EU-UK Summit

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.

This week will go down in parliamentary history as the week of the greatest surrender. It was bookended by the surrendering at the beginning of the week of the valuable freedoms won from the European Union through the joys of Brexit, and by today’s surrendering of our valuable freehold of the Chagos islands, on which there will be a statement later. I think many members of the British public will be confused, because last week the Government were talking about the joys of the freedoms of Brexit—to be able to do trade deals with India and with the United States—but, all of a sudden, this week they have gone back to the fog of surrender by handcuffing us very closely to the European Union.

There is a rule in business that has been deployed many times by parliamentarians: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Normally with the EU there is a last-minute drama, but this time was different, because little was agreed and everything was conceded. That is the bottom line. Little has actually been agreed, and everything has been conceded in an extraordinary act of surrender. To use another expression, it is the thin end of the wedge. The EU cannot believe its luck; it has opened the door and stuck the little wedge in there, and it has now got lots of things that it is still negotiating on. Every time, its representatives will say, “Well, you’ve got to agree this before we move on to the next one.” We have heard it all before, yet the Government have learned nothing.

The first surrender is very dear to my constituents in Boston. My fishermen are raging and furious because they assumed that after the end of this first-phase deal, more quotas would be negotiated back to the UK, they would be beneficiaries and we would take back more control of our waters. Instead, it is all been conceded—for 12 years. It is gone.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Are his fishermen not pleased that their export market, which was often turning fish back because of the massively complicated controls, is now open to them again? We were not eating that fish in the UK, and too often it was rotting.

[Richard Tice]

No, they have not mentioned that at all. Likewise, none of the major logistics firms in my constituency has even once mentioned the so-called delays at the border. This surrender of fishing is completely and utterly inexcusable, and nothing has been gained in return.

The second big surrender is that, apparently, we have negotiated theoretical access to some future EU defence fund, but we do not know how much access. We know that we will have to pay a whole load of cash, but we do not know how much—it all has to be negotiated in future. Little has been agreed and everything has been conceded.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The UK has one of the best defence industries in the world. I am disappointed, as a fellow patriot, that the hon. Gentleman wants to downplay our ability to access that money and support UK businesses and jobs.

[Richard Tice]

I did not say anything about downplaying; I said that if the Government are going to agree a deal, they should agree the terms of the deal. They should not just say, “We’d like a bit of the action. Please tell us how much it’ll cost us later,” and have no idea how much of the action they will get. That is a terrible deal, and we all know that no deal is better than a bad deal.

The third surrender is about becoming a rule-taker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to agrifoods and the SPS deal, which all sounds very good, except that we now have to take a load of extra rules from Brussels that we have no input into under a process called dynamic alignment, which might mean that we cannot do any further trade deals with great nations such as the United States. That is instead of arguing for mutual recognition, which can of course exist between nations that have excellent standards of food and products, as we do.

We have gained nothing from those three great surrenders. Indeed, we will probably have to pay more if we want any more rules to be given to us, but why would we pay more when we have given ourselves the freedom not to have to pay? I thought we had done all of that.

If we are not content with that, what about the fourth surrender—the big one? Earlier this year, the Minister said, “Don’t worry, chaps—no plans for any form of youth mobility scheme.” It turns out that he was right, because some clever person rebadged it: “I’ve got an idea. Let’s call it a youth experience scheme.” Well, I am sure it is a lovely experience, but when someone is 30 years old, are they still a youth? Is it a middle age experience scheme? During the negotiation—because it has not been concluded —I can see that it will then become an old age experience scheme. Then, someone will say, “Hang on, if it’s an old age experience scheme, we don’t have the workers to look after the old people from the EU who’ve come over to our glorious care homes.” So then we will have to have more freedom of movement.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

And dependants.

[Richard Tice]

And dependants, because the scheme is still open-ended. We do not know the age or number of people involved in the youth experience scheme, and we have no idea about its duration. I am hoping that I will still qualify at the age of 60.

[Ms Creasy]

I, too, share a burning desire to still be considered young—alas, I have to face the brutal reality. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has similar concerns about the 13 other youth mobility schemes that we have with countries around the world. Does he fear the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the Japanese and the Uruguayans who come on such schemes in the same way that he fears the Europeans? Or is it that he thinks the Europeans are younger and fitter than him?

[Richard Tice]

Well, the Europeans may well be younger and fitter than me, but the truth is that proximity makes a big difference to the concerns of my constituents. Boston has received a significant quantity of net immigration from eastern Europe, but it has not seen any Australians. There is a proximity issue, but surely it must be right that if the Government are going to agree a deal, they should agree the terms of the deal. We do not know the numbers, the cap or, really, the duration of the scheme—we know absolutely nothing. We are completely at the mercy of the European Union.

