Westminster Hall

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

Monday 24 March 2025

[David Mundell in the Chair]

European Union: UK Membership

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700005 relating to the UK joining the European Union.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The petition is on an important subject and has gained more than 128,537 signatures. The lead petitioner, Robert McMaster, is sitting in the Public Gallery with his amazing wife—we were chatting earlier on. He is not a stranger to this place: he informed me that he was shown around the whole estate as a very young boy as his father, Stanley McMaster, represented Belfast East between 1959 and 1974. Welcome back, Robert.

The petition makes a straightforward request of the Government:

“Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible”.

It states:

“I believe joining the EU would boost the economy, increase global influence, improve collaboration and provide stability & freedom. I believe that Brexit hasn’t brought any tangible benefit and there is no future prospect of any, that the UK has changed its mind and that this should be recognised.”

This matter has sparked considerable debate across our nation since the referendum in 2016, and it is essential that we approach it with a balanced perspective, considering both the benefits and the challenges that it presents. The decision to leave the European Union was a momentous one and has had profound implications for our country. We must reflect on the journey that we have taken since and consider the path that lies ahead. The question before us is whether the UK should seek to rejoin the European Union, and if so, what the implications of such a move would be.

Many people would contend that there are several compelling arguments in favour of the UK rejoining the European Union, and I am sure that we will hear many of those during the debate. First, EU membership provides significant economic benefits. The EU is one of the largest single markets in the world, and being part of it would grant UK businesses access to more than 450 million consumers. The argument is that that access would boost trade, create jobs and stimulate economic growth. I am sure that a number of colleagues in the Chamber today will argue that rejoining the EU would facilitate smoother trade relations with our closest neighbours.

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

Mr Mundell, you and I both know that the European structural funds were fundamental to some of the remotest parts of the UK for investment in harbours, roads and other infrastructure. May I just say to the hon. Member that that was a benefit that we enjoyed when we were part of the EU and, whatever happens in the future, we hope that this Government or future Governments will seek to replicate and replace it?

[Paul Davies]

I thank the hon. Member for those comments, which I very much appreciate. I am sure that as we go through the debate, we will get much more detail about similar issues. I will refer later to what the Government are doing to try to ensure that we establish a close relationship with Europe.

We know that, since Brexit, UK businesses have faced increased bureaucracy and border checks, which have hindered the flow of goods and services. The lead petitioner and others have argued that rejoining the EU could alleviate those issues, making it easier for businesses to operate and thrive.

Another important consideration is the potential for enhanced security co-operation. The EU has robust mechanisms for collaboration on issues such as counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing and law enforcement. The argument is that, by rejoining, the UK could strengthen its security ties with European partners, contributing to a safer and more secure environment for our citizens.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I support rejoining and always opposed leaving, for the reasons around national security and our national interest that my hon. Friend outlined. Is he surprised that there are no Reform Members present in the Chamber, and does he believe that that is because they spend more time sucking up to Trump and Putin than representing their constituents, in particular those in Clacton?

[Paul Davies]

I will not make particular comment on my hon. Friend’s comments, but they are well put. I am rather surprised; I did expect Reform Members to be present, but I am sure they have good reasons. They are probably working closely—

[Neil Coyle]

Too busy fighting.

[Paul Davies]

I could not possibly say.

Furthermore, some argue that rejoining the EU would allow the UK to have a say in shaping the rules and regulations that govern the single market, and that that influence would be crucial in ensuring that our interests were represented and that we could advocate policies that would benefit our economy and society.

On the other hand, there are valid arguments against rejoining the European Union.

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

I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate membership of the EU. We know about the economic benefit of membership in securing trade, but does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time of real global instability, political union is also important?

[Paul Davies]

We have discussed that in the Chamber recently, and we have seen the fantastic work that the Prime Minister is doing with our close neighbours. Given what we face from Russia—a threat to all of us— working as closely as we can across Europe is crucial at the moment.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

One of the reasons that was given for leaving the EU was that it would allow the UK to develop stronger relations with countries further afield, including the US. However, with the American President being somewhat gung-ho with tariffs, and given his willingness to be best friends with the President of Russia, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should look to strengthen our relations with our nearest cousins in Europe?

[Paul Davies]

Again, this is a subject that we have discussed a number of times in the Chamber. It is crucial that we work very closely with our friends in Europe, and we have seen the need for stability as we move forward in the next few years. The relationship between us and the new President of the US is newly formed and is starting to evolve. The work that is going on to create that relationship is perhaps different from what it has been in the past, but I am confident that, with the fantastic team that we have, along with our Prime Minister, we will establish an ongoing relationship with the US, which is one of our most important partners. However, it is also important for us to be a part of Europe when it comes to security.

One of the primary arguments for leaving the EU was around the issue of sovereignty. Our leaving the EU was driven in part by a desire to regain control over laws and regulations. By rejoining, we would cede some of that control back to Brussels, and that might not sit too well with those who value national sovereignty.

Additionally, the financial cost of EU membership is a significant consideration. The UK would be required to contribute to the EU budget, which could be seen as a burden on taxpayers. Although the economic benefits of membership may offset those costs, it is an important issue to consider.

Then, of course, there is the question of public opinion. We will all remember that the 2016 referendum revealed deep divisions in our society, and the issue of EU membership remains contentious. Rejoining the EU could reignite some of those divisions and lead to further political instability.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that the UK Government have ruled out the possibility of rejoining the European Union. However, since July they have concentrated efforts on strengthening our relationship with the EU. The Government have prioritised resetting the UK’s relationship with the EU, which has involved a series of initiatives aimed at reducing barriers to trade, enhancing security co-operation and fostering closer ties with European partners.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the costs of EU membership. Of course, many businesses, including touring artists and those in the creative sector, have suffered additional costs because of our withdrawal from the European Union. Does he agree that an early priority in negotiations on a refreshed and rebuilt relationship with the EU should be ensuring that it is easier for our touring artists to go to Europe and promote their work there?

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree. That is certainly a very apparent deficit of where we are now. We have amazing cultural heritage in this country, as well as amazing music and touring ability. Some of our bands and artists have really struggled to make sure that they have a future in Europe. I absolutely agree that that should be a priority.

A key step taken by the Government has been the negotiation of a veterinary agreement to reduce border checks on agrifoods. The agreement aims to streamline the movement of agricultural products between the UK and the EU, benefiting both farmers and consumers. Additionally, the Government have sought a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications, which would facilitate the movement of skilled workers and open up markets for UK service exporters.

The UK has been working towards an ambitious new UK-EU security pact, which we have already referred to. The pact aims to enhance collaboration on security and defence policy, ensuring that the UK and EU can work together to address common threats.

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

The hon. Gentleman is doing a valiant job of introducing the debate. Does he agree that a Government who are not even prepared to countenance a youth mobility scheme to try to reset the relationship will not get far? We will certainly not get into the territory of what we really need, which is re-entry to the single market and the customs union. That is where we should look to make progress.

[Paul Davies]

It is true that that is one area that has been discussed and looked at, and various proposals have been put forward. I was trying to outline, in the light of the serious security concerns, that the closeness between our Prime Minister and Government and our European partners should be looked at as a real positive, and a real base for future working and development, maybe including on issues such as those that the hon. Gentleman referred to. I think that gives us a great foundation. The Government have been actively engaging with European partners through regular meetings and dialogue, demonstrating a commitment to rebuilding trust and co-operation—that word “trust” is so important.

In conclusion, the question of whether the UK should rejoin the European Union is complex and multifaceted. There are compelling arguments on both sides, and it is essential that we consider the potential benefits and challenges carefully. As we move forward, it is crucial that we engage in open and honest discussions, taking into account the diverse perspectives in our society. The Government’s efforts to strengthen relations with the EU since July demonstrate a commitment to finding common ground and building a more co-operative future. Ultimately, the decision whether to rejoin the European Union must be made with careful consideration of the long-term interests of our country. Let us continue to engage in this important dialogue and work together to shape a prosperous and secure future for the United Kingdom.

I conclude by thanking again the lead petitioner and all those who signed this important petition. I look forward to hearing the views of all right hon. and hon. Members.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. This is a three-hour debate, so I do not intend to set a time limit at this stage, but I ask Members to be mindful of others.

16:45

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. We are at a key geopolitical moment, which encompasses both economic issues and security and defence issues. Britain leaving the EU has damaged our economy. That is not a supposition; it is a fact. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the watchdog the Government are beholden to listen to for economic forecasts, says that our economy has been reduced by 4% because of Brexit. We can also look at the trade deals—for example, with Australia—that were held up and touted as a benefit of Brexit. We would have to look very hard, with a very powerful microscope, to see the bump in the UK GDP figures that we gained from the Australian trade deal, but we do not need to look hard to see our farmers’ anger and ire about the changes to food safety standards and the agricultural market in the UK.

Small business owners I speak to in my community of Tunbridge Wells are absolutely appalled by Brexit. No matter what their small business is—whether they sell books, grow and export apples, or make art—Brexit has been a disaster.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentioned small businesses. As a small business owner who imports goods from the European Union, I see at first hand how things that used to take days to import now take weeks. We used to require a purchase order and an invoice as the sole bits of paperwork, but we now have to fill in complicated forms, which is very costly. Those costs are put on small businesses with absolutely no benefit, and they have to be passed on to consumers. It is damaging our economy every single day. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is certainly not a benefit of Brexit?

[Mike Martin]

Marvellous! Ladies and gentlemen, that was a perfect example. I could list example after example of small business owners who say, “You know what? We have had to stop 20% of our business. We are no longer able to turn a profit on it because of the time we have to spend filling out forms.”

I will move on from the direct effects of Brexit on our trade with the European Union to its wider effects. One thing we see in the current geopolitical moment is the threat of tariffs. If we are honest, we probably thought we had seen the back of those in the early 1930s. But we are in this new world, which includes the United Kingdom becoming a target for tariffs from our supposed closest ally. We have seen a supine response from the British Government to the setting of tariffs against our steel industry. We are a market of 70 million people and the sixth largest economy in the world, but were we part of a market of several hundred million people—the largest trading area on the planet—would we be so supine?

EU membership is about not just economics but security, which Brexit has damaged in many small ways. I speak, of course, of intelligence sharing and access to databases—the sharing of data across borders. We used to have the Dublin convention, which allowed us to negotiate the return of refugees, in a way that is not open to us now.

However, damaging our relationship with Europe has damaged us in a more profound way, which is being exposed by the actions of the Trump Government, who are withdrawing the American security guarantee for Europe. We can quibble about whether that is happening, but the comments this weekend from Steve Witkoff should certainly give us pause for thought, and we should at least consider it a significant possibility. The Americans’ removal of that security guarantee exposes us all, and I will give hon. Members a very real example that happened just last week. The EU set up a defence fund that put money into European defence industries to pump-prime them and get them building equipment and munitions, but the UK has been excluded because we are not a member of the EU. We can quibble about the politics of that fund and about whether France’s role in it was right for European defence, but 20% of the European defence industry—the UK’s defence industry—is separated from the money that will buy all that kit.

I will conclude by focusing on the economy and security, which are interlinked: a strong economy enables us to build strong defences, and the stability created by security and defence, appropriately deployed, allows economies to grow. It is also true that the money invested in defence helps our economy to grow, and Brexit is stopping us doing that. We must forge a closer relationship with Europe so the UK can start to shape the future, rather than have the future shape us.

16:52

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Banbury has a proud history as a hub for industry and manufacturing, from the aluminium works, which were crucial to the construction of aircraft during world war two, and which my grandfather later worked at, to the automotive supply chains, green tech start-ups and Formula 1 teams that call my constituency home today. Those companies and many others rely on smooth, efficient trade with the European Union.

The psychodrama of the final eight years of the last Conservative Government culminated in a botched Brexit deal that put up barriers to trade, soured relations with our closest allies and ultimately left our constituents out of pocket, so I welcome the reset in relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union that has taken place since the general election. We have a real opportunity to forge a new, more constructive relationship with our European friends.

Hundreds of constituents have written to me, signed petitions—including this one—and spoken to me on the doorstep about the damage that Brexit has caused. I have also had the privilege of hearing from and meeting business owners across Banbury who once enjoyed seamless access to European markets but now feel buried under the very paperwork and bureaucracy that Brexiteers once promised to eliminate.

Take, for example, Electric Assisted Vehicles Ltd, an exciting Banbury-based company manufacturing electric-assisted bikes. Those bikes represent the future of urban green transport, a sector in which the UK could be leading. However, instead of expanding easily across Europe, as EAV once could, it now faces an avalanche of paperwork. It has told me that what was once a single-page document is now 20 pages. That is a clear and direct demonstration of the previous Government’s failure to deliver a Brexit deal that works for British business.

Consider the BMW plant down the road in Oxford, a cornerstone of the UK automotive industry. When I spoke to workers alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) a few weeks ago, it became clear that Brexit was a key factor in BMW shifting production away from the UK and towards the EU and China. The reality is that multinational manufacturers now find it cheaper and easier to downsize their workforces in the UK than in European counterparts. That is not a situation we should accept.

Banbury is home to a network of key automotive suppliers, including Magna Exteriors, Faurecia, HBPO and Borg & Beck, all of which rely on just-in-time supply chains in Europe. When delays at borders increase costs, additional import-export paperwork slows down deliveries, and rules of origin requirements limit market access, it is British workers who suffer.

