UK-EU Summit

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

One thing puzzles me slightly about the position taken by the Government, which is a bit like that on the Chagos islands: we already owned them, but we entered a negotiation to give them away and rent them back. In this instance, Europe threatens us that we cannot talk about other matters until we sign up to this defence deal, but we already have a defence deal and we already co-operate: we have built weapons with France, Sweden and various other countries. Rather than what they would lose, what is it that we gain?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of these matters, and he has made a series of very important points, but it is for the Government to explain why this would be in the interests of the UK. The summit is taking place next week, and so far the Government have not done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Just to be clear, whether on energy, an SPS agreement or employment rights, this Government are interested in a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. [Interruption.] Opposition Members feign interest in the details of the deal next Monday. The Leader of the Opposition did not even want to look at it before she went out at the weekend and made her mind up about it. That is not the behaviour of a serious Opposition party, let alone a party of government. But that is where the Conservatives are now: very happy to carp on about what they are against, not caring about reducing bills, not caring about people’s pay checks, not caring about people’s jobs, and forever trying not to spell out an alternative. They have not listened, and they certainly have not learned.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the issue of learning and listening, I give way to the right hon. Member.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I just wanted to check on something. We can debate whether a trade deal can be improved—I am sure that all trade deals can be improved, whether it is the American one or what is an extensive one with Europe, and probably the greatest one negotiated in the past—but one area, as the Government go back into this discussion, needs to be very clear. I was looking at a paper produced by the Centre for European Reform, which makes one point very clear, as the Government go into the negotiation. It states:

“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”

Is that correct? Is that the position of the present Labour Government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have to say, having been for some years in this House with the right hon. Gentleman, that I never thought I would find him quoting the Centre for European Reform in a parliamentary debate, but clearly someone on the Opposition Benches is moving on, even if those on the Opposition Front Bench are not.

Driven by our ruthlessly pragmatic approach, next Monday’s UK-EU summit will be the first annual summit between the UK and the EU. It will be a day of delivery. We are delivering on our manifesto—not returning to the customs union, single market or freedom of movement, or revisiting the arguments of 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and his flowery optimism for the future of this country, with it somehow being a terribly good thing that we are realigning ourselves with the European Union without actually rejoining it. It makes me wonder about all the debates I have attended over 33 years in the House about our relationship with what used to be called the common market, then the European Communities and now the European Union.

This debate has a ring of familiarity about it, because there are two sides in the House that tend to completely misunderstand each other—only, I think that Conservative Members now understand the truth, because that came out in the referendum. The referendum demonstrated that the House of Commons was completely out of alignment with the population on the question of our membership of the European Union. The whole Brexit story was about a battle within the House as to whether the pro-EU majority would assert itself and somehow negate the referendum, or whether the referendum would be respected. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and her shadow Cabinet colleagues are right to put at the front of the motion the importance of honouring the referendum result.

The fact is that a referendum result represents a superior mandate to a single term of election for an elected Government, because that referendum takes place on a single issue. I do not think anyone would pretend that the European Union was the main issue at the last general election, so anyone in the Government or indeed in the Liberal Democrats trying to use the general election result as a mandate to circumvent the result of the 2016 referendum is playing a dangerous political game.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Of course, that argument was used in reverse on those of us who had had concerns about Europe for 40 years as we were told—exactly to my hon. Friend’s point—that a referendum was superior to continuous elections. We made a decision after the last referendum; that was a generational move. We have hardly had a generation in the few years since the referendum.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The important point is that we do not have a written constitution, but we do have in our minds a hierarchy of legitimacy on which, in the end, the democratic credibility of the House depends. The fact is, a referendum represents a superior mandate on a single issue and, with a great struggle, the pro-EU majority eventually aligned itself with the decision that the British people had taken on our membership of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am happy to point out that after the referendum and since we left the European Union, we are spending way more than £350 million a week more on the NHS than we were, and our contributions to the European Union have fallen dramatically—in fact, much faster than was expected under the withdrawal agreement. So the benefit that was on the side of the bus has turned out to be correct, although I believe it was a statistical sleight of hand to use that particular number; I disowned it at the time. But have no doubt that if we are to get drawn back into the European Union, we will have to start raiding the NHS to make payments to the European Union again. I do not think that is what the British people voted for.