I invite any hon. Member to spend a day with me in sunny Skegness and knock on a thousand doors. I promise them that not a single person who answers the door will say, “I want a youth experience scheme for Johnny or Judy.”

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

As with anything, when the terms are unclear there is a big risk of unintended consequences. Given that 60 million people in the EU are under 30 and that the scheme does nothing for the immigration issues we are already facing, does my hon. Friend agree that those unintended consequences could be quite severe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

That is the point—my hon. Friend is bang on. There is a sizeable number of people under 30: it may be 60 million or 70 million—who knows? We have huge pressure on our housing, a determination to increase wages for British citizens, and pressure on our healthcare. Just a couple of weeks ago, the British people clearly expressed their opinion in the local elections and backed Reform UK’s net zero immigration policy. They said, “Actually, we quite like that,” which is why, of course, we did so well. The ability to listen to the British people’s concerns may have been lost.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I would be delighted to give way to my neighbouring MP.

[Sir John Hayes]

I can confirm that I have never met an Australian or a Canadian in Boston or in Spalding. Leaving that to one side, is not the real threat even more sinister than the hon. Gentleman suggests? We have, stubbornly, a huge number of young people who are not in education, employment or training—in fact, the trend is slightly up. It is a tragedy that those people are either trapped without jobs or not learning to get them. They will inevitably be competing with people from abroad for their early opportunities to work. We need to back young people. I fear that, unless we get absolute clarity on the length and character of the scheme, it will threaten those young people’s chances.

[Richard Tice]

That is absolutely right. In my constituency, young people want better and better-paid jobs. They do not want wages to be suppressed.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about European young people wanting to come to the UK, but what about the many British young people who want to go to Europe—to Berlin, Paris or Milan? What does he say to people from Boston and Skegness who would like to study overseas?

[Richard Tice]

As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman is most welcome to knock on a thousand doors with me in Boston and Skegness. I do not think any of those people would be rushing out to do that; that is not their primary aim. Their primary aim is to get a good job in that constituency, which they are very proud of.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have spent quite a lot of time in Spalding and Skegness, and I would be very happy to knock on thousands of doors there, but that is not what I wanted to ask about. Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely certain that there is nobody in his constituency who would like to take up the opportunity of having an experience in the European Union?

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady implies that we are unable to go to the EU; of course, people can travel to the EU. What I am saying is that people want to get a good job with good pay prospects in their neighbourhood —near home. At the moment, that is not the reality, and that is what people are focused on.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

rose—

[Richard Tice]

I am besieged by requests. I will give way to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake).

[Rachel Blake]

Also known as the hon. Member who wants to go back to Skegness seaside at some point to remember her childhood. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question: is he certain that there is nobody in his constituency who could benefit from a youth experience scheme, even though that could actually enhance their employment opportunities when they come back to the UK?

[Richard Tice]

The honest truth is that, yes, there might be some—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] But the truth is that they do not want 10, 20 or 50 times more coming into Boston and Skegness, taking their jobs and suppressing their wages. That is the reality for my constituents.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said he is yet to see a Japanese, Uruguayan or Australian person in Boston and Skegness. What makes him think that European young people would be more likely to pitch up there?

[Richard Tice]

It is on the basis of experience and history over the last 19 years. Since 2004, and the transition of eight countries, I think, Boston and Skegness has seen a huge inflow of tens of thousands—thousands and thousands—of eastern Europeans.

Moving on to the fifth surrender, which relates to the much-vaunted emissions trading scheme, the reality is that it is, as we speak, driving up the price of carbon tariffs towards the EU’s carbon tariff. Why do we want these tariffs? I know: it is because of net stupid zero.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Will the hon. Member clarify whether he said that tens of thousands of Europeans were coming in? Is that an accurate figure?

[Richard Tice]

Yes, I did use that figure. Within my constituency, it is probably more than 10,000—a very sizeable number. It is probably one of the greatest recipients of any UK constituency, so I stand by that number.