Under the current UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, goods must comply with certain rules of origin regulations to qualify for tariff-free trade. That is creating new challenges for businesses, particularly manufacturers, that previously enjoyed seamless trade with the European Union. For example, a UK-based bus manufacturer exporting to the EU must ensure that at least 55% of the vehicle’s value is derived from UK or EU components, but many manufacturers rely on parts from outside the UK and the EU, making it harder to meet that requirement. Rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention would ease those constraints, keeping manufacturers in European and global markets. If we rejoined the PEM, components sourced from all 51 PEM countries would count as local content, making it easier for British businesses to qualify for tariff-free trade. That would be particularly beneficial for the automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical and machinery sectors.

Although rejoining the PEM will not solve all the post-Brexit trade issues, it is a practical and immediate step towards restoring smoother trade flows. It would signal to the EU that the UK is serious about improving trade relations while staying outside the customs union and the single market, which were referred to earlier.

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

I support my hon. Friend’s encouragement for the UK to accede to the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. I was at a meeting last week of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, which issued a recommendation to explore options for closer customs co-operation and alignment of regulatory standards—that goes further than the current UK Government position—to facilitate trade and economic growth. That could include, for example, UK accession to the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, so I hope very much that my hon. Friend is pushing at an open door with both the UK and the European Union.

[Sean Woodcock]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. As I said, we have an opportunity to reduce barriers to trade, support manufacturing, attract investment and rebuild a closer relationship with Europe. The Government have rightly set a mission of making the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7 by the end of this Parliament, and I believe that joining the PEM would be a logical step towards achieving that goal.

16:58

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The end of January marked five years since the UK left the EU. Although a majority of people in the UK, and indeed in Wales, voted to leave the EU at that time, the majority do not think it was a good idea any more. Polling shows that 55% of Britons now say that it was wrong for the UK to leave the EU, with just 11% seeing Brexit as more of a success than a failure. Let us also not forget that young people voted decisively to remain.

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

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would negotiate a youth mobility scheme with the EU. He replied that we are not returning to free movement, but seemed to forget that we already have similar schemes with countries such as South Korea and Australia, based on work and travel for a specified duration of time. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a youth mobility scheme would mean not a return to free movement, but a fantastic opportunity to boost our economy and the prospects of people in Epsom and Ewell, and the rest of the UK?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I absolutely agree. It is a priority for us as parliamentarians and for the Government to ensure that we do everything we can to widen the horizons for our young people and to give them the best opportunities.

According to polling data from YouGov, three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to stay in the European Union in 2016. There was a myth peddled at the time that they did not turn out to vote, but that is wrong: around 70% of registered young voters went to the polling booth. Nine years later, the next generation remains decisively opposed to Brexit, with 75% saying it was a mistake. As we look to the future, we must think seriously about the effect of the decision on young people who entered the workforce under its cloud, although many of them would not have been able to vote in 2016. What has “getting Brexit done” meant for them?

The UK no longer allows young people to take part in the Horizon Europe or Erasmus+ programmes, which is a huge loss to students the length and breadth of the UK. Those vital exchanges provided opportunities for young people to live and study in other countries, and their many benefits included improved language skills, cultural immersion and personal growth, leaving the sort of memories that stayed with somebody for ever.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. University towns in communities such as mine benefited from those cultural exchanges, and visitors from the EU enriched many of our communities.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The January poll by YouGov that I quoted earlier notes that everybody sees that tourism has been hit—by fewer people from the UK going to the EU as tourists and fewer people from the EU coming to the UK. In areas such as my hon. Friend’s in Ceredigion and mine in Gwynedd, tourism provides the chief employment in our economy, along with the universities.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Harrogate relies on tourism too. Local businesses that used to employ people coming over from the EU say that they are now struggling to recruit, so they have had to shut up and close early, which has cost jobs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a return to freedom of movement to allow those opportunities would benefit those businesses, which might help the Chancellor with the mission for growth?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. Ensuring that there is a workforce for leisure and tourism is proving more and more challenging for a number of reasons, including the shortage of workers who previously came from the EU.

To return to Erasmus+, the Welsh Government made the decision to launch their own scheme in 2021. That was welcome, but the First Minister at the time, Mark Drakeford, said in February last year that

“if we had a choice we would much rather we were part of an established scheme”,

like Erasmus.

Disappointingly, the UK Government announced last summer that they have no plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme, but I ask the Government to reconsider and look at recent successes in making closer ties with our neighbours. Calls for a youth mobility scheme have also been scorned by the UK Government. What is it about enriching young people’s lives that frightens this Government so much?

Just this month, the UK marked an important milestone with Horizon Europe that indicates an alternative route. Since becoming an associated country in 2024, after three years of non-membership, the UK has boasted a strong performance in recent funding rounds. In particular, the UK hosted 18 successful projects under the European Research Council’s synergy grants, the second highest number among participating countries. Ahead of the spring statement, when the Chancellor will undoubtedly be looking for opportunities to drive growth amid a dismal economic outlook, I urge the Government to find inspiration in our progress with Horizon and to pursue closer ties in further areas.

My party believes that returning to the single market and the customs union as soon as possible would be a meaningful step towards remedying the economic damage suffered by households and businesses alike. Recent figures by the Economic Cost of Brexit Project show that the average person in the UK is now £2,000 worse off as a result of leaving the European Union, worsening the effects of the ongoing cost of living crisis.

Five years on from our exit from the EU, the world is a more uncertain, more dangerous and less predictable place. From my home in Morfa Nefyn in north-west Wales, the closest capital city is Dublin. Our nearest neighbours for everyone, everywhere in the United Kingdom, are in the EU. The benefits of closer ties with our neighbours and our allies are plain to see, and I urge the Government to take heart from recent successes such as Horizon Europe and to pursue the same bold approach on youth mobility, on Erasmus, and on the customs union and single market.

17:05

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this important debate, which proves the importance of the petition mechanism to the public for getting important issues debated in this place. Eight years ago, constituents in Macclesfield voted to remain part of the European Union. It was a referendum based on imperfect knowledge. It was called because of the internal politics of the Conservative party and in an attempt to see off the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his insistent Europhobe right—a group of people who would never be satisfied, as we subsequently discovered.

The context of calling that referendum was incredibly bizarre, as we had already been through the life-or-death experience of the Scottish referendum that put the UK’s constitutional future at stake. It was also called in the wake of the Russian annexation of Crimea, so it was a bizarre time to be holding a question on the fundamental membership of an important political and economic alliance. We know how that referendum developed: it was vitriolic, and undoubtedly influenced by the Russians. Just a few days before the vote, one of our colleagues was tragically murdered on the streets of the UK.

We can now clearly see the consequences of our decision, as Members have been pointing out expertly this afternoon. Some 14,000 of 100,000 firms surveyed by the London School of Economics have quit trading with the European Union altogether. Many small businesses in my constituency talk about the barriers, the red tape and the bureaucracy that other Members have mentioned.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research points out that foreign direct investment has fallen 37%, and the OBR has said that the UK economy will be 4% smaller in 2035—that scary figure of the lost 4% is in all our minds—than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU. That is a cumulative loss of hundreds of billions of pounds that we could be spending on our infrastructure, our public services and our collective defence.

As we went into the election last year, the Government ruled out rejoining the EU and reopening those constitutional questions in this Parliament. It was a manifesto that I stood on and that I am committed to. I understand some of the reasoning behind that, because although the debate will go on about that political choice, we must remember how painful the situation was immediately after the referendum—the business uncertainty and anxiety, the jobs that had been secure that were suddenly insecure, and the investment decisions that were cancelled. A Damoclean sword of unpredictability hung over us, so I understand the trepidation about reopening those questions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has set out clearly the concerns that many people have. I am a proud Brexiteer, but we did not get the Brexit that we voted for. Does he agree that the people of Northern Ireland are subject to all the same bureaucracy, high tariffs and cost factors that he has outlined? Does he share the concerns that I have as an MP from Northern Ireland for his constituents?

[Tim Roca]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I think he has proved the point that I made, which is that the people who voted for Brexit were a group who would never be satisfied, because Brexit meant different things to different people. It was whatever illusion—whatever fantasy—people wanted it to be, which is why it was so dangerous to let that nationalist genie out of the bottle in the way that we did.

I welcome the Government’s effort to reset relations with the European Union, our neighbours and our allies, through a new forthcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, supporting artists’ ability to tour in the EU, a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications, and a new UK-EU security pact. Those are all really important, but I note that we would have had them if we had continued to be members of the European Union.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to resetting those relationships, but as Members have said, let us go further. Let us look at the youth mobility scheme, let us join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention and ease barriers to trade, and let us lay the groundwork for a proper debate on where the future of this country should be.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful set of arguments. In Bournemouth we have a strong English language school sector, but it has been bashed by Brexit red tape. Younger people from across the continent are now struggling to reach Bournemouth to get a glimpse of Britain and all that we offer. Does my hon. Friend agree that alongside a youth mobility scheme we should consider getting rid of some of that Brexit red tape so that we can strengthen that sector, and bring younger people to Bournemouth and to Britain so that they can enjoy all of what our great country has?

[Tim Roca]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is already proving a powerful advocate for his constituency and for young people. He points out again the issue of red tape and bureaucracy, which we were meant to be getting rid of with the amazing panacea of Brexit.

I still wholeheartedly believe in us rejoining the European Union—that is our future—and debates like this are part of that process. People need be under no illusion that this issue is going away; as the petitioners and those supporting them prove, this debate is ongoing in the country. There is also strong support, as the polling evidence shows, that the public believe that we made a mistake.

Let us look at what we threw away. We had those amazing dual pillars to support our place in the world: our strong position within the European Union and our amazing transatlantic alliance, which was mentioned earlier. We demolished one pillar and we have hollowed out the other, because we do not have a national defence that is strong enough for these dangerous times. We are now also in the midst of a trade war, having deliberately left one of the most powerful trade alliances that exists.

This debate is part of a journey, and I hope that more people will join us on that journey. The future of this country—our security, our prosperity, our culture and our relationship with our neighbours—depends on us having these difficult discussions. We must recognise the mistake that we made and the fraud that was committed on the British people, and change course.

17:11

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this debate and all those who signed the petition.

I will start by declaring an interest: I am a product of the European Union project—or the European Community, as it was called when I came to the UK at the age of 19 as a young student from Italy, just after John Major’s Government signed the Maastricht treaty. I am immensely proud to stand here today to represent my wonderful constituency of Stratford-on-Avon.

I worked as a lecturer for many years. I saw at first hand the importance of collaborative research projects with our colleagues in EU universities, as well as the positive impact of Horizon and of Erasmus+, which is the biggest programme of youth opportunities in the world.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In Sheffield Central we have two large universities. The UK having left the European Union has had an impact on not only students coming to the UK, but the financial sustainability of universities. Does the hon. Member agree that the Turing and Erasmus schemes do not go far enough? To support our universities with more students from the EU, we should encourage a stronger relationship—better than Turing—perhaps through a youth mobility scheme.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I fully agree with the hon. Member. Turing is not the same as Erasmus, because it is not reciprocal. That is one of the things that limits the opportunities for our students. Erasmus+ is not just about university exchanges; it is a programme that includes opportunities for our disadvantaged young people. Joining Erasmus+ would allow those young people in disadvantaged areas to have better life opportunities through exchanges, volunteering, training and school links.

Brexit has brought nothing but barriers for my constituents and for people across the United Kingdom. Small businesses, including plant and horticultural businesses, are drowning in red tape and incurring new taxes and expenses. Farmers have been undercut by damaging trade deals and the ending of the sustainable farming incentives that were a key part of the post-Brexit payment scheme that replaced EU subsidies.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only vets and farmers who are extremely proud that we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, but the British public? We should not compromise those farming standards and any trade deals that may occur in the future should not undermine them either.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Absolutely. The Government need to stand up for our British farmers, and that includes during the negotiation of trade deals—which, by the way, should be brought to Parliament to be fully scrutinised.

Young people have lost opportunities to study, live, travel, work and fall in love—as I myself did many years ago. Our creative industries, once thriving on European collaboration, now face restrictions and uncertainty, with artists, musicians and performers unable to tour their own continent. A priority must be not only to rejoin Erasmus+ but to create a youth mobility scheme, as many Members have discussed today.

We must have a credible roadmap to rebuild trust and ties with our European neighbours. We must start by deepening co-operation on climate, research, security and education, and we must then negotiate a new trade deal that includes a customs union to bring down the barriers holding our economy back. Ultimately, as Liberal Democrats, we want to rejoin the single market and restore the freedoms that our constituents deserve.

However, this is not just about trade; it is about values, opportunities, who we are and the role we choose to play in the world. With Trump and Putin now both a threat to our security, as already mentioned by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends in the European Union. As Europe rises to defend peace and democracy in the free world, the UK must not be a bystander. We must lead from the front, working with our European friends and allies to strengthen our shared economic prosperity and national security.

17:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting out the nature of this debate so well.

May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) that many of us who were here during the Brexit negotiations and remember the pain of those evenings—as well as the fisticuffs—know only too well that the scars cut deep? That is also why Robert, who I congratulate on his petition, needs to know the truth. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was in the country, I am sure that he would be telling all of us that we need straight talking, so let us have some straight talking.

