EU-UK Summit
Debate between Esther McVey and Rachel Blake(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing this debate. I welcome this chance to move on and let it go, and to test and reflect on the outcome of the EU-UK summit. That foundation is also a chance to look to the future.
The Opposition have done their best to make me rack my brain back to the 1990s and the last but one time the Conservatives tore themselves apart over Europe, when they were fighting over whether we were rule makers or rule takers. But I will spend a tiny bit of time talking about the 2016 referendum, and how it uncovered and exacerbated division in our country.
It is fundamentally regrettable that the Opposition have used such divisive language: “surrender,” “stupidity,” “hate,” “suckers” and “dangerous.” That really is not a sensible way to talk about how best to work with our partners in the European Union, which is our largest trading partner. In stark contrast, the EU-UK summit that finished earlier this week was grounded in a pragmatic approach to moving forward. It reached out across our country to do the very best for the whole UK.
In terms of testing and reflecting on the outcome of the summit, the first question for me is whether it sticks to our red lines. In response to the most recent remarks from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the outcome absolutely sticks to those red lines. There is no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. Does it support this Government’s missions, which were clearly voted for by the country in an election called a year ago today? Our missions are to secure growth, to support opportunity, to get our country healthy, to tackle climate change and to make our country safer. It addresses each and every one of those missions.
Does the EU-UK summit agreement work for the whole of the UK? Looking around the Chamber, I am proud of how many nations and regions of the UK are represented on the Government Benches, and every single one of us has been able to talk about how the EU-UK summit has benefited our own constituencies. I have been thinking about why the summit is so important for me: I represent an area with a vast number of small businesses that rely on the impact of the summit to reduce the cost of energy and the cost of working in the hospitality sector. That is significant for my constituency, one of the great engines of the UK economy.
As I look across the Chamber, there are ways in which the summit will help the constituents of all Members present. I would like to know whether there is really nobody in Spalding or Skegness who will benefit. Are there really no businesses—haulage businesses, for example—that will see the opportunity for reduced red tape as a result of the summit? I strongly doubt that.
The next test for me is whether the agreement fixes the foundations for the future. Has it put us in a good place to build on for some of the other businesses and areas where we need to see a bit more movement? I think it does; it is a strong first step. Does it make sure that we can get ourselves and our pets on holiday faster? Yes, it absolutely does.
I have spent several minutes on the past and on the present, and now I will look to the future. In another area of important vitality—[Interruption.] Is there an intervention?