That brings me back to this great defence fund, which I think will be borrowed. Will we have to borrow some of that fund as well? No, it was going to be borrowed through some European Central Bank mechanism. Will it instead be taxed? In any case, it is all Government borrowing, so will we add to Government borrowing by participating in the borrowing or funding of that fund, or would it not be better if we just remained aloof from it to concentrate on spending money on our own defence? That is the point that has already been made: the money that we have committed to defence over the years, in the period since the second world war and, indeed, since the end of the cold war, is far greater than that of the vast majority of EU countries. We also mandate our nuclear deterrent to the protection of the whole of Europe. We play our part in the defence of Europe. As for the idea that we can deploy troops more quickly through free movement of people, what planet are the Liberal Democrats on? It is utterly ludicrous.

I come back to the point about the defence fund. There have been such funds in Europe before, but I can assure Members that the game that every country plays is the one where what they put in, they get out. The French are past masters at that. They will participate in a multilateral programme, but if they do not get the lion’s share, they pull out. They pulled out of the Eurofighter programme when that was meant to be part of their deal because they were not getting enough work out of it. Therefore, the idea that it is a freebie for British defence companies to participate in the fund and get extra money into the British defence industries will simply not happen.

In any case, this fund is not about creating warfighting capability this year or next year, which is what we need; it is about the very long-term, big programmes that the defence industries want. That will not rescue us from America’s absence from NATO, if that were to occur for more than a few months or a few years under Donald Trump. Let us also remember that Donald Trump will not be there forever; he has 45 more months to go. Let us not do more damage to NATO by making it look to the other side of the Atlantic that we will take care of our own defence in Europe from now on. That is very dangerous.

I remember Madeleine Albright, a Democrat Secretary of State, railing against what was then called the European security and defence policy. She warned that it represented the “Three Ds”: the duplication of NATO assets, which was wasteful and unnecessary; the discrimination against non-EU members of NATO such as Norway, Turkey, Canada and the United States; and the decoupling of American and European defence policy. Is that what we want? Is that what this House wants? Is that what the Labour party wants? No. The Labour party says that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence and rightly so, but what signal is it sending to President Trump?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I ask that he wait just a minute.

What signal is it sending to Donald Trump by suggesting that we will have an EU defence policy that excludes the United States? It is exactly the wrong signal for this moment.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises that point, which I want to elaborate further. The real point is that J. D. Vance, the vice president, came over to Munich and ripped a hole through the Europeans, including ourselves, for not having spent enough, although we were one of the top spenders. Since then, the Americans have gone on and on about that, but each time we get the sense that they are keener to decouple. Does what we are about to do not give strength to the argument that we do not need them any longer and therefore they need to look somewhere else? That is the danger, because NATO was not just about defence of the west; it was about making sure that the US never goes into isolationism again.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Yes. That promise of creating an EU defence capability has been on the table since the St Malo declaration of 1999, in the aftermath of the Maastricht treaty that first introduced the word “defence” into the EU. That was when France and the United Kingdom, under a Labour Government, declared that the EU would have autonomous military capability, with separable but not separate military forces from NATO.

We still have the absurdity in which the armed forces of the EU countries are allocated to NATO tasks but, at the same time, are ready for EU tasks. There had to be a complicated de-confliction arrangement to try to ensure that an EU defence mission does not conflict with a NATO defence mission. We finished up with something called the Berlin-plus arrangements, which Turkey has never accepted because it is not a member of the EU but is a member of NATO.

There has always been an impasse between NATO and the EU on those two questions, and it is all completely unnecessary because NATO has a military headquarters, it has a political committee and it is an international organisation. Indeed, it is the most successful military alliance in the world. Why is the EU trying to duplicate it just for itself? The EU is more interested in statecraft and state-building than defending our own continent. The anger with which Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz have attacked Trump reflects a latent anti-Americanism that has always been there and which we could do without at this moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and to be reminded of how old he was when I first came here; I hope he stays here as long as well, or maybe I do not hope for that as it might mean we Conservative Members will be on the Opposition Benches forever.