Brexit is a disaster. It is a disaster by anybody’s metric, not least those according to whom it was purported to be a route to the promised land. The pandemic spared some of the blushes of those who still try to claim that we have got some elusive sovereignty as a result of leaving the European Union, but we can see the damage. Our constituents can see the damage.

Many Members have already cited some of the relevant figures; let me cite some more. As a result of Brexit, 1.8 million fewer jobs have been created in our economy, and that number is likely to rise to 3 million by 2035. Some 16,500 small businesses have stopped exporting to Europe all together. Those of us who were part of the parliamentary delegation last week had the pleasure of listening to Lord Frost trying to argue that up was down, but we know the truth for our constituents. We have seen the damage.

Indeed, we have seen that what was a bad situation in leaving the European Union was compounded by the ways in which the previous Administration chose to leave it. What on earth made them decide that we would not even share security alerts with our colleagues in Europe? How on earth is it in the interests of British farmers to not even share food security alerts with our colleagues, simply because the system had the word “Europe” in the title? The border operating model is adding billions of pounds to the cost of food in this country. What on earth made them think that adding £145 every time that a pallet of food came over here was somehow in the interests of British consumers or indeed British businesses? And that is before we even get on to the uncertain geopolitical situation that we are in. By any metric, it is easy to understand why Robert brought forward the petition.

To me, the Brexiteers are like those people—we all have met them on a night out—who join the group, start a fight in the club and get everyone kicked out, but who still maintain, three hours later, as they are walking everyone around a completely empty industrial estate somewhere, that they know a great club that everyone can get into. The challenge for those of us who recognise the damage done to this country—the damage to our national reputation and to our economies, communities and values from the idea that our European neighbours and friends would feel in any way unwelcome—is that we do not want to be that weirdo who says, “Well, if we walk around the streets a few more times, we can go back. It’s fine: the bouncers won’t recognise us; we can walk back in.” The brutal reality is that we have left the European Union, and we owe it to people who care about this country—I think everybody in this Chamber does, even if they still purport to believe that Brexit was a good idea—to talk truths to our constituents and work out what we can do to salvage what is left. That is what today’s debate is all about.

Nobody here is saying that rejoining should be the sole priority of the Government. We know full well that, because we are facing a salvage operation, Europe will only talk to us once more. Who can blame them? For years, we were like that difficult, awkward man our aunt married, who turned up at Christmas and always caused a fuss—and thank God she divorced him. Now we appear acting as if nothing has changed and that we should be invited to Sunday lunch. We owe respect to our colleagues in Europe when they are dealing with challenges such as Putin and economic uncertainty, and looking at what we can all do to secure peace in the middle east. They are owed some respect from us, and although sometimes it appears, frankly, as if we think our colleagues in Europe do not read our newspapers, I promise that they do.

The challenge for all of us is that we owe truth to our colleagues in Europe and truth to our constituents. It would take years to renegotiate to rejoin the European Union, even if we were to get a fast-tracked arrangement and they could be confident that we would not change our mind again. I recognise that the public are far ahead of politicians in this debate, including all of us scarred by those Brexit years. It would take years, because it would mean going around every individual country. It is worth remembering that our membership of the European Union was vetoed twice by France, because that is the way the process works. It is not a quick process. Those of us who are passionate about our relationship with Europe and what is possible—I stand here as chair of the Labour movement for Europe—hold our constituents in our hearts, and they need us to do what we can in the next 18 months, or else the damage that Brexit has done to the country will be so irreparable that there will be little left to negotiate.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for all that my hon. Friend has done on this issue. Does she agree that it would be really helpful now, nine years on, to have a comprehensive impact assessment? In 2016, we talked about the projected harm that Brexit would cause. Now that we have the evidence, should Government prepare an assessment, so that we can make sound judgments on the basis of that?

[Ms Creasy]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but it is so plain to see how we have cut ourselves off. Even in the pandemic, and initially standing up to Putin in Ukraine, we were outside the room shouting in. We owe it to our constituents now to be as brutal as we can be and humble as we need to be to make the case for what we can do in the next 18 months.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I just want to say a little more on that, because I am supremely conscious of time. The previous Administration chose to walk us out of any foreign affairs co-operation. That includes not just hard power, but soft power. For us in the Labour movement for Europe, it is an utter priority to secure a defence and security co-operation agreement, and to include aid in that conversation. Europe is the third largest donor around the world. Whatever one thinks of the cuts to the aid budget, duplication is a problem, but so too is separation, when looking at how we can stand up to threats we face around the world.

We absolutely must join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, as my colleagues have pointed out. These times call for moving on from talk of red lines to talk of mutual benefit. With the uncertainty and inconsistency of whoever is in the White House, our constituents need us to remember a simple truth about Brexit: we can fight many things in life, but we cannot fight geography. Trade with our neighbours is always going to be critical to the future economy, so we must do what we can to reduce the trade barriers.

Some of us were into the youth mobility scheme before it was fashionable; and some of us, over a year ago, were arguing for it. We consider that it is absolutely in the interests of the British public to get one. We do not believe what came back last summer was the right deal for this country, but we should absolutely be looking at what is possible. In that conversation, we must prioritise our apprenticeships. I am old enough to remember when this country used to celebrate, as part of our national cultural life, young men from the north-east going to Germany to upskill and train. That programme was called “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”, and I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was a regular viewer. That was absolutely youth mobility at the time.

Our young people in this country did not vote for this situation, and they should not bear the brunt of it. They need us to fight for every opportunity that can come for them. A youth mobility deal—not freedom of movement, because we can control how people come here—which we already have with other countries, is in their interest if it is not just about students. Let us talk about every young person.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am a former Erasmus exchange student and have personal lived experience of the immense opportunities that youth mobility provides. Does my hon. Friend recognise not only that it would create significant opportunities for British students abroad, as well as for European students potentially coming to the UK, but that it would not fundamentally rub up against the red lines in the Labour manifesto last year? Youth mobility does not provide a pathway to citizenship, it is not freedom of movement and it does not provide for financial dependency on the state.

[Ms Creasy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all fronts. A youth mobility or opportunity scheme with apprenticeships at its heart is the right thing to do, and crucially—in the timeline I have set out for the salvation of this country and for salvaging something from the damage Brexit has done—it could be achieved within an 18-month window. One final item to add to the list of things we could do in 18 months is about our energy security, in particular the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. For many of us, for our vital industries and for defence, including steel, it is absolutely critical that we get our CBAM and emissions trading schemes aligned.

Aneurin Bevan told us that

“The language of priorities is the religion of socialism.”

I stand here, ruthlessly prioritising the British interest, which was always about being stronger and taller on the world stage, and being confident that we could work with other countries. Never more have we needed that spirit, but never more have we needed to be clear about what needs to be done and when. I recognise the passion behind this petition; I simply say to those petitioning: let us not fall into the Brexiteers’ trap of offering false hope, when the people in this country need real change, real relationships and real solutions. The hon. Member for Clacton may not be here, but his spirit infuses our debate if we do otherwise.

17:27

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

By parliamentary standards, this may not be an enormous petition, nor has it attracted almost 3 million signatures, like the recent one calling for another general election. However, it is still significant, and is on a subject that has gone from being all we ever talked about to one we now barely even mention. Those of us with dark red areas on the petition map will know, however, that this issue has not disappeared from our constituents’ hearts and minds. As far as many of us are concerned, Brexit is not and has never been a done deal, never to be spoken of again—almost 400 of my constituents have signed and written to me about it.

From campaigning against Brexit during the referendum to working day and night, including on the first sitting Saturday in 40 years, many of us tried and came so close to securing a less awful deal and a people’s vote. Almost every Labour Member met to discuss and scrutinise every stage and every amendment, led in group meetings several times a day by the current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Education; the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; the Minister for Employment, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern); and the now Minister of State for Europe and North America, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I would love to believe that those Government Ministers are now applying our years of campaigning together against the damage we foresaw Brexit causing to our national security, economy and place in the world in their new roles, raising those issues in Cabinet and departmental meetings at every available opportunity.

According to the recent YouGov survey that has been mentioned, 55% of Britons now say it was wrong to for the UK to leave the EU, and just 11% see Brexit as more of a success than a failure. That mirrors the 2016 referendum result in my constituency, where the University of Kent, our largest employer, enjoyed an extremely close working partnership with our neighbours across the English channel, not just on research projects, but with campuses on the continent that have sadly now been closed completely. Gone is the once proud sign that read, “University of Kent: the European university”. Gone, too, are many of our friends, neighbours, academics and language teachers, who made Canterbury their home for decades. The diverse demographic mix has changed. Group bookings at local restaurants, the cathedral, guest houses and tourist attractions have fallen dramatically, and our city centre just feels like a different place. Thankfully, we are a resourceful city, used to welcoming pilgrims of all kinds, and we are adjusting, but Brexit punched us heavily, and it hurt.

Canterbury is closer to Europe than to many UK cities, and we have more in common with it than we do with many of them; we have such close ties in so many parts of our local economy. Aside from our social, economic and sentimental ties in east Kent, the national urgency for closer official ties could not be more timely, as shifting global alliances and instability are highlighted every day. We must get closer once again to our friends and allies in the EU. That is, of course, a political decision. It is a matter of leadership and of making the case politically and based on facts. Our trade opportunities and international standing, and our very security, depend on us showing political leadership. This is the basic requirement of political premiers—

[Fred Thomas]

The hon. Member talks about political leadership, and I understand that. While we can all agree that Brexit has been an almost unmitigated disaster, the Labour party manifesto said that we will not go back into the EU, the customs union or the single market. That is the manifesto that I and all of us on this side of the Chamber stood on. You talk about leadership; do you agree that it is important for politicians to honour the manifesto they stood on?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. You are asking for the views of the hon. Lady, not me.

[Rosie Duffield]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but there are plenty of things that the Labour Government seem to be pushing through that were not in the manifesto. The people now in charge were campaigning, with those of us who were here then, against Brexit several years ago, and I would like them to stick to that.

Our trade opportunities and international standing, and our very security, depend on us showing political leadership. This is the basic requirement of political premiers: taking decisions—not just tough decisions on the economy, but bold, swift, courageous decisions during shifting geopolitical circumstances. Our tourism, arts, farming, university and financial sectors need help. It is time that this Government took some of those bold decisions, not only to reflect the will of those they represent, but to protect and secure the best future for the generations who depend on us to deliver it.

17:33

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate.

My constituents in Rushcliffe have long been outward-looking, internationally minded and overwhelmingly pro-European. They understand that Brexit has not delivered the promised benefits, and they feel that the economic, social and geopolitical consequences of Brexit can be seen in their daily lives. I thank the 311 people from my constituency who signed the petition, and congratulate the lead petitioner for bringing us to the point of debating this matter today.

As so many of my colleagues have already said, it is clear that the UK’s trade has suffered, its productivity has fallen and investment has stalled since it left the EU. We have heard about the OBR estimates, but I believe that Goldman Sachs suggests that UK GDP has fallen by an even greater amount—maybe 5% or even up to 8%—and is therefore lower than it would have been without Brexit. One of my colleagues has already referenced the fact that 1.8 million fewer jobs were created by 2023. Our small businesses, in particular in sectors like agrifood and manufacturing, are bearing the brunt of new barriers to trade. We have also heard that 16,400 small businesses have ceased exporting to the EU since 2021.

For my constituents, those are not abstract figures; ultimately, they translate into higher prices at the checkout, fewer opportunities for our young people and, for all of us, diminished global influence. However, although rejoining the EU is a goal for many in my constituency, and a position that I would like us to pursue, we must be pragmatic about the challenges that that process will entail.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I think the vast majority of people in the room and, certainly, across my constituency have their eyes open to the challenges of Brexit and the obstacles we faced. Does my hon. Friend agree that the world has changed and that, in the new world order, what is possible for Europe, including our own country, will change too? As he says, we need pragmatic and creative solutions to strengthen and protect our place in an increasingly uncertain world. Does he agree that a new bargain, in which we have access to the single market in exchange for security assurances and a mechanism for reasonable, but not legally required, regulatory alignment, where the benefits outweigh the costs—not with free movement—could be a route forward?

[James Naish]

The reality is that there are several routes forward, and a number of them have been mentioned today. I implore the Government to think creatively about them. I will come to a couple of my own suggestions in a moment.

Rejoining would be a long and complex journey. It would require unanimous agreement from all 27 EU member states, and we would need to demonstrate sustained public and cross-party support over several years. I say this as someone who, in 2013-14, was living in Albania and working for the Government there. Albania became an official candidate for accession to the EU in June 2014; 10 years on, it is not a member.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think that anyone in this Chamber, or the petitioners, expects the Labour party to lead us back into the EU tomorrow. What we want to hear from this Labour Government is a commitment that that is their objective and that is what they will work towards.

[James Naish]

It is forward movement and momentum that many of my constituents want to see. I will come to a couple of the things that I think could be done to achieve that.

We cannot afford to wait 10 years to address some of the very real challenges that we face as a country. Practical, tangible steps can be taken to help to build a stronger and closer relationship with the EU. Many of those things have already been mentioned, including negotiating a security and defence partnership to co-operate on international development, and access to the EU’s new €150 billion defence financing instrument. We could reach a veterinary agreement to reduce costly border checks. We could join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. We could align on emissions trading schemes with the EU, to avoid costly charges to UK exporters. We could explore a youth mobility scheme, as we have with countries such as Australia and Canada, so that the next generation can build relationships and young people can have the chance to work, study and build connections across Europe.

