will continue to call for deeper co-operation between the UK and EU and for practical agreements that support growth—agreements on food and drink, emissions trading and creating opportunities for young people. That will support growth, security and resilience.

In an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment, strong relationships with our oldest neighbours and closest allies matter even more. We have seen that through our collaborative work on the issues facing Ukraine. The Prime Minister has opened the door to a national conversation about our future relationship with Europe and we must seize that opportunity. It is not an opportunity to revisit what happened more than 10 years ago, but we must be honest about the lessons of the last decade and ambitious about the decades to come. What will that look like? If we want growth, prosperity, security and resilience, we must choose a future that brings us closer with the European Union once again.

17:19

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Edward. I congratulate all the petitioners on the efforts they have made to secure such a number of signatures for this petition.

After 10 years, I thought that maybe, just maybe, we might be getting somewhere. The Government are starting to talk positively about the EU, and they correctly describe the carnage, chaos and disaster that was the Brexit deal, and even at his conference speech, I thought I heard the Prime Minister talking positively about actually rejoining the EU. However, as with everything from this Government, we need to be cautious. From that heady talk about rejoining only a couple of weeks ago, we are now back to the familiar territory of a deal and an arrangement with the EU.

I have just come from the Chamber, as many hon. Members have, and I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say about the EU. He described a perfectly reasonable deal. I quite liked what I heard from him on that—he is going to try to ensure a number of positive developments for the UK—but what he did not talk about was rejoining the EU. If I am not mistaken, that is what the petition asks for: it asks for the UK to renegotiate its terms and rejoin the EU. I am okay with what the Prime Minister is going to do on work experience, immigration and all the other things, but what we need after the disaster of the last 10 years is to get back to the territory of rejoining the European Union.

[Warinder Juss]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Pete Wishart]

Sorry, I cannot give way.

Labour have not so much opened the door on ending the chaos and disaster of Brexit; it is more like they have one tentative hand on the handle, unsure whether to wander through, and they are a little bit terrified of what they might find on the other side. We know that Brexit has been a disaster. The Prime Minister does not have to tell us that or explain it in detail; all of us have been seeing it for the last eight years. We are just grateful that this Labour party and Government are now listening.

I secured a debate a few weeks ago to “celebrate” the referendum on the EU. The House of Commons Library briefing for this debate is roughly the same as the one for my debate. The overwhelming economic evidence, the consensus, about what has happened since Brexit could not be clearer—I say to my friends on the right wing of the Conservative party. It is absolutely clear that we have lost opportunity, diminished growth, and limited opportunities and relationships for our young people, and that will continue to happen with this Brexit.

Where does the frenetic talk of the past few weeks leave us? What should we look at from now? The Government’s response to this petition—I am sorry to once again disappoint the petitioners—was to simply restate the failed Keir Starmer lines that they

“will not be rejoining the EU”.

They went on to restate that nothing will be done about the Government’s red lines: no freedom of movement and no rejoining of the single market. That position seems to be totally at odds with what we heard at the Labour party conference. I wish that they would revisit what was said there and give us all hope that we will somehow get back. If they start to get some ambition and aspiration and make that a real strategy, I will be right behind them. I will cheer them to the rafters: “Get us back into the European Union and you will be heroes—not just in your party or your constituencies, but across the United Kingdom.”

However, from what I have heard today and been looking at, I am not seeing that commitment. I have to say that I am very disappointed. I know that Labour Members are all encouraged and excited by what they have heard, but I did not hear anything about rejoining the EU, which is what we and the petitioners want to hear.

17:23

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Sir Edward. It is an honour to serve under your chairship.

I thank the 239 constituents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle who signed the petition following the debate here in September. In that debate, I set out how disastrous Brexit has been for Cornwall. Thanks to the late Member for Falmouth and Camborne, Candy Atherton, Cornwall was awarded more than £100 million a year in European objective 1 funding, which supported the Eden Project, Newquay airport and our universities.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Perran Moon]

As my hon. Friend is a Cornish MP, I will give way.

[Jayne Kirkham]

As a Cornish MP, I want to reinforce that. It supported the airport, the trains, United Downs geothermal, and businesses in Cornwall. We did so well from being, ironically, one of poorest regions in western Europe. I want to make a particular point about our farmers and fishers and the upcoming SPS agreement, which we hope will get across the line by 2027. Does my hon. Friend agree that the agreement will be so important for our farmers and fishers, and that we must make sure that we push it through?

[Perran Moon]

I wholeheartedly agree: for our farmers and our fishers, Brexit has been a disaster—I will come on to that.

We were promised in Cornwall that the funding would be replaced like for like, but it never was. The Brexit benefits were all smoke and mirrors. As my hon. Friend says, our farmers now compete with cheap imports, our fishermen face more bureaucracy, and our businesses face new trade barriers. Across Britain, 20,000 small businesses have stopped exporting to the EU. Farm exports to the EU fell 37% in the five years following the referendum. Brexit has been a tragic failure and Britain is infinitely weaker—economically, socially and culturally—because of it. It is interesting to listen to the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), who sound like two King Cnuts shouting at the sea while the waves of evidence that Brexit has been a failure crash over them.

I reiterate what I said in September: there were virtually no small boat crossings before the Brexit referendum. Why the increase? It is because we took the disastrous decision to leave the Dublin agreement and the Eurodac database without replacements. It is only since this Labour Government have started working collaboratively with our friends and colleagues in France that the number of people crossing the channel in small boats is down, year on year, by 44%. I therefore welcome the Prime Minister’s willingness to hold an honest conversation about our long-term relationship with Europe with all options on the table. As chair of the electric vehicle all-party parliamentary group, I am particularly concerned by the “Made in Europe” policy. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has just raised that issue at the Dispatch Box. Without an agreement, British-built electric vehicles could be excluded from subsidies available to EU-produced vehicles, placing UK manufacturers at a systemic disadvantage. I therefore urge Ministers to ensure that an agreement there remains a priority.

The question the Prime Minister has posed is: how can we contemplate another 10 years of failure? If we are not prepared to commit to the status quo, what are the alternatives? I hope that in coming weeks and months we can engage constructively, cross party, for the sake of our constituents and our country.

17:27

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners, including hundreds of my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon, for bringing the important issue of EU membership to Parliament for discussion. As someone who came to the United Kingdom from Italy as a student and who has benefited personally from European co-operation and the UK’s ties with Europe, I know at first hand the opportunities that being in the EU gave us, our country and our young people. It pains me to see how poorer and worse off our country has become since leaving the EU. As I have argued before, for our prosperity, our young people and our place in the world, it is important that, in an increasingly hostile environment, where Governments around the world attack the rules-based international order and allow democratic backsliding and repression, the EU has always been a beacon of rights, co-operation and defence.

The economic evidence for rejoining is becoming increasingly clear. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that post-Brexit trading arrangements will leave the UK economy about 4% smaller in the long run. Research by the Centre for European Reform suggests that the impact may already be even greater; it estimates that UK GDP is around 5% to 5.5% lower and investment more than 10% lower due to Brexit. That weaker growth is costing the Exchequer tens of billions of pounds in lost tax revenues every year.

That matters to our communities because there is less money to spend on our public services, our NHS, our armed forces, our creative sector and our high streets. Stratford-on-Avon is home to hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses, many of which depend directly or indirectly on exports or on European supply chains, manufacturing, agriculture, food production, hospitality and tourism. When trade barriers increase, it means more paperwork, higher costs and reduced competitiveness for local firms. Frankly, my constituents would be horrified to hear what the Conservative Benches come out with. The economic and political damage of Brexit is plain to see, but my deepest upset is with politicians who in 2016 enabled a hard Brexit and the loss of life-changing opportunities for our young British people. I made the case that our schools, university researchers and businesses all benefit when we work closely with our European partners. We now must act in the national interest. That means rebuilding trust with our European neighbours and reducing barriers to trade, whether that is via a customs union or access to the single market.

