Rejoining the EU

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.