Those measures would not only strengthen our economic ties, but restore trust and co-operation with our European partners at a time of geopolitical uncertainty. Russia’s aggression continues to grow, and global challenges are significant, so closer collaboration between the UK and the EU is not just desirable, but essential for our security and prosperity.

Next year, 2026, will mark 10 years since the Brexit vote. As I have said to many constituents on the doorstep, I can picture the newspaper columns, TV programmes and extensive discussion that will take place as we approach June 2026. I believe that it is a perfect time for a national conversation about what our future relationship with Europe looks like, and I am sure that many Members present will want to be part of that conversation.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, in particular on that point about our nearing the decade anniversary. Does he agree that, in some senses, we need to put the vote behind us and reflect on the management of the Brexit decision? It is hard to believe that I will say this often, but does he agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who said in her 2025 new year speech:

“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU…These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later”?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the position has changed. There were a lot of mistakes. We do not need to go back to the past and examine all that, but I think we will need a national conversation about where our relationship with Europe is in 2026. Indeed, we are having that conversation today, but I feel that that will be a natural springboard, 10 years on from the vote, and I sincerely hope that, as a nation, we take that conversation to heart.

My constituents in Rushcliffe understand that Britain is strongest when it is connected, co-operative and engaged with its European neighbours. My constituents expect us in this House, and the Government, to act decisively to help rebuild that relationship. That is the path we must take, and I implore the Government to think creatively about the best ways of doing that.

17:41

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The petition reflects how strongly the public—including the 367 in my constituency who signed it—feel about the UK’s future relationship with Europe.

If we listen carefully, we can still hear echoes of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal promises as whispers on the wind—“sunlit uplands”, “global Britain”, “endless opportunities”—but nearly five years after that deal came into effect, the sunlit uplands look suspiciously gloomy, global Britain seems isolated and the promised opportunities have become lost chances, especially for our young people.

The Government claim to be serious about growth yet they continue to ignore the most impactful step we could take: a UK-EU customs union. Entering a customs union would remove mountains of red tape, eliminate cumbersome rules of origin checks and unlock significant growth for businesses, both large and small. It would provide immediate relief for countless small and medium-sized enterprises suffocating under bureaucracy, and significantly boost our exports to our largest and nearest market.

Studies consistently show that aligning closely with European markets is overwhelmingly beneficial to British trade, employment and economic stability. A recent report from Best for Britain estimates that simply deeply aligning with the EU on goods and services could increase GDP by 1.7% to 2.2%. Why would we not want to do that? A bespoke customs union would also insulate us from Trump’s irrational pro-tariff policies, which have already begun to harm our economic growth. Once that customs union is achieved, we should look to join the single market, which would provide even greater opportunities for growth.

Instead of grasping that opportunity, the Government are busy cutting welfare and slashing international aid—actions that weaken, rather than strengthen, our economy. Last week I attended the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, at which the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), was also present. The Assembly issued a joint statement that included the possibility of UK accession to the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, as referenced by the hon. Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are seriously considering that—and, if so, on what sort of timetable?

The Tories’ botched Brexit deal has undoubtedly reduced opportunities, particularly for our youth. Young Brits can easily travel to and work in Canada, Australia or Japan, yet they are inexplicably blocked from France, Germany and Spain. Why? Because ideology trumps common sense. It is high time for a reciprocal youth mobility scheme with the EU—not a return to freedom of movement but a sensible, time-limited arrangement enabling young Brits to gain invaluable experiences abroad, like they used to, and like many of us grew up with. Such a scheme would be a clear win-win, benefiting the UK and the EU.

The tourism industry was once thriving, with enthusiastic young Brits keen to explore and work in Europe, but now faces severe labour shortages. Hospitality, retail and the arts have similarly suffered, deprived of the vibrant exchange of talent and ideas that once powered innovation and cultural enrichment. A youth mobility scheme is not only desirable, but an economic and strategic necessity.

Just recently, representatives from our legal services sector highlighted to me the significant challenges they face without mobility for young professionals. A youth mobility scheme would allow aspiring British lawyers and other professionals to work across Europe, boosting our exports of expertise, generating growth and enhancing Britain’s reputation for excellence internationally.

In her comments, will the Minister clarify whether the Government have any plans to negotiate such an arrangement, regardless of whether it is called a youth exchange, experience or mobility scheme—I am not too concerned about how it is branded—and, crucially, to treat it as a serious priority?

Farmers have encountered unprecedented bureaucratic obstacles when exporting to Europe, leading to a decline in overall exports in an already struggling industry. That is why we must negotiate a phytosanitary and veterinary agreement with urgency.

The current deal’s negative impact stretches even further. Just recently, the EU announced €150 billion for defence procurement, potentially rising to €800 billion in the coming years. That is funding from which the UK is completely excluded, meaning that billions of euros in research, innovation, high-skilled employment opportunities and global competitiveness will be lost because of sheer political stubbornness.

[Dr Chambers]

Some of the greatest challenges facing civilisation right now include climate change, how we feed 8 billion people and give them energy sustainably, the risk of pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance. Does my hon. Friend agree that barriers to research are not only damaging our universities and industries, but hindering the tackling of these huge problems?

[James MacCleary]

Yes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) spoke about that at length. Those barriers are clearly harming not only the UK research environment, but the global research environment. At a time when academics in the United States are being hounded out of universities and looking for other places to take their expertise, Europe is an obvious place to go. That could benefit our country substantially and, indeed, address the challenges my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) outlines.

Does the Minister agree that in order to counteract issues around defence procurement in particular, we must negotiate a UK-EU defence pact that ensures that Britain remains central to collective decisions about continental security, particularly during Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine? Our exclusion from crucial European programmes leads directly to reduced investment, fewer high-skilled jobs and diminished international standing, precisely when unity and strength are essential.

Speaking of the architects of the botched Brexit, where exactly is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? According to Hansard, he has mentioned Brexit just twice since his election in July. Surely, if this Brexit deal was the monumental success that he and others promised, he would be reminding us no end of times. His silence speaks volumes. Even he seems aware that this supposed triumph is best quietly forgotten.

We want to see this country back at the heart of Europe, but we must be clear-eyed about how severely the Conservatives damaged the UK’s relationship with our EU partners and how long it will take to rebuild. Trump’s return to the White House and his appeasement of Putin add new urgency to that task. His aggressive trade and defence stance reminds us of just how crucial our European ties are, not just economically but strategically.

Our real strength comes from unity and partnership. Together, as part of a larger European community, we wield far greater influence, command substantially more resources and drive innovation more effectively than when we are standing alone. Shared European co-operation amplifies our ability to fund ambitious research and development, enhance collective security and promote our shared liberal democratic values globally. Far from diminishing our sovereignty, collaboration with Europe expands and reinforces it.

The Government must move beyond cherry-picking and timid gestures and take a bold strategic stance in their approach to Europe—one grounded in realism, ambition and the national interest. Their self-defeating red lines are holding our country back. They claim they will do “whatever it takes” for economic growth, and that must surely include ditching their nonsensical red lines.

British jobs and businesses, our international influence and our young people’s futures depend on constructive engagement, not stubborn isolation. It is time for the Government to swallow their pride, to acknowledge reality and to begin rebuilding the bridges that the Tories so recklessly burned. Let us ensure that future generations inherit opportunities and co-operation, not barriers and isolation. Our young people deserve better. Our small businesses and our farmers deserve better. Britain deserves better.

17:50

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) and fellow Welshman for securing this important debate.

Wales’s agricultural sector is at the heart of our social fabric, employing more than 50,000 people. It is central to our economy, our food security and the preservation of our stunning countryside. Yet since Brexit, our farmers have faced severe challenges. Brexit has without doubt created significant challenges, particularly for trade relations.

The EU was, and remains, a critical trading partner for Wales, with a substantial 75% of Welsh food and drink exports destined for the trading bloc. However, a report from the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy revealed that UK food and agricultural exports to the EU have dropped by more than 16% on average since we left the EU single market, which equates to a staggering £3 billion less in exports annually. The introduction of border checks for agrifood products and of regulatory hurdles has made it increasingly difficult for Welsh farmers to compete on a level playing field. Those changes have led to higher costs, delays and uncertainty, making it harder to maintain smooth supply chains, something that particularly affects our smaller businesses.

Moreover, Brexit’s impact on labour shortages in the UK food industry has been severe, with a significant proportion of workers in the agrifood and meat sectors coming from the EU. The reduced availability of workers has created operational challenges and pushed up production costs, further straining the financial stability of Welsh farms. Additionally, uncertainty about the future of subsidy structures and support mechanisms remains. The lack of clarity on agricultural policies across the UK has made Wales less attractive for inward investment, leaving businesses uncertain about what lies ahead.

The Tories let down our farmers time and again, signing disastrous trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, forcing more than 12,000 farmers and agribusinesses out of business since 2010 and mishandling the Brexit negotiations. Their failures have deepened the financial struggles of Welsh farmers, and we must learn from those mistakes. We must rebuild trust, repair the damage caused by rushed trade deals and fight for a fair and competitive post-Brexit trading environment. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration has been given to constituents such as mine in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, who rely heavily on a free, stable and healthy agricultural sector, in the Government’s commitment to reset the UK’s relationship with the European Union.

17:53

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the petitioners on securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his eloquent and passionate speech.

I fear that I am in danger of picking at the scars and wounds referred to by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—a very learned Member—but I must reflect on these past nine years. On 23 June 2016, the people of Scotland voted to remain within the European Union by 62% to 38%. There was a majority for remain in every single one of Scotland’s local authorities. In anyone’s terms, that was decisive, and if the vote were rerun today, I suggest it would be even more decisive.

It is almost nine years since the disastrous misleading of the electorate by Gove, Johnson, Farage et al., and we might want to consider the extent to which this failure of democracy has increased support for Scottish independence—from 45% to 54% and rising. But still and all, democracy has been undermined in Scotland, because the imposition of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 restricted the previously agreed powers of the Scottish Parliament and ignored the Sewel convention by proceeding with UK legislation without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As a result of Brexit, we are a much poorer nation, at a time when we cannot afford to be poorer. That poverty equates to £3 billion in lost public revenues for Scotland each and every year since we left Europe.

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

The hon. Member is of course right to talk about the economic impact of Brexit, but would it have been different if the vote had been won on our joining the customs union—a vote that the SNP abstained on?

[Seamus Logan]

I cannot comment, as I was not here at the time, but we will come back to the issue of the customs union in a moment.

The UK has endured the highest rate of inflation in the G7 for many months. Brexit has exacerbated the cost of living crisis, driving a £250 increase in annual household food bills. Food and drink inflation in 2023 was at a 45-year high, with food prices up by almost 25 percentage points between 2019 and 2023. Analysis suggests that a third of that increase is due to Brexit, meaning UK households have paid out almost £7 billion to cover the extra costs of overcoming trade barriers that make importing food from the EU harder.

No community has escaped, but inevitably it is our poorest families who are hurting the most. Our business community is also enduring increased costs and damaged trade. According to Scottish Government analysis, 44% of businesses in Scotland face difficulties trading overseas, and named Brexit as the main cause. They face significant additional costs and bureaucracy at a time when their margins are already being squeezed at home by decisions made here in Westminster. Our prized seafood industry has been hit with an estimated 50% increase in the cost of packaging items sent to the EU, and new export health certificates are costing the salmon sector alone approximately £1.3 million per year.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing dismay at the fact that, for the bivalve fishing industry, the waters of Wales were no longer acceptable, and that industry died with Brexit.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the right hon. Member for that point. Our fishing industry has effectively lost quota share and has access to fewer fishing opportunities for some species than it had under the EU’s common fisheries policy. That includes, for example, North sea whiting, where the maximum percentage of total EU and UK quota available is 73.5% compared with average UK landings in 2015 to 2019 of 82%. Even where quota has been gained through the TCA, much of it is for species that the Scottish fleet does not generally catch, or does not want to catch, making it of little practical value.

In the wider seafood sector, some shellfish exporters have estimated that the new barriers to trade with the EU have resulted in additional costs of £500 to £600 per consignment, making some exports unviable. Seafood Scotland has described post-Brexit labour shortages as having a huge impact on the seafood processing sector, with businesses turning down growth opportunities due to a lack of labour. We no longer enjoy freedom of movement—it has gone—despite the promises of the then candidate for leader of the Labour party in 2020, now the Prime Minister.

Some 45% of tourism businesses in the highlands and islands have reported staff shortages, forcing otherwise successful firms to cut their opening hours. In July 2022, UKHospitality reported 40,000 hospitality vacancies in Scotland, but the sector is excluded from the UK Government’s seasonal worker scheme. Recent media reporting found that one hotel in the highlands alone is short of 70 staff for the busy summer season. In response to an oral question recently, the Prime Minister told me he was fully aware of the labour shortages and was working to address them. I have two questions for the Minister when she winds up, and the first is: how exactly is the Prime Minister working to address those shortages?