The fifth surrender is on the EU emissions trading scheme, which will drive up prices. If we do not subscribe to net zero, however, we do not need any of these carbon tariffs, so that would drive down prices. What will happen now that we have linked and handcuffed ourselves to this EU carbon trading scheme is that the bureaucrats in Brussels will say, “In all these other areas to do with trading, they will have to comply with this, that and the other.” Every time there is something that they do not like, they will say, “No. Under the EU net zero trading scheme, you’re going to have to comply.” That is the thin end of the wedge that we are so concerned about.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the many businesses and confederations of businesses that have welcomed the deal. He is talking about energy. One energy company, Octopus Energy, has said that it will bring down people’s energy bills, rather than increasing them. What would he say to consumers who would prefer their energy bills to be lower?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

The renewable energy industry is receiving subsidies of tens of billions of pounds, which are added to all our household bills. The wholesale cost of energy is between 30% and 35% of the total cost of energy, so all the rest is subsidies, policy costs, transmission costs and profit. If we scrap net stupid zero, we drive down prices. Instead, the deal will handcuff us for evermore to higher bills; it will not reduce bills in any way.

[Ms Creasy]

As a proud member of the Community trade union, and on behalf of all the other trade unions who represent those who work in the steel industry, including many in the Scunthorpe steelworks, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what he will say to them when they are campaigning for the deal. They recognise that, as I said, 75% of our steel exports go to the EU. If he cuts off their access to the EU market by making them pay an additional subsidy, he will kill the British steel industry. Does he have any words of comfort for them about where their jobs will go?

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady may have forgotten that it was thanks to our intervention that British Steel and the blast furnaces have been saved. We stood there six years ago, and I said, “Don’t sell British Steel to the Chinese,” but the Conservative Government ignored our advice. British Steel has consistently said to me over the last six years that the cost of energy drives up the price of steel. That is why the quantity of steel that we have produced in this country in the last decade has plummeted—because of our high energy costs due to the ever increasing cost of renewable energy.

The key problem is the cost of energy, which has driven down the production of steel by about half in the last decade. That is why British Steel is so cross about the cost of energy. We have an opportunity to manufacture and sell more steel internally, in the UK, but the tragedy is that the Ministry of Defence, for example, does not use either of our key steel producers—Tata Steel or British Steel—as a critical supplier, which it should do. Why does it not do that? Because those producers are uncompetitive. Why? Because of the cost of energy in our domestic market. The fifth surrender is the EU emissions trading scheme, which will be a serious handicap and handcuff over the next few years.

The sixth surrender is on the use of passport e-gates. I know it caused some interest, but the reality is that, once again, nothing has been agreed. It is supposedly the great benefit, yet it turns out that it is not agreed. We have no idea when it might commence; it might be this year or next year. It also turns out that no country is obligated to sign up to our supposed access through the e-gates—no, it will be a voluntary process. Actually, we have not agreed the benefit that we have all been told is the deal’s greatest opportunity.

In other words, once again, little has been agreed and everything has been conceded. Interestingly, even before the deal, nations such as Portugal already allowed us through e-gates. We already have the opportunity that is supposedly the great benefit of this deal, so why do the deal in the first place?

The deal has been done, despite all of these great surrenders, because we have a Prime Minister who did not want us to leave the EU. More than that, he did not want to trust democracy; he wanted to do it again by having a second referendum. One week, he says that he wants freedom of movement and more immigration, and the next week, he says he wants less immigration. It is hard to keep up.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am disappointed that we are hearing, from the hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition side of the Chamber, words such as “surrender”, “sinister” and “stupid”. They are nicely alliterative, but let me give him some other words: “cheaper”, “faster” and “more opportunities”? They are what the deal brings to the young people of Boston and Skegness, as much as to the people of Hackney South and Shoreditch.

[Richard Tice]

I am absolutely certain that nothing will be cheaper as a result of the deal. Indeed, we have already seen that the carbon price has gone up, which gives us the first indication.

I do not think that the deal will be a great opportunity. It was a catastrophic surrender. We worked so hard to give ourselves freedom of control through Brexit.

[Sam Rushworth]

Why does nearly every major supermarket disagree with the hon. Gentleman?

[Richard Tice]

That is a good question. I know that in my constituency, not a single one of the big logistics companies or big farmers, or any of the supermarkets, who all know my position, has got in touch with me and said, “Richard, you’re wrong on this. This is a great deal,” so perhaps the Prime Minister and the Government have overstated that point.

The great opportunities of Brexit—the ability to take back control, be a sovereign nation and make our own independent sovereign deals, which we got excited about under the Government’s leadership last week—have all now been given up. They have been strangled and handcuffed, and they have been handcuffed to a failing economic model where the biggest economy, Germany, is in recession—it is struggling; it has even more problems than our economy. I ask hon. Members: why would we handcuff ourselves to a failing economic model for evermore?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I am so sorry to hear about the resentment that the hon. Gentleman feels at the deal that his Government negotiated. However, he must accept that that is the basis on which the new deal has been struck. That was the starting point for the negotiation. I am sorry to hear it was so terrible, but that was the starting point.