Today’s debate is on an important topic and there have been some very good contributions already, but I want to get to the bottom of what the Government really want out of this negotiation, because they have been a little bit tepid in coming forward on the key issues. I welcome the Government’s negotiations in India—finishing off a trade arrangement deal or whatever it is with the Indian Government. I welcome too that they have been able to begin to negotiate with the United States, although they have not secured a full trade deal. By the way, they would not have got a trade deal if the Democrats had got back into office because they rejected it for four years. In fact, President Biden said that there would be no trade deal with the UK. Let us not just observe that because the Democrats are not Trump, somehow they were going to give us a trade deal. I have my problems with the current President, but President Biden absolutely did not want trade with us; it was as simple as that. That was a mistake on his part. He had a real opportunity, because the trade deal was pretty much all done—and then it was binned.

There is also the question of the reason we are able to do these trade deals with the rest of the world, to which we export more than the European Union. We should do more of those trade deals. The Conservative Government did 73 after Brexit, although some of them were mopping up the ones that we had before. I stand ready to congratulate the Labour Government if they use the freedom Brexit gives them to get more trade arrangements, because that is what we are here for. I might want to press them further and say they could get a lot more out of the US, but that is another debate all together.

I do not disagree with the idea that the deal we did with the European Union is capable of being improved. Of course it is, because the EU put up many barriers in the course of that negotiation; it weaponised Northern Ireland distinctly, and that was a grave error on its part. It risked some of the process of peace in Northern Ireland by making it a critical negotiating tool that could be used as leverage later in the rest of the negotiations, and as a result we have been left with a problem in Northern Ireland. I encourage the Government to have a very good look at that. I did not vote for the Windsor agreement because I thought it did not solve the problem by a long chalk, and it has left Northern Ireland in the same position as before, with a couple of small modifications.

This debate is really about getting into the issue. I say to the Minister that the European Union did not play straight about phytosanitary from day one in the negotiations, and it still does not play straight. The fact is that our standards in animal welfare and product health are, and always have been, above those of the European Union. The European Union knows that. The reality is that somehow it decided that there had to be all these phytosanitary checks and changes, and it is desperately keen to get dynamic alignment now, because that means that there will be a rules-based order coming from the EU. That is what it has always wanted to do.

The truth is that the European Union does not have that arrangement with other countries around the world. For example, it is quite happy to have New Zealand vets check their products before departure. Those products go in through Rotterdam without any checks, other than checks that they came from the area specified. The EU knows which vets it authorises, so it does that. It could have done that here in the UK.

I sat down with Monsieur Barnier and a group of people to have a long discussion when the negotiations broke down as a result of what was going on here in Parliament, and I very much remember that we talked about trusting each other’s regulations and working with that trust to get an arrangement that made it as easy as possible to get goods across the border. He accepted that then, saying that, provided we could trust each other’s veterinary authorities, we would not need to have the phytosanitary rules as proposed at the moment. It was only later, when my party in government came back and did a terrible shimmy with him, that he thought he had it all, so he took it. The reality is that the EU knew all along, from the word go, that it was easier to put in place these arrangements than it made out.

I have always found the phytosanitary objection peculiar, because it could be sorted out very quickly. Our standards are higher than the EU’s, and our vets are quite capable of checking different producers to see whether they fit European standards. That is all it is: are they up to European standards, and are European standards up to ours when the EU exports to us? It is very simple. That can be done in every trade deal, and the EU already does it with other countries that are not, and have never been, part of that Union. There is an idea that to get this issue sorted, we would have to go into dynamic alignment and accept the EU’s rules over our products, but it would make it more difficult to make future trade arrangements if we were rule-takers from the European Union and could not negotiate these areas ourselves. That brings me back to my previous point.