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

Travel is more difficult and costly as Brexit has slowed down the process of entering the EU on a British passport. Business travellers and holidaymakers report long delays at some airports and extremely long tailbacks at the port of Dover. Pets can be brought into the European area only with an animal health certificate, which must be issued by a vet and can cost between £100 and £300 per trip. Most mobile phone operators have reintroduced roaming charges, which were abolished for EU members in 2017. Perhaps most shamefully, our young people miss huge opportunities as a result of Brexit because, as many Members said, we are no longer participating in Erasmus+.

In summary, our democratic will is being ignored, we are poorer, the cost of living is climbing, business is suffering, we do not have enough workers, foreign travel is more difficult and expensive, and our young people have lost enormous opportunity. History will reserve an especially harsh judgment for those who misled us down this path. Paradoxically, we are now forced into closer defence relationships with our European allies and higher spending in the face of the growing threat of Russian aggression. But we cannot say that we were not warned that, while the creation of the European Union has been a bulwark for peace in Europe since 1945, its weakening would potentially threaten that peace.

In conclusion, I ask the question that we should all ask: who really benefited from Brexit? It certainly was not the ordinary people. But rather than speak about how bad this all is, let us do something about it. I feel a teeny, wee bit sorry for the Chancellor at the minute, but I am giving her a way out: rejoin the single market, rejoin the customs union and get the benefits that they offer.

18:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Chair—I notice that you have got younger just in the last few minutes. [Laughter.] I hope it is orderly to flatter the Chair.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Speak for as long as you like!

[Dr Arthur]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate so ably, and the many people in Edinburgh South West who signed this petition. I will speak briefly because what I was going to talk about has been well trod. Brexit has been an absolute tragedy for the UK, both economically and culturally. The Conservatives have taken a share of the blame today, along with Reform and its predecessor parties, but I have to be honest and say that when I think about how close the Brexit result was, I think about my party’s leadership at that time. More could have been done, so some blame should certainly be shared there.

I came to this place last July from higher education, so I want to speak about the impact of Brexit on that sector. I do so in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I should also mention that Patrick Thomson from the University of Strathclyde is shadowing me today—which so far has largely involved drinking coffee when I drink coffee. In higher education, Brexit has been problematic. Fewer students now come from the EU to Scottish universities. That is primarily not a money issue; it is about the diversity of thought within the classroom. It is a real problem and it leaves us all poorer. It is harder for universities to attract staff from the EU now. If we are serious about growing the economy, we need the best staff from around the world in our universities, and we should not be ashamed of that. I remember when we were going through the Brexit process, EU nationals were leaving universities and going back to Europe. That is a tragedy, and we should be ashamed of it.

Research funding from within the EU has got harder. I know it has improved slightly recently, but during the process it was difficult to build consortiums with a UK lead, and some partners were even worried about having UK universities within their consortiums, so we should not overlook the impact of that. Those problems only amplify the wider economic problems that Brexit has imposed on our economy, and they are felt more inside our university sector. I am pleased that the current Government are trying to rebuild relationships and get as close as possible with Europe. If we are doing that work and looking for trailblazers, that should be done within our universities, because there is much more that can be done to rebuild those relationships.

I support this petition on rejoining the EU as soon as possible, but what does “as soon as possible” mean? My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) explained that it could take many years of harmonisation, which is a real challenge for us; however, the bigger challenge is the division and acrimony that comes with referendums, because we would need a referendum to go back in. I have lived through the Scottish independence referendum and the Brexit referendum, both of which divided our communities and were toxic in many respects. They divided families, workplaces and even households, which is incredible. We have to start building the case right now if we are to avoid that situation happening again, and we must make the positive arguments for rejoining the EU. We should start making them from within universities, because that is where international collaboration works best.

I also think that people were not wrong to vote for Brexit, but they were misled, so we have to be honest with them about that. We must explain why things have not unfolded as they were promised by people not in this room today, who should be owning up to the tragedy that they created. We have to be honest, frank and transparent with people, and we have to lead this debate. Hopefully, after the next election, we can build up to that referendum to rejoin.

18:06

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition. We all know by now that, thanks to the Conservatives and their allies in Reform, the relationship between the UK, Wales and the EU has been severely damaged. Falling out with our neighbours is particularly self-defeating during this fracturing era of global politics, and Wales is paying a particularly heavy price for that fraying relationship.

We are a nation of manufacturers, small businesses and farmers, and those three sectors have been throttled by red tape, hindering our trade with the European Union. In my constituency, a small local business in Radnorshire that makes parts for classic motorcycles is heavily reliant on EU trade, yet over Christmas, with no warning from the Department for Business and Trade, it was told that it was now incompatible with EU directives. That is just one example of how Brexit-related bureaucracy is harming businesses and damaging trade with our neighbours.

Farmers and the food and drink industry across Wales are also waiting for the long-promised UK veterinary agreement. Studies show that such an agreement could boost UK agrifood exports to the EU by at least 22%, providing a vital boost to rural areas such as mine. However, we have still received no timeline from the current Labour Government on when that is likely to happen.

It is not just the economic impact, though, but the cultural and social loss for young people. I thank my good fortune that I had the opportunity to live and study at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Those sorts of opportunities broaden horizons and contribute to growth. One of the cruellest and most short-sighted decisions by the previous Government was pulling us out of the Erasmus programme. In Wales, the Liberal Democrats stepped up to reverse the damage. Former Education Minister Kirsty Williams introduced the Taith exchange programme that, unlike its English counterpart, has been praised for ensuring accessibility for students from less privileged backgrounds.

Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats want to see the UK back at the heart of Europe, which would mean rejoining Erasmus, tearing down trade barriers and signing a youth mobility scheme with our EU counterparts —something the Labour Government have so far refused to do. The arc of human progress should ensure that older generations pass on more opportunities to younger generations than they have themselves enjoyed. We are living in a time when that arc of progress has gone into reverse, and us pro-Europeans must now win the argument for a stronger EU with Great Britain at its heart.

I was concerned to hear the word “pragmatic” used several times in this debate, because it sounds like pragmatic reasons are being given as excuses for not making more progress in rebuilding our relationship with the EU. We should be concerned by talk about pragmatism and arguments made solely in rational language, because those arguments failed miserably in 2016, when arguments were built as to why we should stay in the European Union based solely on rational economic language.

The EU is a pragmatic project, but at its core it is also an idealistic one. It is a project grounded in ideals, and in the idea that the nations of central Europe should never go to war again. It succeeded in that mission, making it one of the most successful political projects ever in mankind’s history. When we are making the argument for rejoining the European Union, let us use the language of idealism, not just rationalism. Unless we build a case for the UK to rejoin the EU based on idealist language and get people to buy into the ideals on which the European Union was founded, we will not have long-term buy-in to the project among the people we need to convince.

18:10

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

I am afraid my contribution will jar with the cosy consensus of the debate, if we should call it a debate, because has it not just been an echo chamber for the laments of two or three dozen Europhile MPs? It has not been a debate at all, but what brings us here are 130,000-odd signatures on a petition. Well, of course, what that immediately calls to mind is the contrast with the 17,410,742 British voters who made the most consequential decision in the greatest democratic decision ever made by the greatest number of people ever voting. That embarrasses them. That is why, almost two hours into this debate, this is the first time we have heard that figure, because those in this Chamber have their face set against that democratic decision.

This petition is notable in its arrogance. It does not even say, “Well, let’s have another referendum.” No—in its arrogance, it demands that we simply rejoin the EU, which the British people decided democratically to leave. I know that is an uncomfortable fact, but that is the core issue.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of uncomfortable facts. Has he been listening to the uncomfortable facts that have been shared in this debate?

[Jim Allister]

Let me give the hon. Member and others some rather uncomfortable facts. I am delighted to tell those Euro-fanatics who gather in this hallowed hall today that only 50 of my constituents in North Antrim signed this petition. Of course that is for very good reason, because unlike the rest of you, we have continued to have to live under the EU. We have continued to be subject to the bureaucratic stranglehold of the EU single market and its customs code. What has that meant? It has meant that in over 300 areas of law we in Northern Ireland are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament in which we have no say. That is the product of the denial of Brexit to the people of Northern Ireland. That is how we have been left. Those are the laws that govern the single market.

I hear the moving desire of hon. Members to be back in the single market, but let me tell them what that has meant for Northern Ireland: we were told that it was the best of both worlds and a panacea, and if only we all had the best of both worlds. Well, having the best of both worlds and being able to sell into the mighty market of the EU was supposed to bring a flood of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. According to some enthusiasts, we were going to be the Singapore of the west, but the reality is that there has not been one foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland because of single market access.

Before people get what they wish for, I caution them that being in the single market is no panacea. As I have already illustrated, in Northern Ireland it comes at the price of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Everyone here seems to want to put the whole United Kingdom in that position. I have heard hon. Members lament American tariffs, but they want to put themselves in the club that will be most tariffed by the United States. Where is the logic in that? It really is beyond belief.

The real lesson from Northern Ireland is that the growth in our economy has come in the services sector, which is the sector that is outside EU control. Of the two sectors—manufacturing and services—the sector that has grown is the one outside EU control. The one that is still under the EU’s control is the one that has struggled and has not grown. That is a telling reminder of what it means for people to subjugate themselves in a subservient way to rules made in a foreign Parliament.

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. and learned Member is right that many of us feel desperately sad about the position that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. However, I hate to tell him that because of the value of the Good Friday agreement, the services sector is included in the Northern Ireland protocol.

The hon. and learned Gentleman made much stir of the 50 people from his constituency who deigned to sign the petition, dismissing those who might be supportive of having a relationship with the European Union. What does he say to the 693,525 voters in Northern Ireland—the majority of voters in Northern Ireland—who voted to remain? There are many issues of contention thrown around in this debate, but if he wants to talk numbers, those numbers matter.

[Jim Allister]

Two things: the hon. Member is wrong that services fall under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. They are not. They are free from it, so she is simply wrong about that. On the question of Northern Ireland voting in favour of remaining, so what? [Laughter.] That was not the question on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

As Members titter and congratulate each other, they might as well say, “Well didn’t London vote to remain?” So what? It was a national vote; it was not about how the regions voted, because the question on my ballot paper, as on yours Sir John, was did I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay—that was the question. My only regret is that in my part of the United Kingdom, we were not delivered the Brexit that was voted for.

18:14

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate all the petitioners on securing this important debate. More than 400 signatures came from my constituents alone, and I believe it is democratic to debate these important issues. Today is the start of a very important debate, and I hope the Government will listen.

I say to the petitioners that I fought to the last to stop Brexit. I was shocked and grieving when we left in January 2020, and I almost took it as a personal failure that we could not stop Brexit. I would be the first to agree that Brexit is not working, and we have heard why this afternoon.

Like my wonderful friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), I am a European product. I would not be here without the EU. I am German by birth and origin. I met and married my British husband, and I became a British citizen when I was 30. For the last 35 years, I have tried to get rid of my German accent.

Through those many years, I have always been a European at heart. That heart was somewhat taken out of me, but through my scars, incomprehension and shock, I have come to understand that looking back is not an option now. We must find new ways of engagement and a new language to define our relationship with the European Union. We have to be pragmatic, realistic and honest with our constituents. I expect our Government not to look backwards, but to define what a reset of our relationship will lead to. The Liberal Democrats believe that the end of that journey should be being at the heart of the European Union once more.

Last week, I was in Brussels as a member of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, as were a number of colleagues here today. The Assembly is the only formal body in which UK parliamentarians engage with EU parliamentarians. I heard from our European friends that the TCA is the EU’s most comprehensive and wide-ranging trade agreement with any third country, which is because the UK is an ex-member. No other country has left the European Union; most want to accede.

It is important to recognise that the EU is quite happy with the TCA, and it does not necessarily want to reopen those discussions. We can theorise and test how far the TCA can go, but we have to recognise that the EU is currently quite happy with it. However, the EU does want to engage on its concerns about people-to-people contact, a sustainable energy future, and security and resilience.

On people-to-people contact, the EU has mainly been proposing a youth mobility scheme. We Liberal Democrats were first out of the box to say we should agree to that. It is not helpful if the Government say that a youth mobility scheme is a return to free movement —it is not. We have to consider what a youth mobility scheme could realistically look like.

Although I tried in the last Parliament to look at whether we could go back to something like Erasmus+, I recognise that it would cost the Government a lot of money, so I cannot see it happening just now. The Turing scheme, which is not just about students but apprenticeships and other exchanges for young people, is accessible only to British citizens. We should therefore consider whether there is an opportunity to make Turing reciprocal. I urge the Government at least to look at that, because it would make some sort of movement towards the European Union.

Secondly, energy security is a shared concern, and the European Union wants to engage on energy security. However, the current system through which we trade our energy is not working. It was set up as part of the TCA, it is called something very complicated—multi-region loose volume coupling—and it has to be replaced by something a lot more ambitious than the current price coupling model

That is particularly important if we want to draw in the vital private investment to realise the huge potential of the North sea for our shared clean power plan. Again, I urge the Government at least to look at how we are trading our energy. This would have big advantages not only for UK citizens but for EU citizens, and the EU is open to having such discussions.

Another issue is, of course, the emissions trading scheme. Again, I do not expect the Government ultimately to follow a European model entirely, but we need to align as far as possible.