Bold Liberal Democrat policies have been announced: restoring opportunities for young people, maybe through a youth experience scheme, and strengthening research and innovation. That also means making a positive, evidence-based case for joining the EU again—the biggest trading bloc in the world here on our continent. We must be brave and bold, and we must give the British people the option, once the terms are known, to shape their future once again.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I call Dr Zubir Ahmed. Not here. Is Daniel Zeichner here?

17:30

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Yes. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward.

This feels like old times for some of us here. I remember leading two Petitions Committee debates and speaking in the legendary 2019 debate, when some 6 million people had signed the petition, including over 28,000 in Cambridge. Today I am grateful to the 323 in Cambridge who have done so. I doubt very much whether many of those 28,000 have changed their minds, but I think quite a few others possibly have.

I agree with the petitioners: we should be in the EU. We should never have left. Sadly, there is not a simple on/off switch. Coming out was long, painful and costly, and I fear that going back in will be equally so. I remember being asked by people—sometimes people who had fallen for that ridiculous slogan, “Get Brexit done”—“When will Brexit be over?” They looked pained when I told them the answer was never, because leaving the EU did not and could not solve the shared problems that we will always have to tackle with our neighbours. It just took away a long-established, albeit far from perfect, mechanism for dealing with them, which means we need other mechanisms: the cumbersome and opaque EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement and the shadowy joint committees. As was famously observed about democracy in general, it might not be good, but it is better than all the alternatives. I think it is much better than the worst alternative. I was fiercely proud to be a citizen of Europe, and I was furious at having my rights torn away.

Sir Edward, you require short speeches, so here are two reflections from my ministerial experience. First, in my many encounters with ministerial colleagues across the European Union, I was always struck by the warmth and generosity and the lack of rancour. They want us back, as many now openly say. Secondly, I would also reflect that the EU has not stood still. It has changed to meet changing circumstances, which creates some serious challenges for us. But it could also offer opportunities even for the talismanic fishing sector, which was promised so much and gained so little from Brexit. Current discussion in Europe around reform of the common fisheries policy, as well as the offers made to Iceland, offer potential new opportunities. Even on precision breeding, an area of particular concern to the food sector, the European Union is moving closer to our position. How frustrating that we are on the very fringe of such discussions because we chose to exclude ourselves.

In conclusion, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has opened up the debate, but our first priority must be to secure a closer relationship. The phytosanitary agreement is a really important step, not least to help tackle the grievous treatment of Northern Ireland. There never was and never can be a solution to that border conundrum without close alignment. Whether it is customs union or single market, Switzerland or Norway, the truth is that every version has advantages and disadvantages, and they need to be assessed calmly because 2016 did not do anyone credit. Some said, “Apocalypse Now”; some said, “Heaven on earth”. Frankly, both were wide of the mark. The best deal was the one we had, and it was thrown away. Now we should support the Minister and the Government in trying to salvage the best we can. But, in the end, we are Europeans, and we should be in.

17:34

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Ten years ago, the British public voted to leave the EU by a wafer-thin margin in a referendum marred by mistruths, deception and Russian interference. Our exit was then badly planned, badly executed and damaged the UK’s economic prospects and political reputation. I thank the 319 people from South Devon who got us into the top 10 constituencies with the most signatures on this petition, which calls for us to seek to rejoin the EU as soon as possible. It is time that we all recognise that Brexit has catastrophically failed to deliver what was promised.

Let me be clear: I will never blame anyone for voting leave. I understand why they did. They were promised higher living standards, control over our borders and freedom from laws imposed by Brussels. But those promises were misleading. The Vote Leave campaign exploited people’s fears through targeted social media, false claims about Turkey joining the EU and the infamous lie that £350 million a week would go to the NHS.

What Brexiteers did not explain was the cost to businesses trading with Europe, the mountain of additional paperwork and the crippling red tape that has pushed South Devon’s fishers, shellfish exporters and farmers to the brink. They did not talk about the billions of pounds of EU investment supporting projects across the UK, from Cornwall’s Eden Project and Newquay airport to Welsh infrastructure, Yorkshire regeneration and university research programmes. Nor did they explain that British homeowners in Europe would face a 90-day stay limit or that young people would lose opportunities to work, study and build friendships across Europe.

Brexiteers also failed to explain that Britain already had a seat at the table helping shape European legislation. I know that because I was fortunate enough to have a seat at that table, serving in the European Parliament and being directly involved in designing and implementing legislation that affected the UK. We were not simply dictated to by Brussels; we helped make the rules. Indeed, our representation was only as effective as the people we sent, and unfortunately, we sent the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) before he was the hon. Member for Clacton. He attended just one of 42 European Fisheries Committee meetings over three years, so our fishers were literally not represented while legislation affecting them was drawn up.

Yes, EU membership cost money, but leaving has cost us considerably more. The OBR’s March 2025 forecasts, as we have heard, estimate that Brexit will reduce long-run productivity by 4%, largely because of additional barriers to trade. Research has estimated cumulative losses to the UK economy of £180 billion to £240 billion, while other studies point to falls in economic activity, productivity and business investment. The precise estimates vary, but their assessment is clear: Brexit has lowered investment and dampened our economy.

The hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) argued that our economy has grown since Brexit, but it could have grown by so much more if we had not left. The promised sunlit uplands remain a fantasy. Our new trade deals cannot compensate for what we lost. The agreements with India, Australia and Japan are collectively forecast to deliver around 0.25% of GDP—a pathetic substitute for the frictionless trade with our 27 nearest neighbours.

Whatever the views are on Brexit, we cannot change geography. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition that we must face up to the reality that Brexit has done more harm than good and that the status quo is definitely not good enough. The Liberal Democrats have been saying that for a long time, and we will continue to do so. We need a growth and security partnership with the EU that helps rebuild our economy while enabling us to tackle shared challenges: immigration, defence, security, the climate crisis and online harms. In today’s interconnected world, isolationism simply does not work. It is time to move beyond the politics of grievance and focus on the art of the possible. For me, that means the possibility of rejoining the EU as a full and active member.

17:39

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the nearly 200 of my constituents who put their signatures to the petition.

I will start on familiar territory. This year, I took two of my boys to Spain. On the trip, my eldest, who turns four this week—he is an inquisitive fella—looked at the border queues and asked me bluntly, “Daddy, why aren’t we in that empty one?” My youngest, who is one, and clearly not ready for a debate about sovereignty, took a rather different approach, instead choosing to run underneath the barriers altogether. That story is just a reminder that all the children of Britain know is a Britain standing apart from its closest neighbours. Let’s unpack that.

A fortnight ago in Liverpool, I heard the Prime Minister make a clarion call about something that many of us have felt for years: our present relationship with the European Union is not good enough. He did not stop at diagnosis; he actually had the courage to say that he would set out options for Britain’s long-term relationship with our nearest partners. He carried that message to Berlin last week—schöne Arbeit indeed.

Clear-eyed pragmatism about our relationship with Europe is what my constituents in York Outer expect. As the Prime Minister outlined today, we have a great opportunity on 20 November to take steps forward on agrifood, energy and immigration, and to build a new long-term strategic direction that is not based on just slogans and soundbites. My own family see it the way that millions do, and many of them voted to leave. If I ask them about Brexit today, I do not get a lecture about the referendum a decade ago; I get a shrug and a modest dose of “Bregret”. That is because in West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire or wherever, they are paying the price in their weekly shop or standing in endless passport queues.

By working with our European partners on an agrifood deal, as the Prime Minister set out today, it does not have to be this way. By reducing red tape in the food sector, we can lower the cost of the weekly shop for millions of working-class families. By co-operating on immigration and working on other issues of mutual interest, such as immigration and energy, we can get control back. The Prime Minister, however, said that the British public are the boss, and that is why this conversation must not be held just in Westminster Hall. In a fortnight, I will be holding a town hall for my constituents about the relationship they want Britain to have with Europe.