Before I return to that issue, I want to raise another point. The trouble is that the argument I heard made—that a phytosanitary agreement involving dynamic alignment would address the price of food—is patently absurd. If SPS checks concerned the price of food, we could unilaterally relax them. They do not have to be where they are: that is our decision to take. It would not change or lower the price of food. If anything, it would be more likely to block us from doing a number of things, such as gene editing in food and work that we want to do that the European Union does not want to do. All these things put at risk where we may be in future trade arrangements and the direction in which we may want to develop farming here.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I want to make a couple of points on this issue before I give way.

We know, and everybody else around the world outside the EU knows, that the EU puts up very hidden tariff barriers. America is right about that; it complained that Europe finds all sorts of little regulations and problems, so that it cannot break in with its products and goods. That has happened for a long time, and it has happened with us—we know that it was even happening when we were in the EU. We are by nature a free-trading country, and there is no way on earth that we think the EU as a construct is as free trading in that sense. It wants to protect its markets more than anything else, rather than open up to the rest of the world.

[David Chadwick]

Welsh food and drink exports have fallen by 18% since 2018. Does that not evidence the damage that has been done to Wales by these deals?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

If damage has been done to exporting to the European Union, as I said earlier, that is about the attitude of the European Union to protectionism in the EU. Its trade with us has not fallen away on that basis, because we did not set up those barriers in the first place, so my argument to the hon. Gentleman is very simple: the European Union wants it all. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. It wants it all, and it negotiated in bad faith from the word go. We have an agreement, which is a pretty good agreement as trade agreements go. It is one of the largest trade agreements that we have. It can always be improved—I do not disagree with that—but the reality is that we need to deal with an organisation that is as relaxed about being fair to us as we are about being fair to it. That has been our biggest problem from the word go.

Returning to phytosanitary issues, I have had debates and discussions with the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), in the past, and we have agreed with each other many times. I laud him for his stance on Russia and everything else—there is no question about that—but I want to quote from a little document that I came across from the Centre for European Reform. By the way, it is very complimentary to say that I read things that I do not agree with. I tend to do that quite a lot, strangely—it is a bad habit of mine, I know. That document is very close to how the European Union’s heads of department all think, and it says:

“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”

As such, I ask the Minister this simple question: is the Centre for European Reform correct? Do the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment, or do they not? I will give way to the Minister right now, because I am generous like that, and he probably wants to answer that question. I tempt him to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment. Could they, and will they, agree to dynamic alignment and ECJ rules? I will give way to him now, because I see that he is beginning to move.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

He is not—what a pity.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has a little while to go before he stands at the Dispatch Box. I am after the Minister, not him, but we will get to that in due course. The reality is that the Government could agree to dynamic alignment—there was no denial of that. Essentially, the Government are going into this negotiation knowing full well that they are so desperate on phytosanitary matters that they will give way on dynamic alignment. That is exactly what the EU wants.

My real worry in all of this, however, is that we know what is going on—I will just move on to another topic, and then I will sit down and give other Members a chance to speak. Most of all, I am worried about bad faith. When we talked about improvements—which, to be fair to the Government, they did with the European Union—what did France do almost immediately? The Prime Minister is showing some leadership over Ukraine, trying to galvanise the other nations, which is his role. His role is to haul America and keep it with us, and he has been doing that. I do not have any criticism of that, but when the Prime Minister got involved, saying that Europe should form a coalition of the willing and that he wanted to drive that further forward and get some kind of agreement on it, what did France immediately say? “Not before you give us access to fishing.” That was it. In no world does fishing have anything to do with defence, yet France weaponised fishing to block off the UK, which had taken the—I think—generous position of saying that it wanted to galvanise Europe to do more.

The problem here is that if we take out the countries that joined since the Ukraine war, Europe across the board spends half of what the United States does on defence in dollar terms. We have more people and more industry in Europe, yet we spend half of what America does on weaponry and defence. That is a shocking position for a member of NATO to be in. We have not stood up. We have done better—still not good enough—but what the rest of Europe has done has been shocking. By the way, the country that just told us that we will not get any discussions unless fishing is on the agenda has been one of the worst spenders on defence in the European Union, let alone in global terms.

