Rejoining the EU

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

None of us wants to go back to the Brexit debates we had in this place. Looking around, I see that most Members present for this debate were spared the horrors of 27 votes in one night and the fisticuffs that took place—[Interruption.] Yes, not all Members here were spared that. I am grateful that nobody else has to go through that horror, but we do need to look again at Brexit. When we look at the real GDP per capita growth since the vote and see that the eurozone countries—Italy, France and Spain—have all outpaced us, I can only ask the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin): are these Brexit benefits in the room with us now? Can anybody else see them?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I will not give way; we have already had to listen to the hon. Gentleman. It would be easy to be angry about our performance in Brexit, but these debates are too often fuelled by blind beliefs rather than careful consideration—witness the hon. Gentleman.

Do we really understand how bad the Tory hard Brexit has been for this country and the scale of the challenge we face? The challenge is not just about the economic impact of leaving the largest trade bloc in the world. I was just shocked by Tory shadow Ministers in the Chamber being surprised to realise that their hard Brexit means that we do not get information in real time from our European counterparts to help British farmers with bio and food security alerts. We also left Eurodac—for all the people who are concerned about stopping the boats and who might want that asylum data—because, again, they hated the term “Europe”. Countless bands will never get the chance to be the Beatles or Oasis because of the 90-day rule, and 20,000 businesses have given up on trading with Europe altogether, because the only Brexit “benefit” that anyone can quantify is the amount of paperwork it created.

The second blind belief, however, is that it would be simple just to go back. We have to be honest. The British problem is that we too often think that the difficult bit is us deciding what our future relationship with Europe should be, and then we tell the Europeans, as if they do not read our newspapers. Some humility is needed, to say the least. In the last 10 years, the continent has faced war and the antics of President Putin and President Trump. It now has new deals on migration and asylum, a new green deal, and trade deals of its own with Canada and the South American Mercosur nations. It has challenged Chinese exports so that “Made in Europe” is now a serious prospect. We are simply an afterthought and casualty of that process.

None of that is an argument against looking to the future, but if the status quo is not acceptable, we have to be honest with our constituents about what is and what we should be fighting for. Frankly, we should look at how others have approached Europe. To go into a negotiation and saying what we do not want—“No, no, no”—is to act like a toddler, yet that is too often what the red line approach has been for this country. Let us contrast that with the approach of Mark Carney, who has talked about the shared challenges and the issues facing all of us in the world today. Perhaps the biggest lie of all those told to us in this place was about cakeism and cherry-picking, as if Europe is not flexible and does not want to find ways forward, when it is very clear that it does.

The truth that must now be told is that we need to do more than repeat the mistakes of the past. We left the European Union without knowing what leaving would entail. We must not make that mistake again. We must seek the consent of the British people and ask them what rejoin would be and about our future relationship with Europe. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is talking about doing. Twenty-one nations have been through accession, taking an average of nine years to do so. This country deserves better. We need to take the Brexit blinkers off and look to our future—a future that is clearly with Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am just going to keep going. I do not think we are actually having a debate; we are just exchanging our speeches, so I will not give way.

I sympathise with the points we have heard, such as those made about zoos, Spanish delis or Freddy and his band. It is clearly very frustrating how the EU has treated its close friend, the UK, after Brexit, and that has had very unfortunate consequences for those businesses.

We need to look at this issue from a much bigger perspective, and here the facts are much more contested about the overall benefits and costs of Brexit. When we talk about these always cited statistics on the decline in GDP since 2026, we are comparing an unknowable counterfactual with what has actually happened in the real European Union and the UK. Here, as the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the UK has done better than our European competitors.

Let us just be straightforward about this: the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, has suffered economically over the last decade. Different sectors have prospered and suffered in different ways. Although we have not suffered in services exports, we have suffered in goods exports, and I recognise that. However, those goods losses overlap with stupid political choices made by our sovereign United Kingdom, particularly in respect of energy policy.