York has always been outward looking. In fact, it voted nearly 60:40 to remain—the strongest remain vote in Yorkshire and the Humber. I believe that the proportion is far higher for those who now want a stronger relationship. I always end up coming back to the fact that I am the youngest parent in Parliament. Rebuilding this relationship means restoring opportunity for young people like my children. A young person from York should find it no harder to study or work in Barcelona, Amsterdam or Copenhagen than they do in Sydney or Toronto.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff East) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents work in Cardiff’s three universities. Before Brexit, EU students in Wales contributed £83 million off campus, but new EU enrolments halved within a year of them losing home fee status. Does my hon. Friend agree that much closer ties to the EU are essential for making our universities attractive to EU students again?

[Mr Charters]

I absolutely do. My right hon. Friend is a great advocate for universities in her constituency, as is my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), my constituency neighbour.

I think about the first day that my boys will go on the Eurostar on their own to go adventuring or even to study. As they set off, I will tell them how proud I am of them for the fact that, with every friendship they make along the journey, they are helping to make our continent more peaceful and more prosperous in the process. I welcome the Prime Minister’s boldness in daring to get things done. We should be honest: Brexit has not worked. As a nation, we have a collective case of “Bregret”. It is time to get on with the job and build on the Prime Minister’s bold honesty about our future relationship with Europe.

17:43

[Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

We cannot have this debate without making it explicitly clear that the situation in Scotland is different. Many Members have noted the disagreements in their constituencies, but England and Wales voted to leave while Scotland voted to remain by more than 60%. Given the consequences of what has happened since, that fact cannot be overstated. The context for people in Scotland was that two years earlier we were told by Westminster that, by choosing to remain within the Union, our future within Europe was secure and could be guaranteed. That turned out very much not to be the case. The fundamental promise for Scotland of remaining in the Union changed against our will, despite 60% of people in Scotland having voted to remain in the EU.

It is no wonder that people in Scotland increasingly see their future not only within the EU but within the EU in an independent Scotland. As many have said today, what we have seen since 2016 because of Brexit is our economy suffering, our young people being limited, our agricultural businesses being strangled and our cost of living increasing year on year. That has been a clear consequence of a future that Scotland, unlike many Members’ constituencies, did not vote for.

Scotland did not need to wait and see the consequences that we have discussed today; we knew that this would be a disaster.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lara Bird]

I will not; sorry.

Now the Prime Minister has acknowledged that economic and social situations have changed. So many of the promises made ahead of the Brexit referendum turned out to be false, aimed at pursuing the agenda of those who did not truly have the interests of the people at heart but were operating in the pursuit of their own objectives. The PM has recently stated that the realities of that decision have not benefited the people who voted for it and that many regretted their decision. That is a feeling that so many in Scotland understand, because the promises that those claims were based on turned out to be based on false realities.

[Warinder Juss]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lara Bird]

I will not give way, in the interests of time.

Yet although the decision made in Westminster and by Westminster in 2016 is apparently now up for relitigation —in what form seems as yet unclear—Scotland has been told that that same democratic privilege does not apply to us. But we cannot have a dual standard of democracy when it comes to reconsidering the consequences of referendums. We SNP Members have aspirations to be an equal and contributing member of the EU in our own right. What we are sure of in the SNP is that when Scotland does inevitably rejoin the EU, it will be on our own two feet—not as part of a Union begging and clawing its way back through different deals and trying to renegotiate and relitigate. It will be as a state in our own right, completely clear that our future has always been there.

If the Government’s position is now that the outcome of a referendum can be reopened for discussion, then that same democratic principle must apply to Scotland. If the Prime Minister is prepared to set out the mechanisms for a clear and closer relationship with the EU, then he must also set out the mechanisms for an independent Scotland.

17:48

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I want to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for how he introduced the debate. It is customary for the mover of the motion to present a balanced argument, but in this case it is so difficult to find any benefits of leaving the EU. He had a really difficult job and I am only glad that he did not mention bendy bananas.

This debate is timely because the Prime Minister has just this afternoon outlined his vision for a closer relationship with the EU. The important point to remember in all of this, and absolutely fundamental, is the need to work with other political parties to make that happen, because it is in the national interest and we find ourselves in a difficult time. That requires honesty. If all political parties are going into this debate, they have to be honest about the impact of Brexit. We must also be honest that rejoining the EU is not an easy proposition. I say gently to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that it would take years to re-enter. It is right that we look for benefits in the interim; I would be surprised if there was a referendum on rejoining within a decade.

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

I want to make four or five observations. People in my constituency are finding life difficult now because of five things: the financial crash, Brexit, covid, the Ukraine war and Iran. Some of that damage can be undone if we look again at Brexit. It is right that people have been asking who benefits from Brexit. Certainly, no business in my constituency has said that they have, and no student or academic says that they feel the benefit from Brexit—I cannot even think of a resident who would say that. We have heard that the Russians may have benefited; perhaps politicians who take bribes from Russia have as well, but I think that that person is in jail so we cannot speak to him.

What infuriates me most is how immigration was weaponised by the right during the Brexit debate: they told us that we would get control of immigration again. In fact, we lost control of immigration. Now the same right-wing politicians are back, trying to weaponise immigration when perhaps they should be apologising for what happened. As the world moves towards becoming more isolationist through Trump’s tariffs and the European “Made in Europe” agenda, the UK is exposed more than ever as an island in the middle of the Atlantic without being part of that bigger trade bloc to negotiate with other nations. I say gently to my Scottish nationalist colleagues who talk about the impact of Brexit that it would have been so different if the SNP had not blocked a customs union for the UK when it had the chance. It chose to abstain, and that abstention swung the vote. They should own that and apologise. I have got that off my chest—[Interruption.] Feel free to intervene.

We have to think carefully about what any future realignment might look like. We must acknowledge that the toxicity and fake news during the Brexit referendum mean that many people will feel uncertain about reopening the debate. Many will feel very uncertain about the prospect of a referendum as well, if one is to come. That is why incrementally getting closer to the EU makes sense—we have to win the argument one step at a time. We should start with trade, defence, security and student mobility. But we cannot talk about those as abstract concepts; we need to talk about what they will mean for people in our constituencies, particularly young people.

17:52

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am a democrat, and I respect the will of the people. But to be blunt, Brexit has been the biggest fraud in the history of Britain. Ten years ago, the British people were sold a fantasy. They were told that Brexit would make us richer, but almost every person in my constituency is worse off today than they were before 2016. They were told that it would reduce red tape, but we have heard from across this Chamber that many businesses have stopped trading with the EU. Dewsbury and Batley, the bed capital of the UK, has seen trade reduced. People were told that Brexit would restore national sovereignty and allow Britain to take back control. Instead of taking back control, we lost the control we already had.

Instead, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster. The British public were deceived and failed by their politicians. Charlatans peddled falsehoods masquerading as truisms. The former Prime Minister Boris Johnson toured the country on a red bus promising an extra £350 million per week for the NHS—where is he? What about the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who spent decades insisting that Brexit would transform Britain’s financial fortunes? Liam Fox, the former International Trade Secretary, said that the Brexit trade negotiation

“would be one of the easiest in human history.”

How did that work out?

We were told by various leave campaigners, including Michael Gove, that the UK would retain essentially frictionless trade access to the EU market while escaping EU rules, and that Brexit would produce a large fiscal dividend—we are still looking for that money behind the sofa. We were also promised that new trade deals would more than compensate for any loss of EU trade, but we have heard about the miniscule benefits of the trade deals we signed.

Some would say that we should not reopen old wounds or that the referendum was a once-in-a-generation event and disregarding its outcome undermines the legitimacy of the democratic process. But in this instance, I fundamentally disagree. When a referendum is decided on the back of half-truths, lies and downright deceit, we must be willing to look at the evidence again.

This is not just a matter of economics; it is about the kind of geopolitical world we now find ourselves in. Across the Atlantic, the United States no longer provides the political, economic, and strategic certainty that Britain has relied on since the end of the second world war. We are living in an age of unprecedented global instability. At the same time, transnational challenges such as frontier AI systems and climate change demand co-operation. In this brave new world, fragmentation is a weakness. Unity brings strength.

