Westminster Hall
Monday 12th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
18:48
18:48
18:48
18:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my honourable friend. She makes she makes a compelling point. I'm not going to commit to anything of that nature today, but I would urge her, as I'm sure she will, to continue making the argument for that. I'm really, really incredibly close to bringing this this debate to an end. But I will I will give 1 to 2 minutes.
18:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Perhaps we can find a common point of consensus in this debate that one of the things that has been lacking from Parliament over the last couple of years is a European scrutiny committee for all of us as parliamentarians, to be part of the debate of looking at what the future with Europe might be. Perhaps my colleague will take back to his colleagues in the Cabinet Office the merits of such a proposal, given the nature of the debate he's heard today and the concerns about facts.
18:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's always worth taking something seriously when such divergent members of this place agree. And I will, of course, I'm sure that has been recorded in Hansard and will be will be heard by those of us in the Cabinet Office. One. I mean, it's been pointed out 42 minutes and one intervention left. So why not.
18:49
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Only because I rose at the same time as my hon. Friend there. I think the points that we're coming to at the end of this debate really show that actually, as the Prime Minister has recognised, although debates in this place may have fallen away, actually in the country, there has never been a settled opinion on the path forward following Brexit. It has remained a conversation amongst our constituents on the doorstep, around the dinner table, and that's really what this petition demonstrates.
So can I just ask him just to, in his final moments, reflect on the fact that actually this is not about us re-opening a debate. This is about us in this place, catching up to the conversations that have never gone away in the country. And I think it's really important that we acknowledge that.
So can I just ask him just to, in his final moments, reflect on the fact that actually this is not about us re-opening a debate. This is about us in this place, catching up to the conversations that have never gone away in the country. And I think it's really important that we acknowledge that.
18:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think it's clear to anyone who's listened to the debate over the last couple of hours that there's no lack of debate in this place or, in fact, anywhere else on this important matter. And that is why we are rightly looking at options for the future relationship to strengthen the country's prosperity and security. Europe is our neighbourhood. This is my final sentence. The Europe is our neighborhood, as has been. As has been.
I, I, I do, and only one sentence left. So why not?
I, I, I do, and only one sentence left. So why not?
18:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. And this was striking me earlier when the Prime Minister was talking about the importance of the British public being the boss throughout this. And you've been really the minister has been really clear about all of the options that are available. But if the British public are to have their say, which presumably would require a general election referendum or something similar, is there not a risk that we end up pushing all this into the long grass again, when actually we know that the longer this takes, the worse the situation becomes? So is there any opportunity for short term changes that can move this closer?
18:51
18:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Honourable member invites me to speculate. I think the Prime Minister has been quite clear this afternoon, but I will I will finish by referring to something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said Europe is our neighbourhood and as he said, geography does matter. The EU are our closest partners and our largest market. There are only 21 miles between France and England. Of course, we also share land borders as well. A stronger, deeper relationship is in Britain's best interests.
18:52
18:52
18:52
18:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And of course, the shadow minister who have spoken up to defend the status quo as we see it, their defence of the current Brexit rules referred to evidence, which I think is fair to say was was selectively referenced and was, I think, in denial of where the weight of the evidence actually is. I just want to start with the remarks of the honourable member for Harwich and North Essex. He challenged the idea that Brexit has damaged our economy and referred to the fact that GDP of other countries is lower than ours.
But Miss Barker, that is not the point. The comparison is with the situation that we would have had had we not left the European Union. The point made by an honourable member earlier and on that point, the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that our GDP was 6 to 8% lower by the end of 2025 had we not left the EU. They further found that investment in the UK was 12 to 13%, lower employment was 3 to 4% lower and productivity was 3 to 4% lower two, and the OBR agrees.
The honourable member also minimized the significance of individual examples given by numerous honourable members in this room about Brexit related red tape on British exporters. But the evidence, Miss Barker, is clear our trade volumes are billions less than before Brexit. For example, a study by LSE estimated that in 2022 there was 27 billion less in goods exports, which is a 6% reduction compared to the no Brexit counterfactual. And 14% of firms stopped exporting to the EU altogether after post-Brexit trading arrangements came into force.
And that research found that smaller firms were particularly affected by those arrangements, whereas larger firms were able to absorb these additional costs. And this is what honourable members are seeing all Members are seeing all over the country, and I fear that the honourable members points have not. Moved with the evidence, but I will give him the chance.
But Miss Barker, that is not the point. The comparison is with the situation that we would have had had we not left the European Union. The point made by an honourable member earlier and on that point, the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that our GDP was 6 to 8% lower by the end of 2025 had we not left the EU. They further found that investment in the UK was 12 to 13%, lower employment was 3 to 4% lower and productivity was 3 to 4% lower two, and the OBR agrees.
