Rejoining the EU

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

I hate to bring real people into this argument and into the statistics. However, there is a Spanish-Italian delicatessen in my constituency—I am sorry that for some people it has no importance—and it has gaps on its shelves. I asked the staff why, because their customers are there and the owner is there. What they told me is missing is the food, and that is because the small supplier of this Spanish-Italian deli has had enough of the reams of EU red tape that he has had to deal with since we left. The gaps on that deli’s shelves are what leaving looks like to its owner and to me.

As we have heard, more than 111,000 people have signed this petition to say that it does not have to be this way, and many of my constituents have urged me to support it. I agree with them. Since attending my first Prime Minister’s questions I have made one case and I will continue to do so: the fastest way for this country to grow is to lift the barriers that came down on British firms when we left the European Union.

Consequently, I welcome the Prime Minister’s readiness to look at every option: a customs union, a single market and full membership. All these things should be looked at in an honest way. The closer we get back to the EU, the quicker the shelves in my local deli will fill up again.

Some people worry about the considerable cost of rejoining the EU. A chunk of that money will come straight back to farmers, regions and our scientists. In addition, the boost to trade—despite what is being claimed about GDP growing internationally—would bring in billions more in tax for our NHS, our police, our schools and our defence. Those are all the things that we need to spend money on, but we in Labour found the cupboard was bare when we came in after 10 or 12 years of Tory misrule.

The return would comfortably outweigh the investment. However, EU membership would also mean more than money. One area where I have to declare a personal interest—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Coleman]

No, I am sorry, I am not giving way. I have been encouraged by our Chair to move on, so that everyone gets a chance to speak and not just the hon. Gentleman.

One area where I have to declare a personal interest is in enabling our musicians and performers to tour freely again. They are people like my nephew Freddy and his band, Caroline. British acts played 21% fewer shows in Europe in 2024 than in 2019—and that is because we left the EU.

Some worry that free movement means that anybody could come here, stay and claim benefits—well, it does not. In the past, we applied too lightly the rules that say it does not. Belgium and Spain insist on the rules, and so can we if we rejoin. Some worry about sovereignty. Well, our exporters have to follow EU rules, but we have no say in setting them. Membership would give us a seat and a vote—that is more control, not less.

Our partners will want to know that our return is for keeps, and so should we. A decision this big must be the settled will of the British people. That is why I believe we need a manifesto pledge to negotiate joining the European Union and then a referendum on the deal. I realise that other people may have other views, but I think that would be the best thing.

In 2016, people voted on an idea—an ephemeral thought. Next time, they would vote on a deal: they would know what being in the European Union costs and what it buys. Before any of that, of course, I hope that the delayed UK-EU summit, which is now happening on 20 November, will finalise the deal on the table. That will keep down costs on food and drink and energy; it will let young Brits and young Europeans work in each other’s countries, for a limited time; and it will build trust.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

We have heard about the impact on small businesses and, indeed, on bands, but there is a side impact on zoos. I have visited Shaldon zoo in my constituency. The loss of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement means that we cannot move breeding animals from zoo to zoo, so we are losing species because of Brexit as well. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Ben Coleman]

I have absolutely no reason to doubt what the hon. Member says. This does not just come down to GDP; it comes down to the detail—the minutiae—of the pain that we are going through as a country in all sorts of areas as a result of not being in the European Union.

For years, we were a problem for the EU and it used to think about us, but the EU has moved on and we need to recognise that. Its problems now are Russia, China and an unpredictable United States. Too many people in Brussels simply do not know us the way they used to, so I would suggest to the Minister that we need to think now about ways we can become part of the furniture there again, starting as soon as possible. For me, the logic points inexorably towards joining, but I can assure my constituents that I will listen, as well as arguing that case.

If I may, I will end on a personal note. As a student, I lived in divided Berlin—before the wall came down. I crossed into the communist east through Checkpoint Charlie; I saw the watchtowers in no man’s land. From there, I went to Brussels: I was a trainee at the European Commission and I worked every day alongside people from every European country. What I could see was that, in Berlin, Britain was helping to keep half a city free; in Brussels, Britain was at the table. We were not just looking on; we were part of it. I want us to be that again, and this time for keeps.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

We are constantly told by the doom-mongers that Brexit is somehow the sole author of our national economic woes, but the empirical evidence tells a vastly different story. Recent analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that, while the initial realignment did involve transition friction, our private sector has shown remarkable dynamism, with productivity increasing by roughly 30% over the past decade. The real drag anchoring British growth is inside our own state apparatus. Public sector productivity has flatlined, an affliction that is manufactured right here in Westminster and Whitehall that has nothing at all to do with whether we sit within the European Union.

While the petitioners are at least refreshingly transparent about wanting full membership, the Government’s approach seems to depend on the audience. Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box with hands on hearts repeating their mantra that they respect the referendum, but that is not the message that we have heard from Labour Back Benchers today. Ministers promise us that there will be no membership of the single market and no freedom of movement, yet watch what they actually do. They tiptoe around European capitals, hoping that if they quietly sign us up to dynamic alignment across agriculture, energy and carbon standards, nobody on the street will notice that they have signed away our national autonomy. That is not a coherent foreign policy. It is surrender on an instalment plan.

Alongside the burdens and restrictions, being a full member of the EU did give us a vote, a voice and a veto. Being an independent sovereign state gives speed, regulatory agility and democratic accountability. But the Government’s strategy delivers the worst of all worlds: total regulatory submission with none of the say. It flips William Hague’s famous slogan; it is to be not in Europe but still run by Europe. It is the political equivalent of paying full price for an all-inclusive hotel and choosing to sleep on a bench in the car park.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

No, I am finishing.

The British people did not vote in 2016 for half measures, or to put their democracy into reverse gear. The fundamental principle at stake was entirely straightforward: the laws governing the people of this country should be made and unmade by representatives who the British public can elect—and, crucially, fire—at the ballot box. The duty of this House is not to resurrect the bitter constitutional gridlock of the past, or to indulge the fantasy of a cost-free return to Brussels. Our duty is to use our hard-won independence to cut unnecessary bureaucracy, to back British innovation and to trade freely with all corners of the globe. His Majesty’s official Opposition will not support the petition and will fiercely resist any attempt to pull this country back into the European Union, whether through the front door or the back.