Europe’s nations face the same challenges as us. We share the same democratic values, security interests and economic future. The question that faces us, then, is simple: will we be honest enough to say that Britain’s long-term future lies inside the European family of nations? Britain would be stronger, safer and more prosperous inside the EU. The sooner we have that national conversation, the better.

17:55

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. In 2016, my constituency was among the most pro-remain voting constituencies in the country. The result of the referendum was devastating for the vast majority of my constituents, most of whom continue to feel exactly the same way a decade on. I hear from businesses in my constituency about the harm that they have suffered. Perhaps when it is not just one deli in one constituency, but every deli in every constituency, and every manufacturing company across the country, we need to listen to what small businesses are saying. I hear from parents of my generation who regret that their children find it so much harder to access the opportunities that we had to travel, make friends and build community across the English channel with our friends in Europe.

For 10 years, we have been acutely aware of the ways in which the Brexit referendum and its aftermath have continued to divide our country. We disagreed democratically, but did so quite narrowly and with profound consequences. Because of the depth of division caused by the Brexit referendum, many people felt that it was important not to do anything that might reopen the wounds. No one likes to be told that they were wrong, whichever way they voted in 2016. No one likes the person who says, “I told you so.”

But 10 years on, there is a growing number of electors who were too young to vote in 2016, alongside a growing number of people who voted to leave but can see that the vote did not allow the country to take back control and has in reality made trade with our European partners more difficult and held back our economic growth at a time when we needed the opposite. There is clear evidence of a shift in public opinion and of foreign interference in the referendum.

For many years, there has been a focus on what improvements and changes can be made to our relationships with our European partners without consideration of a more ambitious rethink or any suggestion of going back in. The time for that is over, and I am glad that our new Prime Minister recognises it. Brexit has been genuinely devastating for our country. It has harmed our economy. The promised money for the NHS has not materialised. The opportunities for our young people are diminished. It has deepened the divisions in our country on immigration, because the absence of agreements with our European neighbours has made it harder to tackle perilous channel crossings. At a time when we face the threat of Putin on Europe’s edge in Ukraine and an increasingly erratic and unreliable ally in the US, it has also made us less secure.

Most people across our country want to see it prosper and thrive. They want to see our economy growing, opportunities for our young people and investment in our public services. They want to feel secure and to know that our Government can work in the most effective ways to keep them safe, and they want to be friends with their neighbours, local and international. Now is the time to put aside the awkwardness of having picked a side in 2016, forget what we felt was right or wrong in that debate and look objectively and clear-sightedly at what our country needs right now.

Our country needs to be able to co-operate with our European neighbours on trade and security. That is the way we can prosper. I support our Prime Minister in exploring every possible option for achieving that, including the potential for us to rejoin the European Union.

I also support our Prime Minister’s agenda of increased devolution. It is important to consider these two things together. Devolution offers people the opportunity to have more agency and more control over the decisions that affect their lives at a local level, closer to where they live. That is the opposite of giving away power and control. We can only benefit from a stronger UK, bolstered by devolution, more confident in our local, regional and national identities, and fully engaged in building closer ties with our nearest neighbours and friends. I look forward to our Prime Minister setting out how it will be achieved in due course.

18:00

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. It was and remains a tragedy that we threw away the right to work, study, live and love in 27 countries. That is something felt deeply in my constituency, which a recent YouGov poll found demonstrates the strongest support in the country for rejoining the EU. Nationally, too, support for rejoining the EU is at an all-time high, with 61% of the country in favour—and no wonder, when all of us in the room today can think of and provide many examples of the economic disasters visited on our own communities as a result of Brexit.

It bears repeating that Brexit has led to a 4% long-run productivity loss and, as we recently learned, has cost upwards of £208 million to the creative sector, which we particularly treasure in Bristol. To give an example, the owner of a music venue in my constituency recently said to The Guardian that the consequences are still

“being felt in cancelled tours, lost work...and fewer opportunities for audiences on both sides of the Channel.”

Add to that the millions of EU citizens living in the UK who are in limbo over their citizenship position, and all the opportunities that are lost because it is harder for UK citizens to travel, work and study in the EU.

In a multitude of ways, the UK has been left worse off after Brexit, as we have heard in speech after speech today. It is more vulnerable to food prices, less safe from harmful chemicals and lagging behind on air quality standards in the face of an air pollution scandal that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. What we have heard recently from the Prime Minister is a welcome start: Brexit has indeed

“done more harm than good”.

Now we need the Prime Minister to be unequivocal and clear, drop his party’s red lines, and prioritise our future prosperity and wellbeing by working to rejoin in full.

There are forces that continue to try to create fear and division. We have now heard the PM confirm that there was Russian interference in the referendum, so we must have robust leadership from the Government on rejoining to build a better, more equal, outward-looking society. The Green party has been clear that we should rejoin the EU as soon as there is a settled majority in favour of doing so. We have long since met that threshold. We need to be back at Europe’s decision-making table.

18:02

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the petitioners for bringing forward the petition, and every single person in the UK who signed it.

Brexit was sold as a boost to growth. The Trade Secretary at the time told the public that a trade deal

“should be one of the easiest in human history.”

What we got was no deal and an economic hit that saw productivity fall and trade shrink. Brexit was sold as taking back control of our borders, and voters were promised that migration would be reduced. Instead, it has hit record levels, and by leaving we lost the EU arrangements that let us send people who had arrived illegally back to the EU. The Government know what Europe is worth for both trade and security. Their response to the petition boasts of two deals, on food standards and carbon trading, which will add nearly £9 billion a year to the economy by 2040. They can see the potential, but their own red lines are holding them back.

We have all heard from businesses in our constituencies that are being strangled by red tape. They talk about the paperwork, the checks and the delays at the border. They know what the issue is and we know how to fix it, but look at what they are being offered. On one side, Reform and the Conservatives insist that Brexit is working. On the other, the Government can see the damage but have drawn red lines around a solution. Neither gets a single lorry through customs any faster, but a customs union would.

The Government will soon sit down with the EU at the second UK-EU summit in Brussels. They will talk about food standards, carbon trading and youth visas. The new Prime Minister appears to be looking seriously at resetting the UK-EU relationship and taking the first steps towards a new alliance with the EU. I therefore urge the Minister to listen to the petitioners, to businesses and to the British people, and remove the red lines that are holding back growth.

18:05

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. In the 2016 Brexit referendum, there were many who argued that our future must involve aligning with the USA—a stable and reliable partner that shared our values—and those who thought that the days of Russian aggression were over. Now we are in the world of Trump and war in Europe. The US is waging its own war that is hurting all our wallets, and Brexit has made the UK economy smaller.

The world in which we voted in 2016 has changed, and we must make decisions based on the world as it is. But even in 2016, we were promised that voting for Brexit would usher in an economic boom, open the funding floodgates for our NHS and other cash-strapped services, and put an end to immigration. The then Prime Minister hoped that the referendum would settle the issue of EU membership for a generation, yet here we are, 10 years on, still debating this very subject at the public’s request. Let us look at the impact that Brexit has had on the country—and on constituencies such as my own, Esher and Walton—on its own terms, as it was sold to us.

On the economy, one recent publication argued that:

“We left the European Union without the economic plan that should have gone with it.”

That would have been a damning indictment coming from my side of the argument, but it came from the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the leader of the party that delivered Brexit. By ripping us out of the single market and customs union, the Conservatives blew an enormous hole in the UK economy, costing us roughly £90 billion in lost tax revenue in 2025 alone. That is money that could otherwise have been used to lower the tax burden on workers and fund our public services.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit

“will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU”,

and that

“Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run”.

Brexit has stifled investment and job creation. It is handicapping our economy and failing British businesses and workers. The funding windfall for our NHS and other public services has not materialised; we would have more money to fund our public services had we not embarked on this failed experiment.

On the question of immigration, which was so central to the Brexiteers’ case for leaving the EU, after Brexit—and under a Government run by the very people who had pushed for Brexit—net migration reached a record level of nearly 1 million people in the year to June 2023. As we have heard, we also left the Dublin agreement.

