Al Pinkerton
Main Page: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)Department Debates - View all Al Pinkerton's debates with the Cabinet Office
Rejoining the EU
Al Pinkerton Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Barker, to serve under your chairship; I believe that it is for the first time, so it is a particular pleasure. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for so expertly opening this debate, and I thank the petitioners for bringing this issue to our collective attention today. It is wonderful to see so many of them here in the Public Gallery.
The petition asks whether Britain should seek to return to being a member of the European Union at the earliest opportunity. I am very proud to say that the Liberal Democrats have been clear about our long-term ambition. We believe that Britain’s future lies at the heart of Europe, helping to shape its institutions and decisions rather than watching from the sidelines. However, we must also be serious about how we get there.
Britain desperately needs growth to raise living standards, rebuild public services, support businesses and strengthen our defences. Can a family afford their weekly shop? Can a small business take on another employee? Can a manufacturer invest in a new production line? After years of weak growth, stagnant productivity and squeezed living standards, those questions demand serious answers and any serious answer must involve our having a better relationship with Europe.
Before entering Parliament, I spent more than 20 years researching and teaching geopolitics—studying borders, territorial disputes and international crises. If those years taught me one thing, it is that geography matters. Just 21 miles separate Britain from mainland Europe and no referendum can change that; our economies, history and security remain deeply connected. The European Union remains our largest trading partner, taking more than 40% of all British exports. Our factories depend on European supply chains, our farmers sell into European markets and our businesses compete for European customers. Yet for the past decade we have made trading with our largest market harder.
Brexit has happened and Brexit has failed. Those who campaigned to leave promised less red tape, but businesses got more; they promised new opportunities, but instead they erected barriers. Of course Brexit does not explain every weakness in our economy, and nor have our European neighbours escaped weak growth and productivity, but the question is not whether Britain has grown faster than France or Germany in any particular year; the question is how much stronger our economy could be today without the barriers that we have imposed upon ourselves.
Research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Brexit had reduced Britain’s GDP by between 6% and 8% by the end of 2025, and business investment by as much as 13%.
Dr Pinkerton
Not for the first time today, the hon. Gentleman has intervened from a sedentary position, and he says that that figure is a projection.
Dr Pinkerton
Well, it is not, because that information is based on two methodologies: first, a doppelganger economy; and secondly, 11,000 businesses reporting their direct experiences to the Bank of England. It is not a fiction.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That reporting was from a self-selecting group of businesses. The doppelganger model included the United States, which is not a comparable economy to the United Kingdom. It also included eastern European states like Estonia that are growing very fast, which is not a sensible comparison. But in any case, those figures were just projections.
The facts show that we have grown faster than our two main competitors in the European Union and the hon. Gentleman cannot accept that. He thinks that our economy would have been between 4% and 8% bigger by 2025 than it would have been without Brexit, so we would have been growing even faster than we have grown—that is what he is saying—and very considerably faster than we did when we were in the European Union.
Dr Pinkerton
As ever, I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. He speaks with passion and with some alacrity.
Dr Pinkerton
Thank you, Mrs Barker.
As I say, those are the experiences of 11,000 businesses, which the hon. Gentleman would dismiss with ease—he should really reflect on that. The model that I think he is adopting here is that an athlete could win a race with weights tied around their ankles. He would credit those weights with boosting the athlete to the finish line, whereas we would all recognise that the athlete was perhaps a little bit slower than they might otherwise have been.
Ben Coleman
I must apologise, Mrs Barker, if we look as if we are having a debate just with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. However, does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) not find it strange how picky the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is being in the facts that he chooses to employ? Last year, Poland grew by 3.75% and Spain by 2.8%; their growth outstripped ours. Of course there will always be some in the European Union who grow less quickly than we do and others who grow more. That is just the nature of things. It is not a fundamental basis on which to make an anti-European Union argument. Would the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not agree?
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would think that representatives from the Conservative party would be particularly well informed about the historic teachings of Adam Smith, who 250 years ago, in 1776, recognised that economic growth comes when we increase the size of the market. That is precisely what the European Union so successfully does.