Finally, it is obviously in our shared interest to protect and defend Europe. When we were talking about security co-operation, someone from the European side said, “Oh, we have to look at whether this needs a new legal framework.” I would say in response, “If the European Union is talking about new legal frameworks, that is probably not the pragmatic and realistic solution we are looking for.”

However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) that unless we find ways to improve security procurement and to work together on the supply chains to ensure that our defence systems work together, including by determining where we produce things, the reset of our relationship will be just warm words.

I urge the Government to move away from warm words—at the PPA, we all exchanged warm words about our new relationship—towards action and results. Otherwise, we will be talking about a reset for many decades. We need action from the Government now.

18:26

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

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

I have listened very carefully to all the speeches today. Some were fine; some were perhaps not so fine. And I have to say that I am not entirely sure where we are. I do not know what to make of this debate. I am really confused, and I hope the winding-up speeches will help me to get a better understanding of where the House is.

I say that because I heard Labour say throughout last year’s general election campaign that the only important thing are the red lines. It was all about not joining the single market or the customs union, and that was about it. As the months passed, we started to hear about this reset, and I thought, “Okay, let’s examine this. What does it mean? What are we going to get from this reset?” We have found that it is not very much. For this Government, a “reset” is the EU doing this Government some sort of favour to mitigate some of the impacts of Brexit without the Government giving anything back in return.

People have raised the issues of touring musicians and the youth mobility scheme, with both of which I am particularly associated. I do not know if I have mentioned it before, but I was a rock musician back in the day and toured Europe extensively. These two issues are related, because a negotiation started to happen within the EU. There was a sense that, in return for offering a youth mobility scheme to Europe, we would secure the rights for our artists to tour freely within the European Union once again, and that some sort of creative passport and visa would be given to our bands so they could once again have the pleasure of playing within the European Union. However, that was rejected out of hand. The Government were not interested, and these are their last words when it comes to a youth mobility scheme:

“We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement.”

I say to Labour Members and colleagues in the Chamber today that I am encouraged by their enthusiasm for the European Union. I take heart from the fact they are starting to talk again about the single market and the customs union. And I say sincerely to them, “Go for it! Please, go for it! You’re our only hope.”

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He suggests that we “go for it” on the customs union, but I think he was one of the MPs who abstained when he had that chance. Why the SNP abstained is a great mystery in Scottish politics. Can he explain why?

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot believe we are still debating that. What happened that day, and this is my final word on the issue—the hon. Gentleman was not there, but I was—is that the vote was on a customs union, not the customs union. That proposition was unacceptable to us and other colleagues across the House.

Now I have dealt with that myth, and now it is out of the way, let us get back to the beginning. That was a disappointing intervention, because I am actually praising Labour Members. I am saying that there is hope at last for those of us who want to return to the European Union, and that is great.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows to speak through the Chair. He is just about getting away with it. That was a good exchange, but let us continue.

[Pete Wishart]

I remind Labour Members that the petition actually reads:

“Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible”.

There are two key parts to it: “as a full member” and “as soon as possible”. It does not ask for a positive and good reset, but for the UK to rejoin the EU. That is the sort of territory that we must start to get back into, and that will come only from Labour Members. They have such a huge majority that if they all come together and ensure that we have a collective voice on that point, it will make a difference.

I encourage Labour Members to pursue this issue and keep on taking it to their Government—to argue with passion and conviction that they want the UK to be back in the European Union. That is the only thing that will satisfy the petitioners, because that is what they want. As has been rightly said, the UK public are way ahead of the House on this issue; some 60% of them now want the UK to rejoin the European Union. We should look at what they want. If one of the parties—just one—were to say, “We are totally committed to full EU membership,” that would be immensely popular; it would go with the grain of public opinion throughout the United Kingdom.

I say to Labour Members that economic growth has been pretty hard to find; they have not been able to do much in the past few months, and we have another reset coming up on Wednesday. When it comes to the economic conditions of this country, addressing Brexit and rejoining the single market would unlock massive investment for the United Kingdom and get us back on our feet again—that is where economic growth could come from. Labour Members have to look at this issue as a way to address some of the economic difficulties that they find themselves in.

I am encouraged that we now have group of Labour Members of Parliament who are sincere in their desire to rejoin the European Union. That does not have to happen tomorrow or next year, but the Government have to say today that it is their intention to rejoin the European Union as a full member. That is what the petitioners are asking for, and, if I have it correctly, they want it to happen as soon as possible.

18:32

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate Robert McMaster on creating this petition and I thank the 330 residents of my constituency who signed it—putting us in the top 5% in the country.

Five years ago, I gave my final speech in the European Parliament as leader of the Liberal Democrat group of MEPs. In that speech, I described Brexit as “a backward step” and as

“a vanity project that has no basis in reality.”

The fact that none of the four current Reform Members or any Conservatives—apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who is bravely sitting on his own—is here in the Chamber to defend Brexit speaks volumes.

Leaving the European Union was a significant moment. We left a union of nations that was established to promote peace on our continent, that had seen the dismantling of barriers between nations, and that had enabled trade and cultural ties to flourish. In terms of international co-operation, what the European Union has achieved is second to none in the world. I still believe that we are stronger together and that, as a small island nation, we played a much bigger part on the international stage as one of the key members of that union.

Nobody wants to revisit the division and toxicity of the Brexit debate, which dominated our national discourse for years. I understand the hesitation of the Government even to go there, but we must not forget that that debate was fuelled by misinformation and outright lies about what leaving the European Union would mean for the UK. Ultimately, it was a playground rivalry between two of our now former Prime Ministers that played out on the national stage, with one side never really believing that they would win and the other not preparing the ground for what would be a seismic shift in the way we do business and trade with our nearest neighbours.

I still believe that leaving the EU was one of the worst decisions that this country has made, and it is what brought me into politics. Having sat in this Parliament as a Member for almost exactly the same amount of time as I sat in the European Parliament, I can honestly say that the democratic deficit is not in Brussels. As an Opposition MP in this place, I believe I have less influence over decisions that will affect the people and the economy of my constituency than I did as a Member of the European Parliament. A Government elected by just one in three voters in this country have secured the biggest majority—aside from 1997—since the second world war, and yet they have chosen to set themselves red lines around our relationship with the European Union that continue to thwart growth, hamper economic development and curtail the opportunities of our young people, all of which are unnecessary and deeply damaging to the standing and prosperity of the UK.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding—possibly, a wilful ignorance—by those in Government as to what the British public really want now. I will use the example of Brixham in my constituency. Brixham is one of the major fishing ports in the UK, a place where the community believed the lies that they were told about what Brexit would mean for the fishing industry. When campaigning in Brixham over the past couple of years, I lost count of the number of people who told me that they had been lied to and who felt cheated by Brexit. People who would never have wanted to elect a Liberal Democrat wore the yellow T-shirt with the “Stop Brexit” slogan back in 2019, and they went out to vote for me last year, because they are so angry at what they see as a betrayal of their trust.

[Dr Arthur]

I cannot resist—did the hon. Member say that people were so angry they voted Lib Dem?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. People vote Lib Dem for lots of reasons—but maybe they do not think that we will betray them in the same way that the Conservatives did.

Only last week, with many colleagues, I returned to the European Parliament as part of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. While there, I heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), refer to research by Aston University that showed that exports to the European Union have fallen by 27% since Brexit. For a Government who want growth, that figure alone should be enough to change their attitude.

That figure is no surprise, however, to anyone who talks to some of the businesses in my constituency. One shellfish exporter tells me that they have to have 17 pieces of paper signed by a vet for every consignment of mussels they export to the EU, making it impossible to trade efficiently with their biggest customer and hampering growth in their business. A small household product retailer has had to end trade with all EU customers because of the new GPSR—general product safety regulation. Delicatessens struggle to cope with the red tape involved in importing smaller shipments of wine and food for the UK, which is the kind of regulations that only big suppliers are able to manage—I am sure that is repeated right across the country. A precision engineering company’s exports have also been badly affected by Brexit red tape—on and on it goes.

Apart from the impact on trade, the opportunities for our young people are being severely curtailed by Brexit. I will not revisit all the arguments that several Members have put forward in this debate, except to say that it is a tragedy that our children and grandchildren will not have the chances that we had—that so many of us had—to go to Europe to develop skills, including cultural understanding and language skills, and to bring all that experience back to the UK. It is high time that the Government agreed a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Last week, I welcomed the PPA agreement that said that the Government understood the need to establish a youth opportunity scheme, including apprenticeships. We all understand the need; let us hope that the Government will go further than that and address it.

Our country has been impoverished by Brexit in so many ways—economically, culturally and politically. I am sure that I am not the only one to be absolutely demoralised by the millions of hours of negotiations that took us out of the European Union, and now, potentially, the millions more that will go into negotiating the piecemeal, bit-by-bit replacements for all the benefits that we lost.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. On that point about the many hours taken to renegotiate and change the deal to get potential customs union access, we are now hearing talk from the Government about cutting waste in Whitehall. The irony is that the additional burden put on civil servants in Whitehall due to Brexit is now being spoken about as something that we need to get rid of. Does she have a suggestion for something the Government could do in relation to the European Union to reduce the workload for civil servants?

[Caroline Voaden]

If it were that easy, I am sure the Government would get rid of all that red tape at the stroke of a pen. Sadly, I do not think it is that straightforward.

It is not just about the hours that were wasted in those negotiations; the cost of all those civil servants’ time is unimaginable. I appreciate the scars borne by Members who served through those years, as referenced by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), but I do not agree that we should not revisit our intentions, given the clear evidence that we now have of the disaster that Brexit has been.

The Conservative Government wrecked the UK’s relationship with Europe. The current Labour Government say that they want a reset, but no one I spoke to in Brussels last week was clear what that really means. Fixing our broken relationship with Europe is the most obvious way to boost our economy, providing much-needed funding to fix our public services. The single biggest thing we can do to turbocharge our economy in the medium and long term is form a customs union with the EU, tearing down the trade barriers and shredding the red tape that is holding us back. We must also fix our trading relationship to protect Britain from Trump’s trade war.

The Liberal Democrats have always believed that we are stronger as part of Europe. It is a long road back and, thanks to the Conservatives, it will take a long time to rebuild trust, but we owe it to future generations to make it happen. Sadly, it is probably too early to campaign to rejoin the EU right now—it is not even an option on the table—but we must take concrete steps towards it, rather than just repeating meaningless warm words, and start rebuilding the shattered relationship. To answer the petitioner’s question of whether the UK should rejoin the EU, I will go out on a limb and say that yes, I believe we should.

18:42

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate, and Robert and others for originating the petition.

Brexit is an issue that continues to shape the future of our economy. Way back in 2016, promises were made that our departure would lead to a stronger, more prosperous economy—promises from the likes of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). However, today we stand here confronting the harsh reality that those promises have not been fulfilled. Instead, costs have gone up and supply chains are disrupted.

Research from the London School of Economics concludes that leaving the EU reduced the value of our goods exports by an estimated £27 billion in 2022—a sum so large that it would plug the black hole created by the Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy and leave enough to build two and a half new Royal Berkshire hospitals on the edge of my constituency. The same study estimated that 14% of firms that previously exported to the EU have now stopped.

I know of one company that used to export over £0.5 million-worth of product to the EU, but the business with the EU stopped straight after Brexit. Recently, the owner told me that after several years they had got the business back. That was seemingly good news, but when I asked them what the profit margin was, they said, “Absolutely shot away”—nothing like it was before. That is one of the damaging effects of Brexit, and those are the losses felt by real people in our communities. Small businesses have been left to suffer most from the Conservatives’ legacy of creating trade barriers that are so expensive to overcome.

[Tim Roca]

The hon. Member talks about ridiculous trade barriers, which we have heard a lot about today. I and other members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were in Dover to see the preparations that the previous Government had made on trade barriers, particularly in relation to agricultural products coming into the UK, and were shocked to discover a £20 million facility in Bastion Point that was built but will never be used. Does that not exemplify Tory incompetence?

[Clive Jones]

It certainly does. They certainly know how to easily waste £20 million. They showed us that they were very good at doing that.

Shockingly, it is estimated that from 2021 up to the end of 2023, nearly 2 billion additional pieces of paper had to be filled out by British exporters as a result of our leaving the EU. They range from export declarations to transit declarations, origin certificates and other documents with obscure acronyms. It is a Gordian knot of red tape. It is a figure so large that if all 2 billion pieces of paper were put end to end, they could wrap around the circumference of the Earth 14.7 times, or reach the moon and come halfway back again. When the Government said that Brexit would be a stellar success, that was not what I thought they had in mind.

Marks and Spencer recently hit out against the Brexit bureaucracy that plagues our economy. I want to share some of its examples because they perfectly illustrate the day-to-day impact of the current Brexit deal in constraining our economy’s ability to grow. Before Brexit, lorries full of produce going from Scotland to the Republic of Ireland would need just one piece of paper listing what was in the trailer before setting off. Now, its trucks are armed with more than 200 pieces of paper, which take hours to complete and require niche details such as the Latin name for the chicken used in its tikka masalas. About 7,000 different Marks and Spencer products destined for Irish customers require export health certificates, and each certificate requires a vet to sign it off, costing Marks and Spencer more than £1 million a year. Exporting to the EU has become a nightmare, even for bigger companies, because of unnecessary administration and physical checks.