Brexit has failed on its own terms. I know from the many conversations I have had over the last decade that many of my constituents, the majority of whom voted to remain, foresaw those problems and take no pleasure in being proved right. Brexit has failed on its own terms.

What is the case for the EU, then, as we stand here today? The challenges we face today are not confined to national borders, and our solutions must reflect that. I could point to our strength in numbers in tackling climate change, terrorism and people smugglers, or in regulating the risks from AI and taking on the tech giants. Cross-border problems need cross-border solutions and strength in numbers. The EU is far from perfect, but it represents an important ideal: it is worth working together to find common solutions that benefit all of us.

Secondly, there is the economic case. We recognise that, when it comes to economics, geography matters. The EU is our largest trading partner for a good reason. Trade deals with countries on the other side of the world cannot replace a market of millions of people right here on our doorstep.

Lastly, as the Prime Minister says, let us give the next generation real hope. The last decade has been a difficult one for young people, so let us give them back their ski seasons or their right to tour Europe. I have just come from the Chamber where the Prime Minister talked in positive terms about Europe. It is good, at last, to hear a Labour leader making the case for Europe. It has been a long decade.

18:09

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, Mrs Barker, to serve under your chairship; I believe that it is for the first time, so it is a particular pleasure. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for so expertly opening this debate, and I thank the petitioners for bringing this issue to our collective attention today. It is wonderful to see so many of them here in the Public Gallery.

The petition asks whether Britain should seek to return to being a member of the European Union at the earliest opportunity. I am very proud to say that the Liberal Democrats have been clear about our long-term ambition. We believe that Britain’s future lies at the heart of Europe, helping to shape its institutions and decisions rather than watching from the sidelines. However, we must also be serious about how we get there.

Britain desperately needs growth to raise living standards, rebuild public services, support businesses and strengthen our defences. Can a family afford their weekly shop? Can a small business take on another employee? Can a manufacturer invest in a new production line? After years of weak growth, stagnant productivity and squeezed living standards, those questions demand serious answers and any serious answer must involve our having a better relationship with Europe.

Before entering Parliament, I spent more than 20 years researching and teaching geopolitics—studying borders, territorial disputes and international crises. If those years taught me one thing, it is that geography matters. Just 21 miles separate Britain from mainland Europe and no referendum can change that; our economies, history and security remain deeply connected. The European Union remains our largest trading partner, taking more than 40% of all British exports. Our factories depend on European supply chains, our farmers sell into European markets and our businesses compete for European customers. Yet for the past decade we have made trading with our largest market harder.

Brexit has happened and Brexit has failed. Those who campaigned to leave promised less red tape, but businesses got more; they promised new opportunities, but instead they erected barriers. Of course Brexit does not explain every weakness in our economy, and nor have our European neighbours escaped weak growth and productivity, but the question is not whether Britain has grown faster than France or Germany in any particular year; the question is how much stronger our economy could be today without the barriers that we have imposed upon ourselves.

Research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Brexit had reduced Britain’s GDP by between 6% and 8% by the end of 2025, and business investment by as much as 13%.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

That is a projection.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Not for the first time today, the hon. Gentleman has intervened from a sedentary position, and he says that that figure is a projection.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is a fiction.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Well, it is not, because that information is based on two methodologies: first, a doppelganger economy; and secondly, 11,000 businesses reporting their direct experiences to the Bank of England. It is not a fiction.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

That reporting was from a self-selecting group of businesses. The doppelganger model included the United States, which is not a comparable economy to the United Kingdom. It also included eastern European states like Estonia that are growing very fast, which is not a sensible comparison. But in any case, those figures were just projections.

The facts show that we have grown faster than our two main competitors in the European Union and the hon. Gentleman cannot accept that. He thinks that our economy would have been between 4% and 8% bigger by 2025 than it would have been without Brexit, so we would have been growing even faster than we have grown—that is what he is saying—and very considerably faster than we did when we were in the European Union.

[Dr Pinkerton]

As ever, I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. He speaks with passion and with some alacrity.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

With frustration.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. Is that an intervention again, Sir Bernard?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

indicated dissent.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

I call Al Pinkerton to resume his speech.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Thank you, Mrs Barker.

As I say, those are the experiences of 11,000 businesses, which the hon. Gentleman would dismiss with ease—he should really reflect on that. The model that I think he is adopting here is that an athlete could win a race with weights tied around their ankles. He would credit those weights with boosting the athlete to the finish line, whereas we would all recognise that the athlete was perhaps a little bit slower than they might otherwise have been.

[Ben Coleman]

I must apologise, Mrs Barker, if we look as if we are having a debate just with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. However, does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) not find it strange how picky the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is being in the facts that he chooses to employ? Last year, Poland grew by 3.75% and Spain by 2.8%; their growth outstripped ours. Of course there will always be some in the European Union who grow less quickly than we do and others who grow more. That is just the nature of things. It is not a fundamental basis on which to make an anti-European Union argument. Would the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not agree?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would think that representatives from the Conservative party would be particularly well informed about the historic teachings of Adam Smith, who 250 years ago, in 1776, recognised that economic growth comes when we increase the size of the market. That is precisely what the European Union so successfully does.

The figures that I announced just before the interventions are not fictitious, but they are extraordinary. They represent lost investment, lost productivity and billions lost in forgone tax revenues that could have supported the NHS, schools and our armed forces. For small exporters, Brexit means paperwork, delays and costs that can determine whether an order is worth taking. For manufacturers, it means more expensive supply chains and greater uncertainty. For our economy, it means competing with one hand tied behind our back.

However, the consequences run far deeper than economics. A stronger economy can also mean a stronger and more united country. When living standards rise, when people have a sense of hope that they may be better off tomorrow than they are today and when opportunities expand and communities feel more secure, the politics of resentment and division, which so often characterises our modern political scene, has less fertile ground in which those sentiments can take root. Growth can help to starve Reform and other parties of that ilk of the oxygen of perma-grievance that they so desire and which they would have us long term committed to. Closer European integration offers a route towards resolving the awkward trading and constitutional compromises imposed on Northern Ireland by Brexit. A better relationship with Europe can strengthen the United Kingdom’s cohesion and secure its future.

Let us consider British manufacturing. From Nissan in Sunderland to Jaguar Land Rover in Solihull, our automotive industry sustains skilled employment, innovation and entire communities. More than half of all British car exports go to the European Union, yet Patrick Minford, one of Brexit’s most prominent economic advocates, argued that Brexit would require Britain to run down its car industry. We reject the suggestion that British manufacturing is expendable, but the risks are today growing. Europe’s proposed “Made in Europe” measures could disadvantage British manufacturers, particularly in automotive production and steel. We can lobby, negotiate and ask for concessions, but we no longer have a vote; we are no longer in the club. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders highlighted the importance of predictable rules, integrated supply chains and access to export markets. If investment goes elsewhere, British workers pay the price. The same organisation has now said that the British car industry is facing an existential crisis if this cannot be resolved.

In addition, economic strength and national security are increasingly inseparable. Russia’s war against Ukraine, China’s growing economic coercion and President Trump’s challenge to long-standing assumptions have changed the strategic landscape. The world has changed. Europe in 2026 faces profoundly different challenges from the ones that it faced in 2016. Our politics has to catch up. Our security depends on industrial capacity, resilient supply chains, technological innovation and trusted allies. A country that cannot sustain its industries will struggle to sustain its defences, and economic isolation makes strategic independence harder to achieve.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a growth and defence partnership with the European Union—a partnership bringing Britain back into the single market and establishing a bespoke UK-EU customs union, removing trade barriers, restoring confidence and unlocking investment. It would restore freedom of movement, renewing opportunities for British citizens to live, work and study across Europe, and it would deepen security co-operation through a defence pact underpinned by a European security council. We should deepen co-operation on defence, energy, critical technologies and supply chains, and Britain should seek access to the EU’s SAFE programme, supporting our defence industries and skilled jobs. That is the partnership demanded by the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. It would mean a more prosperous, resilient and secure Britain, and be the foundations of something much more ambitious.