The betrayal by those who advocated for the opportunities of Brexit did not end there. Of course, it was not just the Conservatives, but the leader of the Reform party. The public were promised that immigration would fall. Instead, it has risen to record levels. Far from the economic liberation that the Brexiteers pledged leaving the EU would bring, the OBR has estimated that barriers to trade with Europe will reduce the output of our economy by 4% over 15 years.

More than that, we know how much public opinion has shifted on this issue, as many have come to realise that the promises of the leave campaign were so detached from reality. The leave campaign promised £350 million a week to the NHS, but the truth has become painfully clear. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) gave the game away in an interview in December. Speaking about America, he said that

“it’s got cheap energy, because it ‘drill baby drills’, they’ve got lower regulations and they’ve got lower taxes.”

That is the real Brexit agenda: environmental vandalism, stripping away regulations that keep us safe and cutting taxes for the rich. I hope Members will acknowledge the extent to which that campaign misled the public.

[Richard Tice]

We have heard lots about reducing bills, but the hon. Lady has just confirmed that the greatest bill, which affects so much, is the cost of energy, and America enjoys energy prices that are a third of ours because it uses its own domestic energy treasure.

[Sarah Olney]

I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because what he will need to accept in time is that the way forward for cheaper electricity bills in this country is to invest in renewable energy. That, more than anything else, is what will reduce the cost of energy for consumers and businesses. The more renewable energy we have, including from wind farms off the east coast, the quicker we can get to reduced bills for our constituents.

The Liberal Democrats welcome many parts of the new agreement. It marks a distinct and positive step towards reversing the damage caused by the Conservatives’ pitiful negotiations with Europe, and I welcome the progress on those issues. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) will welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats would echo his call for a return of the European Scrutiny Committee; I agree with his comments on that.

According to a recent study from the London School of Economics, the Brexit deal reduced goods exports by £27 billion, or 6.4%, in 2022. Smaller firms were the most affected. The Government say that the new deal will add £9 billion to the UK economy, and we welcome the decisive step to address the disastrous damage that Brexit brought to our economy.

However, ahead of the last general election the Labour party drew itself some self-defeating red lines. The timidity in negotiations with Europe seems to be driven more by a fear of the Reform party than a commitment to bring forward proposals that would benefit the British people. Joining a new customs union with the EU is one such line. However, they are acting less like lines and more like chains weighing down on UK growth and prosperity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We will not be contributing to the general EU budget. We will be contributing on a value-for-money basis in specific areas, just as the last Government did when they started contributing to the Horizon research programme. I supported that when I was in opposition. I do not know whether that was one of the bitter things the Government did that the hon. Gentleman could not stomach in all those years. Where there is a value-for-money case and it is in Britain's interest, that is precisely what Britain would do. It is not about ideology; it is about a ruthlessly pragmatic approach, and that is what we will pursue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) spoke about the deal working for the whole of the United Kingdom. She is absolutely right. The Government have secured, for example, the removal of steel tariffs, which is just one example of how different parts of the country will benefit. The SPS agreement on agricultural products, food and drink will benefit constituents up and down the land, as will the work on energy bills.

[Richard Tice]

To prove that he is so confident the agreement will not mean a return to freedom of movement—given that the vast majority of those who moved under freedom of movement were under the age of 30 and could therefore qualify for a youth experience scheme—will the Minister give us an indication of the sort of number the cap is likely to be set at? Is it 30,000, 50,000 or 200,000 per annum?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The scheme will be time-limited and capped. I will make two points on that. First, it will be introduced in the context of the Government’s pledge to reduce net migration over the course of this Parliament. Secondly, I see it in the same way as the 13 schemes that already exist and are working perfectly well. I do not detect from Conservative Members—although one or two Back Benchers might have a different view—any particular desire to undo those agreements. Nobody is remotely suggesting that because we have a youth mobility arrangement with Uruguay, for example, we have freedom of movement with Uruguay. That would be absurd.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings knows I respect him. We often spar across the Dispatch Box in the House. As ever, he put his finger on a fine historical parallel when he quoted Joseph Chamberlain at the start of his speech. Over a century ago, at the start of the 20th century, Joseph Chamberlain began a debate about trading arrangements that the British public thought would increase the cost of food. That led to a landslide Conservative defeat in 1906 and no pure Conservative Government for 16 years afterwards. Joseph Chamberlain’s campaign on trade caused absolute havoc on the right of British politics. Does that sound familiar?