[Mr Francois]

Less than us.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Way less than us, and less than most of the others—it is at the bottom of the scale. I simply say to the Government that the Prime Minister is right to press on defence, to get the European nations to step up, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said earlier, we have a mechanism for that. The Prime Minister is right to do it through NATO, and we must not allow Europe to slide away from NATO as its means of defence.

I watched, as did many of its leaders, when Vice-President Vance lectured the European Union in Munich. What he said shocked the European leaders, as it was meant to—he laid into Europe quite vindictively—but fair enough. However, where we are now heading, towards somehow encouraging those countries peculiarly to form some kind of European Union defence organisation, is exactly what will give the American Administration permission to say, “Well, you can do this yourself.” We are already halfway there, by the way, because we are forming a coalition of the willing but America is not willing, and we are at odds with it over its relationship with Ukraine. We agreed about the ceasefire, but America has now changed its position and will now be holding negotiations before a ceasefire. I think that that is wrong, by the way. Although I am personally a big supporter of America, I think it is mistaken on that particular point and the Government are right.

My point is that we are putting the whole of NATO at risk for a phytosanitary and fishing deal. In what world does anyone do that? What are we doing it for? The answer, it seems to me, is that we are too desperate to curry favour with an organisation that, when push comes to shove and when it comes to defence, needs us more than we need it. It needs the UK to be locked into this because we are the key to so much of what it needs to do with defence. I say to the Government, “You have much stronger tools in your hand than you may think.” We have key persuasive powers on defence, and we should not sell them on the basis that they should become European and we should destroy NATO, or damage NATO, simply because we want to make some kind of adjustment or improvement which includes dynamic alignment and the loss of the possibility of future trade negotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

In a moment—I want to make some progress.

While none of that has been made clear, we have heard from quite a lot of Back-Bench Labour MPs that we will have a wonderful new trade deal and a great new visa system for young people, which gives me pause. Either we are not being told fully what is going to happen at this summit, or there is such anticipation for back-door EU realignment that the Labour party cannot contain itself, and its Members cannot help but tell us what they are planning on doing.

My biggest concern in all this—forgive me for wanting reassurance from the Dispatch Box—is that the outcome of the summit might involve concessions of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, or the application of any of the principles of supremacy of EU law. I would like a guarantee from the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that that will not be the case. There can be no question of the European Court of Justice being brought back via the back door through dynamic realignment with EU law.

I want to hear reassurances from the Minister that nothing will be discussed or renegotiated at this summit that would tear apart all the work we did, through the withdrawal agreement and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, to ensure that our laws have supremacy over EU law. That was the point. Many of us voted for Brexit because we wanted to see our sovereignty and our borders restored; we wanted to see our laws brought back under our sovereignty. We want to ensure that we honour the commitments that we made, with both the Retained EU Law Act and the withdrawal agreement, to move forward with the EU.

I welcome trade deals all over the world; I want us to be as successful as we can be. Praise where praise is due: if the Labour party has achieved a trade deal, fine—I am happy to acknowledge that and to say “Well done”. We should be trying to get trade deals with any country that we can.

The reason I am asking for assurances from the Dispatch Box is that I have seen the Labour party change its view on so many things: on Brexit, on Trump, on scrapping winter fuel payments, on energy bills—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On national insurance!

[Joy Morrissey]

And on national insurance. Forgive me for needing reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the Minister will not come back with some sort of 1984 doublespeak and expect us to enjoy that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will therefore end just by saying that the amendment tabled by Reform, which I appreciate was not selected, demonstrates that we are on the same page and I deeply regret their opposition to what we are trying to do.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Reform Members are not here, so I will answer that point. They are not on the same page as us because their amendment, which was not a proper one, did not fit on the same page of the Order Paper!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows that he should be addressing the Chair, not facing the back of the Chamber.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that was a lapse on my part.

[Danny Kruger]

All sorts of things go wrong when we mention Reform, so we had best leave that topic.

