Rejoining the EU

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

You quoted me!

[Mike Wood]

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

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

International Update

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Lady that I am always a stable and consistent partner. Indeed, I will honour the result of the referendum, as I always have for the last 10 years—that is a clear commitment, as is the commitment to our manifesto, as I explained just a moment ago—but I am also going to lead and will be prepared to set out options that I think Britain should consider. If she is saying that she is happy with the status quo, she is in a minority in this country. People know that Britain can do better than this. I am determined to secure better for Britain. I am just surprised that the Opposition are setting their ambitions for our country so low.

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

I for one am really relieved that the Prime Minister is not going to take any lessons from any member of the previous Conservative Government on negotiating with Europe, given what a mess they made of it. Their irrational hatred of anything to do with Europe meant they took us out of the biofood security alert, meaning British farmers do not get told when there is foot and mouth, and took us out of the Eurodac system—[Interruption.] You took us out. I am watching the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) say, “What?” She might want to look at some of the details that she helped negotiate. They took us out of the Eurodac system, meaning we do not get the asylum data, which makes protecting our borders harder. So will the Prime Minister assure me and my constituents that he will not let Tory mistakes make border control and British farming harder to do, but will put the national interest first, seek that data and ensure that we have a future of working with Europe, not hating it?

Direction of Government

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for making a point that I made myself in the Makerfield by-election. I do think that there is more we need to do to support our high streets. I have made a start with pubs and live music venues, but I do believe we need to go further, in exactly the way he describes. I think it is a case of rebalancing the system—some of the large entities and warehouses do not, in percentage terms, pay the same amount in business rates—so that we can support those businesses on the high street that are doing public good and they are able to get a reduction to enable them to survive. That is something that I am looking at. I think we need to get serious about our high streets. We need to take action on those that cause harm—I have mentioned vape shops and adult gaming centres—and we need to do more to support those that do good.

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

May I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and to the Dispatch Box, and welcome the ambition that he has brought to this country? He will know that he will need time to achieve the things he has set out today, which is why I know that he will share my concerns about what is happening in British politics. Reform has accepted £9 million in donations this year alone, with £8 million of it coming from just three UK-based donors. That is more than has been received by the Labour party and the Conservative party combined. Chequebooks are already circling the next general election, and if we wish to defend our democracy and make sure that all voices can be heard equally, we need to make sure it is not money that talks.

I heard what the Prime Minister had to say to my colleagues about the defending democracy review. I welcome it and tomorrow’s legislation on UK donors, but he will know that there are people closer to home who wish to use their money to influence the process too. Can he confirm that his democracy review will look at caps on UK individual and company donors, and that we will legislate before the next general election so that we act?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the importance of the issues my hon. Friend is raising, for the reasons I gave earlier. The Bill we will debate later this week is a start, but I do not think that anyone on the Government Front Bench is saying that that is the end of the matter. We do need to go further. I encourage her to engage with the defending democracy taskforce and, certainly, I have an open mind about what those further measures might be.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The law should, of course, always be applied without fear or favour. While I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I hope he understands the Government’s determination to address the issues he raised. The Government have been crystal clear about our commitment to reduce to zero the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers, and there is a commitment to carry out that process in a different way through the use of larger sites. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the remarks I made earlier about the increase in the removal of foreign national offenders. This issue is a priority for the Government and for the Home Secretary, and we are working at pace to address the issues he raised.

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

The attack in Belfast on Monday night was horrific, and the scenes last night were terrifying. It is understandable that people are seeking answers, and that yet another horrific crime is facing public scrutiny and political debate. One of the challenges is that, right now, people are finding those answers online and in the toxic world of social media. We can either feed the tension that is creating, or we can dispel it by standing together against those who wish to target entire communities, and by being committed to replacing the fictions with fact.

I know the Home Secretary and the Minister have been looking at this issue, but what more can we do to help people to have access to trusted sources of information when it comes to difficult issues like this, so that we can challenge people who spread hatred? How can we lead from this place and deliver to the affected communities the information they need to be able to heal themselves and deal with the trauma of what they have seen?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There will be agreement and recognition that activity online can provide extraordinary opportunities and benefits, but clearly it can also provide a toxic environment that drives the kind of criminality we have seen in recent times.

I hope my hon. Friend will understand that we are working at pace across Government through the defending democracy taskforce, and working with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and right across law enforcement, as well as with operational partners, to make sure that activity online is monitored in a way that will best enable us to reduce and eliminate the kind of activity she referred to. She will understand that that is not an easy thing to do. We are constantly looking for the social media companies and the tech companies to exercise greater responsibility, but I assure her of the importance we attach to these matters. I have had meetings recently with ministerial colleagues to look at what more we can do, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking into that carefully.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for providing oversight of the Government’s processes on behalf of Parliament. On his first question, about security clearance being concluded before an announcement is made, he is right. That is something that the Government have learned from this process, and that policy has already been changed.

The second issue he asked me about is represented in this bundle by the uncertainty about how the developed vetting policy applies to members of the Privy Council and/or Members of the House of Lords, given that Ministers are not put through the DV process, because it would be undemocratic interference with the electorate if a democratic process could be overturned by unelected civil servants. The documents show that the Government came to the right conclusion—that Peter Mandelson should go through DV clearance, even though he was a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor—but they also show that there was some uncertainty about that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should strengthen the guidance to make that clear in the future.