The honourable member also minimized the significance of individual examples given by numerous honourable members in this room about Brexit related red tape on British exporters. But the evidence, Miss Barker, is clear our trade volumes are billions less than before Brexit. For example, a study by LSE estimated that in 2022 there was 27 billion less in goods exports, which is a 6% reduction compared to the no Brexit counterfactual. And 14% of firms stopped exporting to the EU altogether after post-Brexit trading arrangements came into force.
And that research found that smaller firms were particularly affected by those arrangements, whereas larger firms were able to absorb these additional costs. And this is what honourable members are seeing all Members are seeing all over the country, and I fear that the honourable members points have not. Moved with the evidence, but I will give him the chance.
19:03
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The logic of the government's position is that, and Mark Carney was mentioned, is that because Canada sends 75% of its exports to the United States of America, they better join the United States and give up their sovereignty. And in order to get rid of barriers to trade between the between the between Canada. But, I mean, the idea that he's going to become Canada is going to become an associate member of the EU, and the EU is going to be able to get a grip of Canada.
That seems to be rather fanciful. But why is the Carney logic about the UK being in the single market? Why doesn't it apply to his own country? Has he any idea? Can you explain that?
That seems to be rather fanciful. But why is the Carney logic about the UK being in the single market? Why doesn't it apply to his own country? Has he any idea? Can you explain that?
19:03
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank the honourable member for his intervention, but none of the none of what he said, as far as I can see, is actually relevant to the question of whether any whether any of his points are actually well founded. The evidence is, as I've read out, it's the weight of the evidence that he needs to engage with, not the selective examples that ultimately Miss Barker. Those
19:04
19:04
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Oppose a closer relationship with Europe rely on. And then we have the honourable member for East Wiltshire, who isn't here anymore. And he at least accepted. He at least accepted Miss Barker. I won't, I won't, I'm afraid he at least accepted that our exports have been hit by Brexit. But his point was different. He said that where we have used our Brexit freedoms, we are better off. So what he seemed to be saying is where we have alignment, we are doing better.
I'm afraid that that is not correct. UK firms, which have to comply with multiple regulatory regimes, will obviously incur greater costs to be able to trade with multiple markets. And I hear this, and I think all honourable members have been saying this today, hearing this from businesses consistently. It's where we have no alignment that we have had disastrous consequences. For businesses. And the 9180 rule, which the minister referred to as being a fixity for now, and was indeed.
Negotiated by the party opposite, is just one example of those problems. And so even if there were some benefit from regulatory divergence. Those benefits pale in comparison. I am afraid to the damage done to our economy by Brexit. And so the honourable member's thesis is wholly unsupported by the weight of the evidence. He also doubted whether or not the asylum returns agreement that we had with the EU was ever used.
The fact is that we sent back more people than we took under that agreement until. 2016, the year of the Brexit vote. So it was a useful tool for addressing irregular migration. And in any event, its absence was relied upon and manipulated by smugglers to drum up business. And that is the consequence of what we saw with the boats numbers going up. But I accept that this debate will. Not end today.
It's been a lively debate. I thank the Minister for his remarks and his clarification. And I thank again the petitioner, Mr. MacMaster, for creating this opportunity for Parliament to debate this important issue. As the honourable member for Bracknell said, this is these are conversations. That have never gone away. They're conversations that are constantly brought back to me in my constituency work.
And those of honourable members as well. And I do hope that, as the Prime Minister said, these conversations will lead to progress on a matter which is at the heart of how we build a prosperous nation for the future. Thank you.
I'm afraid that that is not correct. UK firms, which have to comply with multiple regulatory regimes, will obviously incur greater costs to be able to trade with multiple markets. And I hear this, and I think all honourable members have been saying this today, hearing this from businesses consistently. It's where we have no alignment that we have had disastrous consequences. For businesses. And the 9180 rule, which the minister referred to as being a fixity for now, and was indeed.
Negotiated by the party opposite, is just one example of those problems. And so even if there were some benefit from regulatory divergence. Those benefits pale in comparison. I am afraid to the damage done to our economy by Brexit. And so the honourable member's thesis is wholly unsupported by the weight of the evidence. He also doubted whether or not the asylum returns agreement that we had with the EU was ever used.
The fact is that we sent back more people than we took under that agreement until. 2016, the year of the Brexit vote. So it was a useful tool for addressing irregular migration. And in any event, its absence was relied upon and manipulated by smugglers to drum up business. And that is the consequence of what we saw with the boats numbers going up. But I accept that this debate will. Not end today.
It's been a lively debate. I thank the Minister for his remarks and his clarification. And I thank again the petitioner, Mr. MacMaster, for creating this opportunity for Parliament to debate this important issue. As the honourable member for Bracknell said, this is these are conversations. That have never gone away. They're conversations that are constantly brought back to me in my constituency work.
And those of honourable members as well. And I do hope that, as the Prime Minister said, these conversations will lead to progress on a matter which is at the heart of how we build a prosperous nation for the future. Thank you.