I pay tribute to the Conservative Front-Bench Members, who have put forward an important and principled statement of the declaration that our party will stand for. We support the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, repeated in multiple general elections. It is a great shame that we cannot hear the Labour party make the same pledge.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I start with a warning to my colleagues elected in 2024? Many of us who were here between 2017 and 2019 have been deeply triggered by this debate, which has rerun and rehashed the debates of old. We have the scars on all our backs. I warn hon. Members: do not go down that rabbit hole. No good can come of it. [Interruption.] I wager that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is laughing because he knows how much—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

Well, of course I have to give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. If she wants to deliberately not go down that rabbit hole, she should be talking to the Government Front Benchers.

[Ms Creasy]

And lo, Bugs Bunny did appear. We have also heard from the man I started arguing with 33 years ago as a young campaigner about the merits or otherwise of working with Europe. It appears that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) was on the other bus in the debates about Brexit. That is exactly it: our constituents, who might listen to this, would be horrified to see us going backwards again, acting as if the last 10 years had not happened and there was no evidence about what Brexit means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

No.

When Labour talked about a “reset” in its general election manifesto, there was absolutely no reference to rule taking as part of any such accommodation. Labour would therefore be giving away our rights, entirely without the consent of the British people. That must be fiercely resisted and, if necessary, overturned. Moreover, there is the prospect of additional concessions over everything from so-called youth mobility schemes—a euphemism for a return to freedom of movement in another guise—to capitulation over net zero mechanisms and, specifically, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would make our remaining industries even more internationally uncompetitive than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) has achieved to date.

As someone who sat here during the last Parliament—as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) kindly mentioned—and witnessed, night after night and week after week, the then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, now the Prime Minister, pulling every procedural trick from the depths of Erskine May in order to try to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union at almost any price and despite the referendum, I am in no way surprised that his Government are now attempting this act of capitulation. Our Prime Minister has always been a passionate Europhile; in short, he remains a remainer in his heart of hearts, and he always will.

What the Labour Government are up to—and I say again that they will try to use a defence pact in order to hide it—is beginning a process of gradually taking us back towards and even back into the European Union, if they think they can get away with it. They will never risk another referendum, because in 2016, almost up to the last minute, the polls were showing that remain might win, but when it came to it, the British people had the temerity to vote to govern themselves, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and “Project Fear”. What they will do is try to take us back in very gradually, via a process of grandmother’s footsteps, or, to make another analogy, trying to boil a frog slowly. If they get away with submission next week, despite their manifesto commitments, they will eventually try to take us back into the single market—although, no doubt, under some other name—and if they can get away with that, they will suggest that we might as well rejoin the customs union. They will put the argument to the British people that we are so far back into the blooming thing that we might as well go the whole hog and rejoin it entirely—all without a vote or the consent of the people of the United Kingdom, at any stage, whatsoever.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I just want to draw something out. Dynamic alignment is not a small thing; it is huge, because it is rule taking. Can my right hon. Friend imagine our engaging in any other trade arrangement—with the United States or Australia, for instance, or the trans-Pacific partnership—and being in a position where we had to say, “We will accept your rules and your adjudication”?

[Mr Francois]

It would be far better to do this via a process of mutual enforcement, of which my right hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate. When the Minister sums up the debate, we will ask him if he will rule out, very clearly, any prospect of dynamic alignment at the summit next week.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I am grateful to have the chance to respond to this afternoon’s debate. I did not know that the House had so many fans of “Quantum Leap”— a favourite show of mine when I was younger. Of course, fans of the show will know that Sam Beckett was advised by a hologram called Al, a US admiral who would come in and give good advice on how to get through challenges. Instead, we have had the spectre of Sir Bill Cash coming in via text to Conservative Members. Who would have thought it?

This debate has been a journey back to the past. On this side of the House, we have a Government who want to take this country forward, not back. That is a stark contrast with those on the other side, who seem stuck in the last decade. We will not be rejoining the EU, the single market or the customs union, or returning to freedom of movement, but we look forward to welcoming Presidents von der Leyen and Costa to London next week for the first ever UK-EU summit—the first annual summit to take place between the UK and the EU.

The Leader of the Opposition recently said:

“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.”