Where we have also suffered and struggled is where our regulations have remained aligned with the EU. The fact is that European regulations have caused Europe to decline, and where we have also declined, it is because we have remained aligned with them. Mario Draghi, the former Italian Prime Minister and chairman of the European Central Bank, wrote a brilliant report that conclusively demonstrated how much it is the EU itself that holds back European growth, and why it is so regrettable that Britain has remained aligned in so many sectors.

Let me quickly state what actually works for prosperity and what drives economic growth. Last year’s Nobel prize winners won for their brilliant work demonstrating why there has been sustained growth in the world for the last 200 years. It is not because of market share or market access, as valuable as that is; it is because of innovation and technology. It is because of a regulatory system, largely derived from the United Kingdom, that enables businesses to prosper.

The key aspects of that system are light-touch regulation and legal certainty, which are features of common law and the United Kingdom’s economy. Legal systems matter, and the civil law system that the EU operates and applied to the UK is different, as it involves heavy regulation and legal uncertainty. Where we have remained constrained by EU law, such as in electric or self-driving cars, we do just as badly as the EU. However, where we have diverged—where we have used our Brexit freedoms—that is where we are prospering. Of course, AI technology is the key evidence of that.

[Ms Creasy]

Are the benefits in the room with us?

[Danny Kruger]

The AI that the hon. Lady used to write her speech is the benefit of Brexit, and we all benefit enormously from the UK’s leadership in this enormous sector. We attract as much investment in our AI sector as the whole EU27 combined. That is what divergence looks like, and that is what growth looks like.

What is happening is that the EU—and I am afraid the Government—is deliberately locking the United Kingdom into its regulatory system, so that it becomes increasingly apparent that there will be no opportunity to leave. [Interruption.] I am very unclear about the speech times, Sir Edward. Have I gone over?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

No, not at all. I am not somebody who questions people’s motives or intelligence just because of the way they have approached the question of Europe; I very much leave that to others. I will say that approaching 70% of my constituents voted to leave in 2016, and if there was a referendum on rejoining, I would expect a larger proportion than that to vote no.

When people realise that an accession bid means ditching our currency, tearing down our independent border controls and signing an annual membership cheque that independent analysts estimate would comfortably clear £25 billion a year, the rosy glow fades fast. We would be asking British taxpayers already feeling the squeeze from this Government’s domestic tax hikes to subsidise regional infrastructure funds across the continent while our own local roads are crying out for repair.

[Ms Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I will continue for a bit. I have given way four times; I think I have been more than generous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

You quoted me!

[Mike Wood]

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

[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—

[Ms Creasy]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

Go on—just this once.

[Ms Creasy]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the CPTPP, because that is the first time he has deigned to defend anything that has happened since we took this country out of the European Union, and I notice he has not defended the status quo. The Conservative Government’s own impact assessment found that the CPTPP added 0.08% to GDP. That is 50 times smaller than the impact of Brexit. What does he want to say to the 20,000 businesses that have given up trading with Europe altogether because of the Brexit that his Government negotiated? Does he really think that the CPTPP makes up for that?

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. I will not commit to anything of that nature today, but I urge her to continue making the argument for that, as I am sure she will.

[Ms Creasy]

rose—

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Ferguson]

I am incredibly close to bringing this debate to an end, but I will give way.

[Ms Creasy]

Perhaps we can find a point of consensus in this debate in that one of the things lacking in Parliament over the last couple of years is a European Scrutiny Committee where all of us as parliamentarians could be a part of the debate about what the future with Europe might be. Perhaps the Minister will take the merits of such a proposal back to his colleagues in the Cabinet Office, given the nature of the debate today and the concerns about facts. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Mark Ferguson]

It is always worth taking something seriously when such divergent Members of this place agree. I am sure that that will be recorded in Hansard and was heard by those of us in the Cabinet Office.