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

The challenge for all our constituents is that every time this subject comes up, they cannot shake the sense that Peter Mandelson’s business interests hang like a grubby layer over decision making in this Government. I know that the Minister will want to challenge that, and challenge the concern that Mandelson’s behaviour was a symptom, rather than the cause, of the problem that we face. When we were last in the Chamber discussing this matter on 27 April, I asked the Minister explicitly about the Adrian Fulford review, and he assured me that the investigation of the vetting process would be completed within three to four weeks. We are now past his deadline. He will understand the concern that our constituents might have that there may be more to come. Can he reassure me that that review will be published? What will be in it?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to pull me up. That review has not concluded in the time in which I had initially hoped it would. Adrian Fulford is conducting the review at the moment, and knows that we want to be able to report on it shortly. I cannot tell the House what is in it yet, because I have not seen it, but as soon as I have received it, I will return to the House.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

It is not for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to speak about whipping arrangements at the Dispatch Box. I will leave that to the Chief Whip and the usual channels. The hon. Lady asked me two questions about reform to the other place, in particular the removal of peerages. I can confirm that legislation will be introduced shortly to bring forward the proposals that I have talked about at the Dispatch Box. She asked me further questions about redactions policy; I refer to my previous answer on that question.

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

The pain of the Epstein victims sits heavy with all of us in this House because we expect the highest standards of all of us. The challenge with this incident is that it involves a convoluted process that raises difficult questions about Government vetting and appointments. Given that, can my right hon. Friend tell us when he expects the Adrian Fulford review, which is to identify whether any other cases of concern have come to light about how appointments have been made, to be completed?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise that question. The terms of reference have been confirmed with Adrian Fulford. That work has been started, and I expect it to complete in three to four weeks’ time.

Antisemitic Attacks

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point and the way in which he made it, not least because it gives me an opportunity to say that while we are primarily talking about London, I have concerns about these kind of activities right around the country. To answer his question directly, yes, it is always my default instinct to work closely with colleagues in the Scottish Government, and I give him an assurance that that is what we will do.

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

Walthamstow stands shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community in this country in standing up to these people trying to divide our nation. We recognise the pain and fear in our local community, and are shocked to discover that some of those who have been charged with offences come from our local community. We also understand this pain at first hand, because in February 2025, attacks were organised online in the same fashion against our local mosques. They were reputed to be associated with Russian Telegram channels. It is right that we are hearing calls for proscription, but this is a relatively new form of terrorist association; teenagers and young people from our communities are being recruited online to conduct these offences in our communities. What more can we do to disrupt this recruitment by hostile states?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I can give her an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which operational partners, including the National Crime Agency, the intelligence services, the Metropolitan police and others, take these threats. It is the job of Government to make sure that those partners have the necessary resources to conduct this work. She is right to raise concerns about activity online, but I can assure her that we take this very seriously, and are working at pace to ensure that anyone conducting this kind of activity is brought to justice.

Security Vetting

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Prime Minister is being candid about some of the challenges in this process. I am sure that he will share the frustration felt across the House as revelations keep coming and this matter keeps coming back to Parliament. He says that he has acted to prevent any further challenges in the vetting system for the Government in respect of senior appointments. Can he therefore give all our constituents, and the House, the reassurance that he has no further sense that there will be any challenges to any other senior appointments through the vetting process that this Government have made?

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why I have asked for a review of the security vetting to be carried out. I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I want to be assured about the security vetting process, and that is why I have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to look at it, so that he can give me that further reassurance. I will then, of course, pass that on to the House.

Middle East

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady probably knows, we have been supporting measures in the UN over the last two weeks, particularly some of those that were put forward by our Gulf allies, and I had the opportunity to discuss those last week in the Gulf. We will continue to work with them and others on building the necessary coalition to do all that we can to get the strait open.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s tough stance in response to President Trump’s demands to get involved in this conflict, and his commitment that Lebanon must be part of the ceasefire. Our constituents need us to give them hope that they will not have to continue to live in a world that is driven by the uncertainty of when the White House takes to Truth Social. We can do things to de-escalate conflict, and one of those things is to support the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, which the Prime Minister knows is at the heart of much uncertainty in the middle east. Given that the conduct of settlers on the west bank directly undermines the possibility of peace and the possibility of a Palestinian state, will he commit to including their conduct in his conversations about the ceasefire and how we can give hope to people in the middle east and peace to people around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I reiterate to my hon. Friend and the House our support for the two-state solution, which is the only way to achieve a viable long-term peace in the region. Of course, the settler violence is a threat to that. It is wrong in principle, and we will continue to bear down on it.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I never inhaled: I always opposed Brexit, and I continue to fight for a closer relationship with Europe. I also recognise that the way the previous Government left the European Union was the hardest of Brexits. They compounded the damage that walking out of the room did to this country, and we see that in our constituencies every single day. I do not believe that anybody voted for 1.8 million fewer jobs to be created in our economy, or for 16,000 businesses to give up on trading with Europe because the basic consequence of Brexit was paperwork. I do not believe that anybody in this country really wanted those outcomes.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I apologise, but I am aware of the time available. I also recognise that 2016 was over a decade ago. One of the challenges in this nation is that we have always acted as if the hard part about our relationship with Europe was us deciding what we wanted to happen, and the easy part was going and telling our European counterparts what we wanted to do. In a decade, President Trump has been elected twice, covid has happened, the #MeToo movement occurred and TikTok was invented—not to mention the antics of President Putin. If we are going to get this right then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) is right to argue, we need to get closer to Europe, but, in what we ask now, we have to show them the respect of recognising the damage we did in walking out of the door.

First and foremost, we need a salvage operation for British businesses, jobs, climate and people. That requires looking at the deal that has been done with Switzerland. We must get closer to the single market, because the customs union is not our European counterparts and European freedom of movement. There is so much more that we can do but, first, let us start by respecting those people we disavowed.