We believe that Britain’s long-term future lies within the European Union. We want Britain to shape Europe’s future, contributing to its collective strength and prosperity. But that future depends on our European partners’ consent, confidence in Britain’s intentions and a willingness on both sides to make lasting commitments.

After the turbulence of the past decade, trust must be rebuilt. Therefore, our immediate priority is a growth and defence partnership that delivers economic benefits now while demonstrating that Britain is, once again, a serious, dependable European partner. Our destination is clear; a growth and defence partnership is how we get moving.

The Prime Minister has indicated a willingness to reconsider the Government’s self-imposed red lines. I welcome that, but a willingness to reconsider will not revive British manufacturing, and tinkering at the edges of an inadequate trade arrangement will not transform our economic prospects. I urge the Minister to match that rhetoric with ambition: begin negotiations on a customs union, open the door to the single market and build the defence partnership that this changing world demands. The question facing Britain is no longer whether Brexit was a success; it is whether we have the political courage to confront its consequences.

Our neighbours will remain our neighbours and our prosperity and security will remain bound up with Europe’s. We cannot change our geography, but we can change our politics. We can rebuild trust, remove barriers and restore Britain’s place as a confident, influential European nation. We should begin now.

18:21

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I warmly congratulate the petitioner and the people who added their names to the e-petition. In our parliamentary democracy, petitioning the Crown and Parliament is a cherished right, whether campaigning to save a beloved community hospital, to crack down on illegal fly-tipping or, as in this case, to casually ask the House of Commons to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history on a Monday afternoon. It is entirely right that those arguments are heard and debated in Parliament.

Listening to the contributions today from the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and, indeed, some on the Government Benches, one might easily get the impression that rejoining the European Union is treated a bit like renewing an expired gym membership: we simply pop back down to reception, set up the direct debit and immediately pick up where we left off. Some hon. Members genuinely appear to believe that our European neighbours have spent the past decade sitting by the phone in the Berlaymont, tearfully gazing at an empty chair, desperate for the United Kingdom to saunter back in and instantly reclaim our rebate, opt-outs and front row seat at the summit table. I must gently break it to those hon. Members: Brussels does not accept refunds.

I may have disagreed with almost everything that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, but she was right that the process of rejoining the European Union would not be simple, short or straightforward. We have to be brutally honest about what applying to rejoin under article 49 actually involves in the cold light of day. The petitioners do not merely ask for warm words or polite co-operation; they ask this Parliament to formally trigger accession negotiations. That does not mean stepping into a time machine back to 2015; it means starting the accession process as a brand-new candidate country alongside countries such as Albania and North Macedonia. The European Commission has made the house rules for new joiners crystal clear. Under chapter 17 of the accession acquis, there is no bespoke menu where we can pick the bits we like and leave the rest.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am listening to the shadow Minister’s speech with incredulity and watching the faces of the wonderful people in the Gallery who have come but are not able to speak. I wonder whether he has actually had those discussions. I think we are the only country to have ever left, and there have been significant comments from Ursula von der Leyen and others that we are not going to be treated exactly the same. Unless the shadow Minister has actually had those meetings, it would be very unwise to say that is fact.

[Mike Wood]

Yes I have, as a member of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and as someone who spent seven very happy years working in the European Parliament and still has many friends who work there and in the institutions. There is no question of there being a speed line route back to full membership reserved for the United Kingdom; we would have to go through the full accession process. Joining means a binding treaty obligation to scrap pound sterling and adopt the euro, and to abolish our national border controls and join the Schengen area.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Could the shadow Minister clarify what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)? Is he saying that he has exclusive access to the terms on which we would be allowed to re-enter the EU? That is what he appears to be saying.

[Mike Wood]

The question was whether I had had the conversations, and I certainly have had them with MEPs and people in the European institutions. We can see what anyone who reads the publicly available opinion polls can see: if asked, “Would you be in favour of the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union?”, a majority in France and Germany may say that they would support it, but if asked, “Would you support the United Kingdom joining the European Union with the opt-outs that it previously enjoyed?”. support goes from about 50% to just over 30%. It is not politically viable in those countries.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the polls. When people are asked about whether particular areas of policy in the United Kingdom should be controlled by the EU, the result is always a negative. Farming, trade policy or financial services—whatever the question, it is a negative. When it comes to the money, if we rejoined, we would probably have to join without any of the rebates that Margaret Thatcher negotiated, so our gross contribution would be something like £30 billion a year—about 0.5% of GDP. The British people would never vote to rejoin the European Union if they thought they would have to prop up the EU budget and subsidise other EU countries.

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend is right. The same polls that show that citizens in France and Germany would support British membership only if it came without those previous opt-outs show that, among British voters, support for rejoining collapses if we do not have those previous opt-outs. If those previous opt-outs and derogations are removed, support again dips to barely 30%.

I wonder how many of the people who signed this petition did so in the eager anticipation of trading His Majesty the King on our banknotes for a fistful of euro cents. Did they sign up to surrender our borders or did they imagine that, if we asked very politely, the European Union would grant us all the privileges of membership while demanding none of the obligations? As the independent economist Julian Jessop recently pointed out, public enthusiasm for rejoining has a funny habit of evaporating the precise moment that voters are confronted with the small print. That is why I am confident that, if the Government were to take up the petitioners’ proposal, and if they had the courage to put that question to the British people, it would be comprehensively rejected.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I have given way three times. I will for a fourth, but this may be the last.

[Dr Arthur]

Some of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have signed this petition. Just to be clear, is he doubting the intelligence and commitment of the people who signed it? He seems to be saying that they have not done their homework.

[Mike Wood]

No, not at all. I am not somebody who questions people’s motives or intelligence just because of the way they have approached the question of Europe; I very much leave that to others. I will say that approaching 70% of my constituents voted to leave in 2016, and if there was a referendum on rejoining, I would expect a larger proportion than that to vote no.

When people realise that an accession bid means ditching our currency, tearing down our independent border controls and signing an annual membership cheque that independent analysts estimate would comfortably clear £25 billion a year, the rosy glow fades fast. We would be asking British taxpayers already feeling the squeeze from this Government’s domestic tax hikes to subsidise regional infrastructure funds across the continent while our own local roads are crying out for repair.

[Ms Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I will continue for a bit. I have given way four times; I think I have been more than generous.

[Ms Creasy]

You quoted me!

[Mike Wood]

I quoted you an awfully long time ago on something fairly sympathetic, I think. [Interruption.]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, then the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way.

[Mike Wood]

Is that parliamentary language, Mrs Barker? I do not know how long it takes for the cogs to turn, but it has been a while.

What sort of economic club are the petitioners urging us to re-enter? Thirty years ago, the European Union accounted for more than a quarter of the global economy; today, that share has fallen to around 18%; within a generation, it is projected to drop below 10%. Applying to rejoin would mean surrendering our independent seat at the global top table. It would also mean being legally forced to tear up our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership dynamic trading pact—

[Ms Creasy]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

Go on—just this once.

[Ms Creasy]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the CPTPP, because that is the first time he has deigned to defend anything that has happened since we took this country out of the European Union, and I notice he has not defended the status quo. The Conservative Government’s own impact assessment found that the CPTPP added 0.08% to GDP. That is 50 times smaller than the impact of Brexit. What does he want to say to the 20,000 businesses that have given up trading with Europe altogether because of the Brexit that his Government negotiated? Does he really think that the CPTPP makes up for that?

[Mike Wood]

I think that having control of an independent trade policy where we can get those deals in the interests of the British economy—whether the CPTPP or the trade agreements with India or the Gulf Co-operation Council—is an advantage of being outside the customs union and having taken back that control. Tying ourselves to an economic bloc that is fast declining as a proportion of world trade and locking ourselves back behind the common tariff walls of the most sluggish economic continent on earth would come with a cost. Why on earth would a proud global maritime trading nation choose to jump off the international express train just to squeeze on to a continental stopping service that is running at least 40 minutes late? [Interruption.]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to hear the Opposition spokesperson.