Of course, the lesson that we have learned, and to which the Conservative party might want to pay careful attention, is that failing to plan is inevitably planning to fail. This Government will not take the same reckless, chaotic and dogmatic approach when it comes to the British people and our national interests. That is why, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, this Government were elected on a mandate for change, which is what we are delivering. We have been resetting our relationships with our EU partners and our wider European partners, and we are using those strengthened relationships to deliver growth, prosperity, safety and security. I, the Paymaster General, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have been working to do that.

Just this week, we hosted the Weimar+ Foreign Ministers meeting on Ukraine, and we have had high-level engagement with many European leaders. We have been travelling around the continent, driving forward growth, driving forward action on illegal immigration, and driving forward relationships for our security and our defence. We are also setting up structures to ensure that our European partnerships deliver in the long term, including treaties or leader-level summits with some of our closest partners, such as France, Germany, Poland and Ireland—not to mention the exciting and successful state visit by His Majesty the King to Italy last month. I am delighted that Buckingham Palace has today announced that President Macron, accompanied by Mrs Macron, has accepted an invitation from His Majesty to pay a state visit to the UK, and the Prime Minister and President will hold their next summit during that visit.

Increased engagement has already delivered results for the UK. On growth, we have had £250 million of Czech investment in Rolls-Royce small modular reactors and a £600 million investment by the Polish logistics company InPost, and Iberdrola is doubling its investment through ScottishPower over the next four years. On security, we have new defence agreements with Germany and Romania, and new negotiations on defence agreements with Poland and Norway. On migration, we have a joint action plan with Germany and new migration deals with Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia and Slovakia, and we have also agreed new measures to tackle people-smuggling gangs with France. On energy and climate, we have new civil nuclear co-operation between the UK and Finland, and other European countries are responding positively to that. Crucially, on security and defence—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

They want answers to the questions they have asked. I am going to give them some answers, and then I will happily take interventions.

On foreign security and defence policy, let me be absolutely clear: NATO is and remains the bedrock of our security and our transatlantic alliances, but there are many strands to a muscle. Whether it is the joint expeditionary force, our bilateral security and defence partnerships, or our work through other pan-European bodies, through the European Political Community, in the western Balkans, through the Quint or, indeed, through a new UK-EU security and defence partnership, a muscle gets stronger when its multiple strands are flexed. Those things do not contradict each other; they are strengthening this country and our place in the world, and delivering on defence, on technology, on jobs, on industry and on security.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and as I have said, we have worked together in the past quite a lot. I will just ask a very simple question. The Government have constantly said they will not breach their red lines. They have apparently said that publicly in Europe, and they have said it here. My simple question is: is dynamic alignment one of the red lines?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will come on to that in a moment, but we are absolutely clear. I have been clear, and so has the Paymaster General. I will come on to answer that question specifically in a moment.

Talking down Britain’s role in NATO at a time of war in Europe when we are showing such leadership is, quite frankly, irresponsible. I will not take lessons on NATO, European defence and security or the defence and security of this country from a party that shrunk the British Army to the smallest size since the Napoleonic era, when we have made the tough choices of investing in defence.

Let me be absolutely clear: there is no suggestion that the UK would ever join a European army, and no formal proposal for that has ever been put forward. Indeed, on Gibraltar—I answered questions on this earlier—we absolutely take a stand on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, given the importance of our military base there. I spoke to the Chief Minister earlier about that, and the wild speculation that is being put about is hugely unhelpful.

On fisheries, we should be clear that there was of course a Brexit deal negotiated by the last Government, and we are looking for an overall arrangement that is beneficial for our fisheries and our coastal communities, but I am not going to get into a running commentary.

On SPS—and, indeed, on the question the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—asked, let us be clear: since 2018, the UK’s agrifood trade with the EU has fallen by 20% for exports and 11% for imports, after adjusting for trade inflation, so it is in the interests of both sides to seek an SPS agreement that removes those barriers to trade. We are not interested in divergence for the sake of divergence or in a race to the bottom on standards. We will not get into a running commentary on this, but we have been absolutely clear. Of course, there need to be appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.