[Sean Woodcock]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Clive Jones]

I will.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I advise the hon. Member that I would like him to wind up his speech in a few moments so that I can get the other speakers in, so it would probably be better if he did not take another intervention. Forgive me, but I want to give these other people a chance.

[Clive Jones]

I will be very quick, Sir John.

The Prime Minister and others have started resetting the relationship with Europe. That cannot be easy because trust has been lost on the part of European leaders—it has completely disappeared. But we have to ask the Minister this: when can we expect tangible changes to be made to the trading relationship between the UK and the EU? Does the Minister recognise the difficulties that 2 billion pieces of paperwork present for our country’s businesses, and that that is massively constraining our ability to grow?

18:49

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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

This issue is close to the hearts of many of my constituents in Wimbledon and a key reason why I have the honour and privilege of representing them in Parliament today. We all know—well, almost all of us know—that the Tories’ botched Brexit deal has been a disaster for our country. They should hang their heads in shame, as should the previous leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who, among various failings, whipped his party to vote in favour of triggering article 50, firing the starting pistol on our leaving the EU, without any thought as to what form that exit might take. Nor should we forget the role of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his band of bickering Reform buddies, who, along with Trump and Putin, long advocated this hugely damaging, deeply unpatriotic act of self-harm. They tore up Churchill’s roadmap that sought to place the UK at the heart of Europe, at the behest of their idols in the Kremlin and now the White House.

The signatories of the petition are right to point out that Brexit has failed to deliver any tangible benefits. All it has done is burden businesses with red tape, restrict opportunities for young people and weaken our economy. This debate, however, should not be about the past; it should be about the future. How do we now get out of the mess caused by the mendacity of Reform, the opportunism of the Conservative party, the dogma of the Northern Ireland Unionists, and the weakness of the previous Labour leadership? If the Government are serious about growing the economy and Britain regaining its global economic, cultural and political prominence, they must begin by meaningfully re-engaging with Europe.

The EU is still our closest trading partner, accounting for 42% of our exports in 2023, yet the Conservative Brexit deal erected unnecessary trade barriers, creating expensive red tape that is holding back British firms, especially small businesses, costing our economy millions in lost exports. Although the current Government talk big on growth, they are failing to deliver. As I said in the Chamber last November, the Chancellor’s so-called Budget for growth did not do what it said on the tin, but kicked that very can down the road—perhaps, I should have said into the gutter. Closer ties with the EU is the fastest way to kickstart growth.

While the Government continue to tie themselves up with various red lines, they leave themselves with precious little room to negotiate. A youth mobility scheme with the EU would be a crucial first step forward. It is ludicrous that the Government refuse to consider it. The current arrangement is not only harming our economy, but denying our young people life-enhancing experiences. Furthermore, we need to join the Erasmus scheme. The UK’s exit from the programme has deprived students of valuable opportunities to study, learn and live in Europe, preventing young people from experiencing the cultural and professional benefits of living and working not just in EU states, but the many non-EU countries in the scheme.

We need to start talking to the EU about joining the PEM and then the customs union, as that would cut much of the red tape currently hampering our exporters. Doing so would remove unnecessary barriers, boost exports and lower the cost of imports, providing much-needed relief to businesses and consumers alike. Admittedly, joining the customs union would preclude us signing trade deals of our own, but given the experience thus far—the disadvantageous one struck with Australia and New Zealand—that would be no bad thing, especially with Trump now raising the prospect of us agreeing one with the US, which on all the evidence thus far, would doubtless benefit him far more than us.

The cultural impact of Brexit has been equally damaging to the UK. Britain is a global cultural leader, and our actors, artists and musicians are renowned worldwide, but Brexit has made it significantly harder for them to tour Europe due to expensive visas and excessive paperwork. The Lib Dems would push for cost-free, paper-free, short-term travel for UK artists and their support staff. We must also rejoin the EU’s Creative Europe programme to ensure that British culture continues to thrive on the international stage.

As I have outlined, if we want to restore Britain’s place in the world, we must meaningfully re-engage with Europe. I do not, however, advocate rejoining the EU overnight. The damage caused by Brexit is not only economic but social. We all remember the friction it caused within families and communities, and between the regions and countries of the UK. We must eventually rejoin the EU, but we can only do so by bringing the country—not just a wafer-thin majority—with us. Any party that won an election on a mandate to rejoin the EU would walk into the subsequent negotiations naked, with no means of avoiding a hard deal. Admittedly, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to rejoin on the favourable terms we once had and have now forsaken, but it is critical that we negotiate from a position of strength, as Tony Blair has advocated, and do not go into any talks with a begging bowl merely asking to rejoin.

That is why the Lib Dems have set out a clear, pragmatic roadmap to rebuilding our ties with the EU: first, by rejoining European agencies and programmes, then by negotiating a customs union, and then by joining the single market. Those steps will help to restore Britain’s prosperity, repair the damage caused by Brexit and bring back some of the opportunities we have lost.

The message from the petition is clear: the British people want a better future. They see the failure of Brexit and understand that our country’s prosperity, security and influence depended on closer ties with Europe. The Conservative Government wrecked our relationship with the EU and the new Labour Government refuse to take the necessary steps to repair it.

The Government must do what is right for the British public and not just run scared of the hon. Member for Clacton and the rest of his quarrelsome rag-bag of little Englanders and cheerleaders for Trump and Putin. We are part of Europe, and I have no doubt that one day we will rejoin the EU and regain our position at its heart, just as Winston Churchill advocated. Until that day, we must work tirelessly towards fostering ever closer co-operation by breaking free of the red lines in which this Government have bound themselves so unnecessarily.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Brian Mathew. You have four minutes.

18:55

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this valuable and vital debate. I also thank the 260-odd constituents of mine who signed the petition, including many musicians and people who work in the music industry at Real World Studios in Box.

Members have spoken eloquently about our need to take steps to rejoin the EU. Ironically, what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic may be driving the desire for that even faster. With Trump in the White House, it is even more vital that we re-establish our relationship with our European friends.

Hon. Members have mentioned security, and not only in a military sense. Cuts to the United States Agency for International Development have imperilled the World Health Organisation’s early warning system for identifying and taking action on dangerous diseases. A month ago, there was an outbreak of the Marburg virus in Tanzania, a week ago there was a Lassa fever case here in London, and there could easily be an outbreak of Ebola at any time.

Covid has taught us that we live in a small world, and the early warning system is now gone. The EU has the power to replace USAID, and by rejoining the EU we could help direct it towards those and other dangers. In a dangerous world, we must reconnect with our European friends and allies. That would be good for us, for Europe and for the world. For our security, economy and health, let us rejoin the EU.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Much appreciated. Jim Shannon, you have two minutes.

18:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will talk even faster than I normally do. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

It is no secret that I am a Brexiteer. I voted to leave, and so did my constituency of Strangford—55% to 45%. The logic of some of the democrats in here is that Scotland voted to stay, Wales had its vote, England had its and Northern Ireland had its. But the vote was all of us taking a decision together. Whether we like democracy or not, that is the way it is.

I have been a politician for a great many years. I canvassed people and tried to encourage them to vote against the Belfast agreement. I fundamentally disagreed with allowing prisoners out of jail, with the disbanding of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and with the cloud that settled over the Ulster Defence Regiment. I absolutely opposed all those things with every sinew of my body, but I accepted the will of the people. The people said that is what they wanted, and I went ahead with that. I have worked within an institution that is fundamentally flawed, and the outworking of the concessions contained within a simple yes or no referendum has had lasting results. Fishing is vital to my constituency, and I hope the changes that the Government sought will benefit us in terms of quotas, jobs and opportunities.

I question the benefits of rejoining the EU. I could highlight the vile and repugnant way that the EU has used many constituents to hurt the UK for daring to leave. I could talk about the lack of seeds, packages of medication, chocolate biscuits and sausages, and the damage to our microbusinesses from EU regulations. I could talk about the fact that Northern Ireland is precluded from state aid, and the fact that we have restrictions but no representation. I could argue with anyone that the EU’s treatment of Northern Ireland as a whole indicates its rotten nature, but none of that really matters. I urge the Minister and the Labour Government not to give up our fishing rights. The UK voted to take them back, and the Government must respect and adhere to that.

I will conclude with this, ever mindful of what you told me, Sir John. The will of the people is all that matters, and they have spoken. Without another referendum, there can be no return, and in my opinion there should be no return. We are all democrats, elected through the democratic system, and we must keep that in mind. Democracy may not be palatable at times, but it has to be respected at all times. That is a full stop in any debate on this issue.

19:00

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this excellent debate. I also extend my thanks to Mr McMaster for initiating the petition, as well as the 130,000 members of the public who signed it. Their desire for the UK to be once again at the heart of Europe has today brought together Members from across the House.

We can see from the number of Liberal Democrat contributions that this subject is very important to our party. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) talked about the impact on defence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) talked about higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) spoke about youth mobility and the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, while my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) talked about the impact on farmers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) gave a very personal reflection on her own journey, for which I am grateful, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke eloquently about barriers to trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) gave a polemic, which I really enjoyed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) made a particularly interesting contribution about health co-operation, for which I thank him.

There were many contributions from Members representing other parties, and I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for her striking speech and metaphors. I have to say that a night out in Walthamstow sounds somewhat messier than a night out in Richmond, but I am very grateful for her contribution. Members from other parties mentioned impacts on tourism, particularly touring musicians, language schools and international aid, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) had some very interesting things to say about supply chains.

It would have been lovely to have heard from members of the Tory party, although we look forward to the speech from the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden). It seems extraordinary that despite how much time this issue has taken up in the Chamber and across the country over so many years, not a single member of the Conservative party—apart from the poor hon. Member for Fylde, who was not even a Member at the time—is here to defend what it did while in government.

The Liberal Democrats are proud to be the country’s most pro-European party, and we have been vocal in our support for the Government’s warm words on a reset and a rebuilding of our relationship with Europe after the disaster of the botched Brexit deal under the last Conservative Government. We are, however, concerned that those warm words are not leading to action. The wholly inadequate deal with the EU that was negotiated by the previous Government has done enormous damage to British businesses. There have been soaring export costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of red tape creating huge barriers to growth.

Having spent the past five years grappling with the bureaucracy of Brexit and increased trading costs, many business owners across the country will now be deeply concerned by the additional challenges to businesses that are coming from Washington. The returning Trump Administration have fundamentally changed trading relations globally with the introduction of high tariffs, which we already have on steel and are being threatened in other areas, too. It is vital that the UK leads on the world stage again, standing up for our interests by working closely with other countries. Most importantly, we must work with our European neighbours, which is why I am so glad to be speaking alongside colleagues from all parties to advocate for a constructive rebuilding of our relationship with Europe.

The new global security and geopolitical landscape has shifted since the Brexit vote of 2016. With an aggressive Russia, an assertive China and the return of a Trump Administration in the US, the case for closer cross-channel ties with the EU is made far more urgently. The Government are rightly looking to build closer defence and security agreements with Europe, and I am glad that they have embarked on those vital negotiations.

However, recent reports suggest that despite our being part of the European “coalition of the willing”, UK arms companies will not be included in a new €150 billion commitment to an increase of defence capabilities, unless the Government agree to defence and security partnerships with Brussels. We know that European officials are insisting that those defence agreements come in tandem with other partnerships, including a youth mobility scheme, and I urge the Government to take the logical step of agreeing to such a scheme, which is a clear win-win for everyone.

As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats believe that a key and pragmatic step in our rebuilding is the introduction of a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU. Despite recent press reports that the Government plan to introduce such a scheme, and the encouraging words from the Prime Minister himself just last week in response to a question about that topic asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), it has been deeply disappointing to hear the Home Secretary and other Ministers rule it out, despite knowing that an agreement on youth mobility would not lead to freedom of movement.

A youth mobility deal would be good for our economy, especially our tourism and hospitality sectors, and give young British people the opportunity to work and study abroad. It would be a win-win—and not just that, because it is what the British public want. Polling shows that two thirds of the UK population are in favour of a youth mobility scheme, and the scheduling of today’s debate is further proof of the appetite across the country for closer ties with Europe. Introducing a youth mobility scheme between the EU and UK would send a clear message that this country is serious about supporting our young people and backing British business with the labour force that it needs to grow.

The EU is clear that it would welcome a youth mobility scheme. It has signalled that agreeing to such a scheme will be a necessary step before broader partnerships can be established, including on defence. I urge the Government to embark on negotiations so that we expand opportunities for young people across the country, and to acknowledge the broader benefits that the scheme would provide. Will the Minister agree that such a scheme would not cross any of the Government’s red lines regarding a European reset?

More broadly, as the Minister will be aware, the previous Government accepted an agreement to allow EU member state nationals visiting the UK to benefit from a six-month visa waiver, although UK nationals are limited to 90-day visa waivers when visiting the Schengen area. That is a further example of the appalling deal that the Conservative Government secured. Has the Minister considered redressing this imbalance and securing a fair, reciprocal and inclusive mobility agreement with the EU that provides a six-month visa waiver in both directions?

The EU is our closest neighbour and largest trading partner. I sense that the Minister knows that we have to get on with repairing the trading relationship that was so badly damaged under the former Conservative Government. The botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade that cost our economy billions in lost exports.

