EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

Indeed I do. They were almost as ridiculous as the extraordinary claims that were made about what would happen if we left the European Union, from the £350 million saved per week to the claims about bendy bananas and sausages. They were absurd, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it was a poor debate, but he cannot disagree with the evidence from the House of Commons Library and all the major financial institutions that Brexit has been an economic disaster. I do not think anybody could possibly disagree with that basic statement.

I will come on to trade, because that is equally important. The OBR assumes that Brexit will ultimately reduce UK imports and exports by around 15% relative to the scenario had we remained in the European Union. Again, that does not mean that our exports have literally fallen by 15%, but the additional barriers created by Brexit mean we trade less than we otherwise would have done.

That matters because the European Union is still by far our largest trading partner. In 2025, the EU accounted for 41% of our exports of goods and services and around half of our imports. So much for the idea that we would effortlessly turn our back on Europe and replace all that trade with new deals around the world. Yes, of course, there have been useful, good trade deals with the likes of New Zealand, Australia and India. They have benefits, but they barely touch the sides of the trade relationship we already had with the European Union.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

In Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton we have been negatively impacted by the effects of the steel strategy and by measures brought in by the EU such as tariffs and quotas. Does the hon. Member agree that if we had a closer trading relationship with the EU, constituencies like mine and likely his would be far better off?

[Pete Wishart]

Most definitely. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady. It is hard to think of any sector that has not suffered as a result of our leaving the European Union. She is right to reference the steel sector, although it could be any sector. I am pretty certain that today we will hear quite a lot about how leaving the EU has disastrously impacted so many sectors throughout the United Kingdom.

I want to get on to immigration. How do we start to deal with the subject of immigration? It is perhaps the saddest but funniest part of the whole saga. Immigration was supposed to be the one thing that Brexit would fix. That seemed to be the whole point of it: it was about taking back control and stopping uncontrolled immigration. But what did we find? Immigration skyrocketed and reached the extraordinarily high level of 1.47 million in the year to March 2023.

Without a doubt, leaving the EU closed the door to EU immigration. Net migration from the EU has been negative since June 2022. The conveyor belt of talent that had been coming to the UK for the best part of the past two decades was stopped. After closing off Europe, we quickly discovered that we actually quite liked having EU people working in all our different sectors, from hospitals to farms, hotels, restaurants, universities, care services, businesses, the City and our creative sector. We all found that we actually needed people from the EU and people quite liked employing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for introducing this important debate.

We were told that Brexit means Brexit, but what does that mean? We have heard a lot about sausages this morning; perhaps Brexit means breakfast—that certainly makes a lot more sense than that three-word slogan. A decade on from the EU membership referendum, we face higher costs, lower growth and less influence. Brexit has made the UK poorer, more isolated and less competitive.

The promised trade deal with the US has failed to materialise; instead, Trump has threatened the UK with crippling tariffs. The post-Brexit trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand negotiated by the previous Conservative Government delivered only marginal economic benefits, while the deal with Singapore merely rolled over the arrangements that we enjoyed prior to Brexit. As for Canada, after years of negotiations, the UK has still been unable to secure an enhanced agreement. Rather than unlocking a new era of prosperity, those deals have largely fallen short of the promises.

Since Brexit, trade with our largest market has become slower, costlier and more bureaucratic. British exporters now face customs checks and regulatory barriers that did not exist before, and goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-Brexit levels. The OBR estimates that UK trade will ultimately be around 15% lower than it would have been had we remained in the EU.

Brexit’s worst effects can and must be reduced, and that is why this Government’s efforts to rebuild our relationship with the EU matter. By pursuing closer co-operation and greater regulatory alignment where it serves our national interest, the Government are helping to make trade easier, but we need to go much further. Europe remains our biggest trading partner, and a pragmatic relationship with our closest neighbours is not an ideological choice but an economic necessity. We cannot erase the damage and costs of Brexit overnight, but we can reduce them to help British business and industry thrive.