Rejoining the EU

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

With frustration.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. Is that an intervention again, Sir Bernard?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

indicated dissent.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

I call Al Pinkerton to resume his speech.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

I quoted you an awfully long time ago on something fairly sympathetic, I think. [Interruption.]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, then the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way.

[Mike Wood]

Is that parliamentary language, Mrs Barker? I do not know how long it takes for the cogs to turn, but it has been a while.

What sort of economic club are the petitioners urging us to re-enter? Thirty years ago, the European Union accounted for more than a quarter of the global economy; today, that share has fallen to around 18%; within a generation, it is projected to drop below 10%. Applying to rejoin would mean surrendering our independent seat at the global top table. It would also mean being legally forced to tear up our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership dynamic trading pact—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

I think that having control of an independent trade policy where we can get those deals in the interests of the British economy—whether the CPTPP or the trade agreements with India or the Gulf Co-operation Council—is an advantage of being outside the customs union and having taken back that control. Tying ourselves to an economic bloc that is fast declining as a proportion of world trade and locking ourselves back behind the common tariff walls of the most sluggish economic continent on earth would come with a cost. Why on earth would a proud global maritime trading nation choose to jump off the international express train just to squeeze on to a continental stopping service that is running at least 40 minutes late? [Interruption.]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to hear the Opposition spokesperson.

[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.