[Mike Wood]

We are constantly told by the doom-mongers that Brexit is somehow the sole author of our national economic woes, but the empirical evidence tells a vastly different story. Recent analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that, while the initial realignment did involve transition friction, our private sector has shown remarkable dynamism, with productivity increasing by roughly 30% over the past decade. The real drag anchoring British growth is inside our own state apparatus. Public sector productivity has flatlined, an affliction that is manufactured right here in Westminster and Whitehall that has nothing at all to do with whether we sit within the European Union.

While the petitioners are at least refreshingly transparent about wanting full membership, the Government’s approach seems to depend on the audience. Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box with hands on hearts repeating their mantra that they respect the referendum, but that is not the message that we have heard from Labour Back Benchers today. Ministers promise us that there will be no membership of the single market and no freedom of movement, yet watch what they actually do. They tiptoe around European capitals, hoping that if they quietly sign us up to dynamic alignment across agriculture, energy and carbon standards, nobody on the street will notice that they have signed away our national autonomy. That is not a coherent foreign policy. It is surrender on an instalment plan.

Alongside the burdens and restrictions, being a full member of the EU did give us a vote, a voice and a veto. Being an independent sovereign state gives speed, regulatory agility and democratic accountability. But the Government’s strategy delivers the worst of all worlds: total regulatory submission with none of the say. It flips William Hague’s famous slogan; it is to be not in Europe but still run by Europe. It is the political equivalent of paying full price for an all-inclusive hotel and choosing to sleep on a bench in the car park.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

No, I am finishing.

The British people did not vote in 2016 for half measures, or to put their democracy into reverse gear. The fundamental principle at stake was entirely straightforward: the laws governing the people of this country should be made and unmade by representatives who the British public can elect—and, crucially, fire—at the ballot box. The duty of this House is not to resurrect the bitter constitutional gridlock of the past, or to indulge the fantasy of a cost-free return to Brussels. Our duty is to use our hard-won independence to cut unnecessary bureaucracy, to back British innovation and to trade freely with all corners of the globe. His Majesty’s official Opposition will not support the petition and will fiercely resist any attempt to pull this country back into the European Union, whether through the front door or the back.

18:36

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mrs Barker. You have certainly caught yourself a lively one early on a Monday evening. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for moving the motion on behalf of the signatories of the e-petition relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.

Some 10 years ago, the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. That decision was made on the promise that leaving the EU would boost UK growth and reduce immigration. During this debate the clock appeared to turn backwards. That was probably a bit of a heavy metaphor even for this place, but we have had a lot of legacy language. We have had lies and truth, rancour and dispute over facts. Everyone has brought their own version of the polls. We have had surrender, small print and even the odd straw man.

At one point, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said that we were not having a debate, but exchanging our speeches. If I am honest, that took me back to the way this debate has been conducted for much of the last decade. When my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) described Opposition Members I was worried we had strayed into the realm of unparliamentary language, but I am glad to hear that he in fact said “Cnuts”. It is important always to enunciate that word as my hon. Friend did.

In all seriousness, this debate was called because the British people know that the current arrangements with the EU are not working. Brexit has not given us control. We have lost some of the control we had over our economy. Last year, goods trade with the EU was down 7% on 2018. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said that such trade is 6% of UK GDP. It is 5.96%, so we will allow that 0.04%, but the use of the figure 6% belies its size. According to the ONS, that is £181.4 billion of goods; if we include services, it is £384.4 billion. As the saying goes, if you start adding up the hundreds of billions of pounds, you start talking about real money pretty quickly. The research suggests that more than 16,000 UK exporters stopped exporting to the EU as a result of Brexit.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On the 6% share of GDP in exports of goods to the EU, what the Government are recommending is that we let the tail wag the dog. For the sake of trying to expand that share of our economic activity, which actually declined while we were in the single market, we are going to regulate the other 94% of the British economy that does not export goods to the EU. Does the Minister not get the point? We expanded our trade with the rest of the world by 85%—that was in the figures I gave earlier—without any free trade deals, or any agreements to abolish tariff barriers or to stop paying tariffs. In share of GDP, the rest of the world is growing and the single market is shrinking. Why are we shackling ourselves to a regulatory regime that crushes innovation and crushes economic growth when the world is our oyster outside the EU? Yes, we have failed to exploit those opportunities, but that is what the Government should be doing and that is what the next Conservative Government will do.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Member for his optimism about the next Conservative Government. To be serious—and we must be, because this is a serious issue—research suggests that 16,000 UK exporters stopped exporting to the EU as a result of Brexit. That represents businesses in every single one of the constituencies represented in this room today, and across the whole House. Those trading with Europe are paying for the privilege. Since 2023, British businesses have had to obtain over 1 million multi-page export health certificates to trade with the EU and Northern Ireland, at a cost of anywhere between £90 million and £210 million. When it comes to security, opportunities to work more closely together were lost.

This Government are choosing to take another path. The previous Administration made significant progress in strengthening relations with the EU, announcing a new common understanding at the first ever UK-EU summit in May last year. At the summit, the UK secured a new security and defence partnership agreement with the EU—a partnership that represents our joint commitment to the important issue of European security, which has been mentioned many times today. That is built on the long-standing commitment by the UK to support Ukraine, which is shared, I think, by all those in this House today and complements our cross-continent work to protect our NATO allies.

That co-operation has been further strengthened by the recent agreement for the UK to join the EU’s Ukraine support loan initiative, which will bolster Ukraine’s defence while creating new opportunities for British defence firms, jobs and investment. The UK and the EU also agreed to work towards a sanitary and phytosanitary deal—what a tongue-twister that is! It is nearly as difficult as CPTPP, which I have managed to get out in one go.

[Pete Wishart]

This debate is about applying to rejoin the European Union. There was nothing about that in the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon. I am confused about the Government’s position. Is it an ambition and an aspiration? Is it an option to rejoin the European Union? If it is an option, how will it be considered? And if it is considered positively, how do we rejoin?

[Mark Ferguson]

The hon. Gentleman does me an honour if he imagines I will go beyond what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. I refer him to what the Prime Minister said, but—[Interruption.] I am coming to the point made by the hon. Member and others.

The sanitary and phytosanitary deal will make food and agriculture trade with the EU cheaper and easier, something that I hope we would all welcome. That agreement, combined with the emissions trading systems linking measures, is set to add £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040, in a significant boost to growth.

Finally, the UK and EU committed to working towards UK association to Erasmus+, which was asked about earlier, with a deal being struck on association less than a year later, opening up world-class opportunities for learners, educators, young people and communities from 2027. We are committed to building that process. As the Prime Minister announced earlier today, we will hold the next UK-EU summit on 20 November, when we want to strike important deals that will boost our economy, cut red tape, help our businesses grow and provide opportunities to young people denied since Brexit. These are important, concrete steps.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

In the Chamber earlier today the Prime Minister committed to me that he is in favour of a visa waiver when it comes to touring artists who want to go into Europe. Will the Minister reiterate that and also look into the issue of cabotage—the internal movement of goods and people by a carrier registered in a different country? Will he put that on the agenda for discussion at the summit on 20 November?

[Mark Ferguson]

I will come on to touring musicians. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me on the second matter, I would appreciate that.

What is planned is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition. We must go further to restore a higher level of growth and prosperity for Britain. As the Prime Minister recently announced, he will lay out options for Britain’s long-term relationship with our European partners around the summit in November and find consensus on what is best for Britain. The views of Members of this House will be crucial as part of that process.

The youth experience scheme was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who I commend for the way in which he introduced the debate today. At the last summit the UK agreed to work towards a balanced youth experience scheme, with the UK creating new opportunities for cultural exchange between the UK and the EU. That will give young people the opportunity to broaden their horizons through travelling, experiencing other cultures and learning languages, as well as working and studying abroad, as it did for me when I briefly lived in France—although the less said about my French ability, the better.

A question was raised about Chinese EVs. Europe and the UK face many of the same challenges, which is why it is vital to protect trade between us. On haulage, all UK nationals are bound by the 90/180-day Schengen area rule. The Government will of course continue to listen to the sectors impacted and advocate for UK nationals. I particularly enjoyed the well-made point from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) about the price of tulips—an impressive way of referring to her name in the Chamber. There are clear economic benefits of upcoming EU-UK deals that may bear some benefit there.