The figures that I announced just before the interventions are not fictitious, but they are extraordinary. They represent lost investment, lost productivity and billions lost in forgone tax revenues that could have supported the NHS, schools and our armed forces. For small exporters, Brexit means paperwork, delays and costs that can determine whether an order is worth taking. For manufacturers, it means more expensive supply chains and greater uncertainty. For our economy, it means competing with one hand tied behind our back.
However, the consequences run far deeper than economics. A stronger economy can also mean a stronger and more united country. When living standards rise, when people have a sense of hope that they may be better off tomorrow than they are today and when opportunities expand and communities feel more secure, the politics of resentment and division, which so often characterises our modern political scene, has less fertile ground in which those sentiments can take root. Growth can help to starve Reform and other parties of that ilk of the oxygen of perma-grievance that they so desire and which they would have us long term committed to. Closer European integration offers a route towards resolving the awkward trading and constitutional compromises imposed on Northern Ireland by Brexit. A better relationship with Europe can strengthen the United Kingdom’s cohesion and secure its future.
Let us consider British manufacturing. From Nissan in Sunderland to Jaguar Land Rover in Solihull, our automotive industry sustains skilled employment, innovation and entire communities. More than half of all British car exports go to the European Union, yet Patrick Minford, one of Brexit’s most prominent economic advocates, argued that Brexit would require Britain to run down its car industry. We reject the suggestion that British manufacturing is expendable, but the risks are today growing. Europe’s proposed “Made in Europe” measures could disadvantage British manufacturers, particularly in automotive production and steel. We can lobby, negotiate and ask for concessions, but we no longer have a vote; we are no longer in the club. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders highlighted the importance of predictable rules, integrated supply chains and access to export markets. If investment goes elsewhere, British workers pay the price. The same organisation has now said that the British car industry is facing an existential crisis if this cannot be resolved.
In addition, economic strength and national security are increasingly inseparable. Russia’s war against Ukraine, China’s growing economic coercion and President Trump’s challenge to long-standing assumptions have changed the strategic landscape. The world has changed. Europe in 2026 faces profoundly different challenges from the ones that it faced in 2016. Our politics has to catch up. Our security depends on industrial capacity, resilient supply chains, technological innovation and trusted allies. A country that cannot sustain its industries will struggle to sustain its defences, and economic isolation makes strategic independence harder to achieve.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a growth and defence partnership with the European Union—a partnership bringing Britain back into the single market and establishing a bespoke UK-EU customs union, removing trade barriers, restoring confidence and unlocking investment. It would restore freedom of movement, renewing opportunities for British citizens to live, work and study across Europe, and it would deepen security co-operation through a defence pact underpinned by a European security council. We should deepen co-operation on defence, energy, critical technologies and supply chains, and Britain should seek access to the EU’s SAFE programme, supporting our defence industries and skilled jobs. That is the partnership demanded by the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. It would mean a more prosperous, resilient and secure Britain, and be the foundations of something much more ambitious.
We believe that Britain’s long-term future lies within the European Union. We want Britain to shape Europe’s future, contributing to its collective strength and prosperity. But that future depends on our European partners’ consent, confidence in Britain’s intentions and a willingness on both sides to make lasting commitments.
After the turbulence of the past decade, trust must be rebuilt. Therefore, our immediate priority is a growth and defence partnership that delivers economic benefits now while demonstrating that Britain is, once again, a serious, dependable European partner. Our destination is clear; a growth and defence partnership is how we get moving.
The Prime Minister has indicated a willingness to reconsider the Government’s self-imposed red lines. I welcome that, but a willingness to reconsider will not revive British manufacturing, and tinkering at the edges of an inadequate trade arrangement will not transform our economic prospects. I urge the Minister to match that rhetoric with ambition: begin negotiations on a customs union, open the door to the single market and build the defence partnership that this changing world demands. The question facing Britain is no longer whether Brexit was a success; it is whether we have the political courage to confront its consequences.
Our neighbours will remain our neighbours and our prosperity and security will remain bound up with Europe’s. We cannot change our geography, but we can change our politics. We can rebuild trust, remove barriers and restore Britain’s place as a confident, influential European nation. We should begin now.