Rejoining the EU

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.