I also enjoyed the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) to his nephew Freddy. This Government are committed to exploring how best to improve arrangements for touring artists across the EU and EU member states. However, challenges remain, as touring artists need to navigate visa requirements across EU member states and hauliers that transport equipment face stricter limitations on their type of movement within the EU. I also commend the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer); it is good to see her back in her place speaking up on behalf of her constituents. She referred to music venues in her constituency that are affected.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) asked about Erasmus. The UK will associate to Erasmus+ from January 1 and contribute around £570 million to the programme, which is down from the approximately £810 million that we would have paid under devolved terms. Reference was also made to the “Made in Europe” initiative, and we are listening to industry and actively engaging EU partners on it. We face the same global challenges, and we are clear that we should work together to bolster UK-EU supply chains and growth, rather than putting up barriers to trade in Europe.

On a future relationship, the Prime Minister will say more about the path ahead for the UK and the EU around the summit, as I have said. He has been open about the fact that there are a range of options, and he intends to establish consensus around which option is best for Britain. He is clear that Brexit has damaged our economy and that, as we face a more dangerous world, we need a closer, stronger relationship with the EU. It is right to open up that discussion because, a decade on from Brexit, the country is not where it could be. In 2016, the people of Britain voted for change and full control, but Brexit has done more harm than good. As the PM said,

“Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain.”

We must ensure that our relationship with the EU is fit for the challenges we face now and in the future.

[Rachael Maskell]

In my speech, I mentioned ensuring that we have a proper deliberative process so that everyone in our communities can be engaged in shaping the future of Europe, to ensure that the people can co-create it with Government. Will the Minister support such a methodology?

[Mark Ferguson]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. I will not commit to anything of that nature today, but I urge her to continue making the argument for that, as I am sure she will.

[Ms Creasy]

rose—

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Ferguson]

I am incredibly close to bringing this debate to an end, but I will give way.

[Ms Creasy]

Perhaps we can find a point of consensus in this debate in that one of the things lacking in Parliament over the last couple of years is a European Scrutiny Committee where all of us as parliamentarians could be a part of the debate about what the future with Europe might be. Perhaps the Minister will take the merits of such a proposal back to his colleagues in the Cabinet Office, given the nature of the debate today and the concerns about facts. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Mark Ferguson]

It is always worth taking something seriously when such divergent Members of this place agree. I am sure that that will be recorded in Hansard and was heard by those of us in the Cabinet Office.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Ferguson]

As has been pointed out, I have 42 minutes, so why not take one more intervention?

[Peter Swallow]

It is only because I rose at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). The points we are coming to at the end of this debate show that, as the Prime Minister has recognised, although debates in this place may have fallen away, there has never been a settled opinion in the country on the path forward following Brexit. It has remained a conversation among our constituents, on the doorstep and around the dinner table, and that is what this petition demonstrates. I ask the Minister to reflect in the final part of his speech on the fact that this is not about us reopening a debate, but us in this place catching up to the conversations that have never gone away in the country. It is really important to acknowledge that.

[Mark Ferguson]

I think it is clear to anyone who has listened to the debate over the last couple of hours that there is no lack of debate in this place or, in fact, anywhere else, on this important matter. That is why we are rightly looking at options for the future relationship to strengthen the country’s prosperity and security.

[Vikki Slade]

rose—

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

rose—

[Mark Ferguson]

This is my final sentence: Europe is our neighbourhood—

[Vikki Slade]

The Minister has 40-odd minutes.

[Mark Ferguson]

I do, but I only have one sentence left, so I will give way.

[Vikki Slade]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. This struck me earlier when the Prime Minister talked about the importance of the British public being the boss throughout this. The Minister has been clear about all the available options, but if the British public are to have their say, which presumably would require a general election, referendum or something similar, is there not a risk that we end up pushing all of this into the long grass again when we know that the longer it takes, the worse the situation becomes? Is there any opportunity for short-term changes that can move this closer?

[Mark Ferguson]

The hon. Lady invites me to speculate; I think that the Prime Minister was quite clear this afternoon.

I will finish by referring to something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), said, which is that Europe is our neighbourhood. As he said, geography matters: the EU is our closest partner and largest market—there are only 21 miles between France and England, and we share land borders as well. A stronger, deeper relationship is in Britain’s best interests.

18:51

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank all hon. Members for turning up today and speaking in this debate. It is interesting that we have had one Conservative MP, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), a Reform MP—the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) is almost out the door, but I am going to acknowledge him all the same; he has left his colleague the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) in his place—and the shadow Minister speak up to defend the status quo. Their defence of the current Brexit rules referred to evidence that, I think it is fair to say, was selectively referenced and in denial of where the weight of the evidence is.

I will start with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who challenged the idea that Brexit has damaged our economy and referred to the fact that the GDP of other countries is lower than ours. But that is not the point: the comparison is with the situation that we would have had if we had not left the European Union. That point was made earlier. The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that our GDP was 6% to 8% lower by the end of 2025 than it would have been if we had not left the EU. It also found that investment in the UK was 12% to 13% lower, employment was 3% to 4% lower and productivity was 3% to 4% lower; the OBR agrees.

The hon. Member also minimised the significance of individual examples given by numerous hon. Members in this room about Brexit-related red tape and British exporters. But the evidence is clear: our trade volumes are billions less than before Brexit. For example, a study by the LSE found that in 2022, there was £27 billion less in goods exports, which is a 6% reduction compared with the no-Brexit counterfactual, and 14% of firms stopped exporting to the EU altogether after post-Brexit trading arrangements came into force. That research found that smaller firms were particularly affected by those arrangements, whereas larger firms were able to absorb the additional costs. That is what hon. Members are seeing all over the country.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I fear that the hon. Member’s points have not moved with the evidence, but I will give him a chance to respond.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The logic of the Government’s position is that because Canada sends 75% of its exports to the United States of America, they had better join the United States and give up their sovereignty in order to get rid of barriers to trade. The idea that Canada will become an associate member of the EU and that the EU is going to be able to get a grip of Canada seems rather fanciful, but can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Carney logic about the UK being in the single market does not apply to his own country?

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention but as far as I can see, none of what he said is relevant to the question of whether any of his points are well founded. The evidence is as I have read out. He needs to engage with the weight of the evidence, not the selective examples that those who oppose a closer relationship with Europe ultimately rely on.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will not. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire, who is not here any more, at least accepted that our exports have been hit by Brexit, but his point was different. He said that where we have used our Brexit freedoms, we are better off. He seemed to be saying that where we do not have alignment, we are doing better. I am afraid that is not correct. UK firms that have to comply with multiple regulatory regimes will obviously incur greater costs to be able to trade with multiple markets. I have heard consistently from businesses that, as all hon. Members have said today, it is where we have no alignment that there have been disastrous consequences for businesses. The 90/180 rule the Minister referred to as being a fixity for now, which was negotiated by the Opposition, is just one example of those problems. Even if there were some benefits from regulatory divergence, they pale in comparison to the damage done to our economy by Brexit, so the thesis of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is wholly unsupported by the weight of the evidence.

The hon. Member also doubted whether the asylum returns agreement we had with the EU was ever used. The fact is that we sent back more people than we took under that agreement until 2016, the year of the Brexit vote, so it was a useful tool for addressing irregular migration. In any event, its absence was relied on and manipulated by smugglers to drum up business. The consequence of that was the boat numbers going up.

I accept that this debate will not end today. It has been a lively debate. I thank the Minister for his remarks and clarifications. I thank the petitioner, Mr McMaster, for creating this opportunity for Parliament to debate this important issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, these are conversations that have never gone away. They are constantly brought back to me in my constituency work, as they are for other hon. Members. I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, these conversations will lead to progress on a matter that is at the heart of how to build a prosperous nation for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 749128 relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.

18:57

Sitting adjourned.