The dismal picture of the financial impact of our withdrawal from the EU has become increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33.5% of currently trading enterprises experienced extra costs that were directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period. Since 2019, global British goods exports have increased by just 0.3% a year, compared with an OECD average of 4.2%. Small business exports have suffered even more significantly, dropping by 30%, and 20,000 small firms have stopped all exports to the EU. A recent study found that goods exports had fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.

I urge the Government to acknowledge the damage that our current trading relationship with Europe continues to do, not just to individual businesses but to the economy as a whole, and to take the sensible step of negotiating a new UK-EU customs union to ease the pressure that so many businesses are under. In the past, the Minister talked of pragmatic negotiations. Surely it would be pragmatic to drop the Government’s red lines and agree to a new UK-EU customs union. That would be the single biggest step that the Government could take to unlock growth. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call on the Government to do the right thing for our businesses.

The Government have made it clear that their No. 1 priority is economic growth, yet any proposal that might involve our European neighbours while contributing to boosting growth is dismissed. A new UK-EU customs union is a pragmatic and mutually beneficial proposal that would help the UK economy and labour market in the long term, stimulating the growth that the country so clearly needs.

The changes to the immigration system implemented in April 2024, which increased the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, shrank the talent pool that hospitality businesses can recruit from and contributed to greater staff shortages in that sector. Around three quarters of the hospitality workforce is filled by UK citizens, but international talent has always been attracted to working in the UK because of our pedigree for hospitality and developing careers. In a 2024 survey of 1,650 employers from across a range of sectors, including hospitality, adult social care and manufacturing, 49% said that a reduction in the availability of migrant workers was one of the main causes of hard-to-fill vacancies.

The Government’s decisions in the Budget added to the overall tax burden on hospitality businesses, many of which are considering whether they remain viable, so we must provide the tools that hospitality needs to help businesses to grow and to boost the wider economy, including access to global talent. I have heard from stakeholders in the hospitality sector, including business owners and supply chain managers, who would welcome proposals that would bring the sector more stability, which would allow them to make longer-term plans within a more predictable and robust regulatory framework.

The Government have been clear on their red lines—no single market, customs union or free movement of people—but I am glad to have heard cross-party support for serious negotiations with our European neighbours. Liberal Democrats will continue to advocate for a fundamental reset of our relations with the EU. That means taking steps to fix the trading relationship, in line with our four-stage road map: first, resolving the low-hanging fruit, such as youth mobility; secondly, taking steps such as establishing a veterinary agreement and achieving mutual recognition of professional qualifications; and then establishing a UK-EU customs union, which would set us back on the path to the single market. In the longer term, our ambition remains that of seeing the UK at the heart of the EU once more.

Rebuilding our relationship with Europe is a fundamental part of making Britain more secure and prosperous. Given the threat of tariffs from the new Trump Administration, it has never been more important for our Government to break down the barriers to trade that were erected under the previous Conservative Government. By repairing our relationship with the EU, we will be able to deal with that unreliable and unpredictable actor in the White House from a position of strength. Does not the Minister agree that taking decisive steps, such as negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, establishing a youth mobility scheme and reducing red tape for high-street businesses, is the best way to achieve the growth that this Government are so focused on and that our country so desperately needs?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call our final two speakers, may I thank colleagues for their brevity, particularly Clive, Paul and Brian—and Jim, whom I did not give much choice in the matter? That has allowed everyone to get in, and while I am in the Chair, I hope that I will ensure that everyone gets their chance to have their say.

Also, may I ask the Minister to leave Paul a couple of seconds at the end to say a final word? I also ask the shadow Minister please to leave the Minister plenty of time to respond to the debate.

19:11

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for leading the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all other Members who contributed. Although we have heard some valuable and considered contributions, the debate has, at times, felt like a display of the patronising remainer echo chamber: “We know best,” “If only they had listened to all of our selectively picked stats,” and, “Brexiteers didn’t know what they were voting for.” Indeed, we heard sniggering when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) set out in an intervention the kind of Brexit that he believed in.

Brexiteers have been insulted, being compared with weirdos, or even those who assault other people on a night out—I thought that was a bit of a rich and testing comparison for a Labour Member to make, given the party’s own troubles on that front. Come on—this has even been blamed on Russia. Having listened to today’s contributions, I do not think that many of the arch-remainer MPs have learned much about why they lost the referendum in the first place.

We can all remember where we were when we found out the result of the referendum. In my case, having delayed a mini-break with my wife to the Lake district so that I could spend 23 June 2016 campaigning for Vote Leave, I decided once we arrived at our hotel that it would test Mrs Snowden’s generous patience and forgiveness if I spent the night and early hours watching the results come in. It was early the following morning when—to the annoyance of the other guests, I am sure—I woke up and shouted in jubilation as I found out we had voted to leave the European Union.

I accept that although that was a day of celebration for many, for others it was a day of disappointment and even anger. However, the verdict issued by the British public on that day was a final and binding decision, backed up with a confirmatory vote in 2019 when the Conservatives achieved a crystal-clear mandate to “Get Brexit Done”.

[James MacCleary]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Snowden]

No, we are low on time.

Since 2020, we have seen the benefits of an independent Britain. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 gave us freedoms over our borders, waters and money while offering the UK the chance to regulate and legislate in our own national interest. We are no longer bound by the free movement of people obligation that came with membership, which gives us a much stronger say over who can and cannot enter this country legally.

We departed the common fisheries policy, meaning that for the first time since 1973, we had sovereignty over our own waters. The Conservative Government used our new fiscal policy freedoms to cut VAT across a range of consumer products and to establish a number of freeports, stimulating growth in all the nations and regions of the UK.

Most obviously, our economic independence from the European Union has provided significant opportunity for tailored deals, helping to build British business and our wider economy. Under the last Conservative Government, 73 separate trade deals were secured alongside a deal with the EU. That will continue to happen only if we acknowledge and appreciate the strong democratic mandate we were given, and the opportunities we secured as a result, but it is starting to look like the current Government have little interest in promoting the successes of our independence and are unprepared to hold negotiations with the EU from a position of strength.

Just last week, the German ambassador told the British Chambers of Commerce that for Germany, as least, this Government’s so-called reset with the EU is an opportunity for us to join the customs union. Will the Minister make it clear that that will not be a consideration in any future negotiations?

We know that Brussels is committed to demanding that the UK surrenders its new-found fishing rights and controls, leaving our waters at the mercy of French trawlers and our fishing industry at serious risk. I ask the Minister, very clearly: is that surrender on the table or not? While she is here, can she confirm whether a youth mobility scheme is off the table? If it is, what has she been told by our European counterparts about their position? From what we know, the European Commission has made that a central demand. Today we have seen further reporting that the Government are set to cancel the single trade window. Will the Minister confirm that that will not lead to deeper EU-UK regulatory alignment in its place?

So far the Government have shown an inability to clarify and solidify their position on any of those issues and have been remarkably opaque about the form and content of discussions with EU counterparts. We Conservatives have been very clear and set out five tests that we hope the Government will take up to ensure that we protect our independence from the European Union and the successes, past and future, resulting from it. Will the Minister commit today that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers; that the UK will not allow any new money to be paid to the EU; that there will be no reduction in our fishing rights; that there will be no new rule taking, dynamic alignment or European Court jurisdiction for the UK; and that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the cornerstone of European security? Those are our tests for acceptable engagement. If the Government remain within them, they will have our support.

The UK must pursue its own interests, working with our European partners but not captive to purely their interests. Ultimately, the Government must respect the will of the British public, who voted to leave the European Union.

19:17

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for moving the motion; I am sure everyone will agree that he spoke very passionately. I will try to leave some time so that he can respond. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government, and I thank the Petitions Committee for its work representing constituents across the country and those who sign petitions.

I have been asked about this at various times in the debate, and I thought it would be better for me to be very clear from the outset, including with members of the public who signed the petition: this Government will not seek to rejoin the EU, nor will there be a return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market, as we set out in our general election manifesto. That was a clear commitment ahead of the election, in which the Government secured a significant majority. The manifesto was clear on the benefits of seeking a closer relationship with the EU, and since July the Government have been doing just that, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations. That closer, more co-operative relationship with the EU is in the UK’s national interest. The Government are working to increase security, safety and prosperity.

On security, we are responding to a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our continent through our ambitious UK-EU security and defence relationship. On safety, we know that we must do what we can to strengthen our collective ability to tackle organised crime and criminality and work together on illegal migration, which is a challenge across the continent. On prosperity, to grow the economy and boost living standards we need to build export and investment opportunities for UK business and reduce barriers to trade with our biggest trading partners. All of that means that we need to be ruthlessly pragmatic in seeking a closer and more co-operative relationship with the EU.

I want to take this opportunity to reassure Members who raised concerns about the loss of data sharing, and about tackling matters such as cross-border crime. We have already increased the UK presence at Europol, and want to go further by including more co-ordination on real-time data sharing and arrest warrants. The Home Secretary was in Northern Ireland with her counterpart in recent weeks, showing the kind of joint working that we want to see more of.

I am grateful for the contributions to the debate by Welsh colleagues. Wales is a proud trading nation, which is why Welsh businesses will stand to benefit from the Government’s efforts to tackle barriers to trade, not least through the SPS agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has worked tirelessly on this issue; she is an esteemed campaigner, and she is right that this is not a quick process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) reminded us that someone was sadly killed during the EU referendum campaign. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Jo Cox, who was a passionate campaigner on this issue.

A number of colleagues raised concerns about the impact that leaving the EU has had on businesses. We know that the global economic headwinds of recent years have not always been easy for businesses—I have heard evidence of that in this debate. That is why we want to tackle the barriers to trade for businesses. We know that facilitating business mobility is in our shared interest with the EU, as it supports trade and growth on both sides of the channel.

The Chancellor has made it clear that our biggest trading partner is the EU, with which our trade totalled over £800 billion in 2023. I reassure colleagues who have raised concerns about trade that the Government’s No.1 priority will be the growth of the UK economy, and free and open trade with our most economically important partners.

[Pete Wishart]

What the Minister has just said will come as a crushing blow to all the Europhiles in the Labour party that we have heard from—no ambition for the single market or the customs union—but will she at least suggest that she will possibly look at a youth mobility scheme?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I have made the position very clear. In the past the SNP has not voted for the customs union. We are following very clearly what people have asked us to do—our manifesto commitments.

On the Erasmus scheme, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) in particular, we are working with the higher education sector to ensure that our world-leading universities continue to attract the brightest and the best and to support our economy, but I have to say to the right hon. Member that we have no plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme.

Members raised concerns about opportunities for young people, and put forward proposals for a youth mobility scheme. The Government recognise the value of people-to-people connections, and of schemes that give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures and to work or study elsewhere. For example, the Turing scheme is the UK Government programme for students to study and work anywhere in the world.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I would, but we are running out of time and I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley an opportunity to respond.

Since 2021, the Turing scheme has helped tens of thousands of UK students develop new skills, gain international experience and boost their employability, in the EU and beyond. Separately to Turing, the UK operates a number of bilateral youth mobility schemes, both with European countries such as Iceland, and with global partners such as India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We are also committed to resetting the relationship with the EU to improve British people’s security, safety and prosperity. However, we do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement. We will of course listen to sensible proposals, but we have been clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.

We are looking to maximise the benefits of the EU relationship. It is a whole of Government commitment, which echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said in urging the Government to think creatively. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, is leading that charge through regular engagement with his EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič, most recently at a meeting at the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels on 17 March. The Foreign Secretary attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council, where he and EU high representatives for foreign affairs agreed to work towards a security partnership and committed to six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. The Chancellor also recently attended the Eurogroup, where she outlined that the reset in relations is about doing what is best in the interests of our shared economies.

That work is supported by much greater co-operation between the UK and the EU. Since we came into government, we have had over 70 direct engagements between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts. I hope that reassures Members that the relationship and the work that Ministers are doing with the EU is really strong and that we are very focused on strengthening that relationship in the best interests of this country. In May, we will welcome EU leaders to the UK for the first UK-EU summit, which we believe will provide an opportunity to make further progress on areas that will deliver benefits to British people, guided by our mutual benefit in finding collaborative solutions to our common problems.

This is not a zero-sum game; it is a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting. It is about turning the page, reforming alliances and forging new relationships with our European friends. I want to be very clear that the Government will be open-minded and pragmatic about proposals that would improve British people’s security, safety and prosperity, while keeping clear the red lines that we will not compromise on. In this time of change, the Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make people safer and more prosperous. That is the core of our national interest.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister. I call Paul Davies to wind up the debate.

19:28

[Paul Davies]

Most importantly, I again thank Robert for his petition, which initiated the high-quality debate that we have had—it has been quite remarkable. The other thing that stands out, which gives us hope for the future, is the tolerance that we have heard. We have heard strong views from some people, and some consensus, but people have been able to express their views freely. It has been very different from what many of us experienced on the ground during the Brexit debate itself. Many of us were knocking doors at that time, and I think we can all remember some of that. This certainly gives us a good foundation to move the debate forward. It was a pleasure to meet Robert and his wife. I know they have had only a short visit, but I hope they have it enjoyed it, and seeing their way around the palace. I am sure that Robert will continue to campaign for us to rejoin the EU.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 700005 relating to the UK joining the European Union.

19:29

Sitting adjourned.