UK-EU Summit

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important.

The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [Interruption.] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in.

This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met.

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

The hon. Gentleman has referred to “Quantum Leap”. The point about Sam Beckett is that he kept leaping back into the past, because he could not cope with the future—that does seem rather apposite. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with many Labour Members that one of the important things about next Monday is that we will be able to move forward on the security and defence partnership. Given the threat posed by President Putin, can the hon. Gentleman put aside his blindness to the benefits to this country of co-operating with Europe and at least agree that that partnership would be a good thing to secure?

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad to be the one to break it to the hon. Lady that we already co-operate with Europe on defence, and have done so for a very long time. She will know that the cornerstone of our defence is—and always has been, since the second world war—NATO. Now is an apt moment to remember that, because today is the 85th anniversary of the first speech that Sir Winston Churchill made as Prime Minister, given from that Dispatch Box, or, rather, from the Dispatch Box that was there before the Chamber was bombed. It was his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech.

It is obviously incredibly important that we co-operate with our European partners on defence, but that is why we do. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence—and the Opposition would like to spend 3%, and more—largely to help defend Europe, and we know of no reason, because the Government have not given one, why NATO is insufficient for that task.

--- 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.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have had to sit through many a lengthy speech.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

Oh, go on—I will give way. The hon. Gentleman was like this when I was 15, too.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Who is it that is trying to take us back to the past? It is the Government. Brexit is giving this country its new future and the Government are trying to turn the clock back. That is what is wrong.

[Ms Creasy]

I hate to warn the hon. Gentleman, but I have a horrible feeling that if he were to compare the speech he made today with many of those he made between 2017 and 2019, he might find that he would lose “Just a Minute” on the grounds of repetition. That is going backwards. This country deserves better.

Let me start with a clear statement of intent. Brexit has happened; we have left. I am not here to prosecute the argument to rejoin. We do not have time for that. What we need is a salvage operation, because of the damage that has been done, especially in a world with so much uncertainty, where tariffs are now part and parcel of the everyday conversation and the damage that is being done to our constituents.

We can fight many things in life, but geography really is not one of them, however hard some Members on the Conservative Benches try. We heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) the continued myth that somehow the isolation to our status that Brexit has brought would bring us strength. The last 10 years—indeed, the last six months—have shown how clearly that is not the case. In fact, we are uniquely isolated and at risk as a nation. That is why what this Government are doing is absolutely right. They are getting on with signing trade deals, trying to sort out the damage that has been done and, indeed, looking for that hat-trick.

I have to say to Conservative Members that there is no conspiracy here. Those of us who were here in 2019 remember exactly the details of that deal and the fact that a five-year review process was written into it. What we are going to see next Monday is not some secret negotiation; it is part of the trade and co-operation process—[Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members chuntering. Hang on, I can see their tin foil hats! I beg them to look at the details of the agreement, which said clearly that there would be a renegotiation point, where we would review whether or not it was working. I am sorry that the shadow Minister is not in his place. He tried to claim affinity with Sam Beckett but frankly I suspect he is going to be more like Jim Trott from “The Vicar of Dibley”. He will say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no”, and then have to say yes. The summit is not the end. It is the start of the process of reviewing the trade and co-operation agreement, and looking at what is in the best interests of this country.

Let me be clear: I am absolutely committed to the idea that there should be parliamentary scrutiny. My colleagues on the Front Bench will know that I have been concerned that the European Scrutiny Committee was deleted, because I think we should be able to discuss these matters. However, I think there probably ought to be a summit first in order for us to have something to discuss. I hope that will account for me putting in an advert for the Backbench Business debate that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I were going to have after the summit on 22 May, so that we parliamentarians may properly examine what comes out of it. Sadly, he is not in his place, which is a shame because I know how strongly he feels about these things, and I am sure he would want to talk about the benefits of Brexit and other mythical creatures. The summit is the starting gun. It is not the final deal, and it is really important to look at it in that way.

This is the test for the motion today. Are the Opposition really telling us that the trade and co-operation agreement is perfection? Is there absolutely nothing in that agreement that they would not wish to amend, revise or refine? Is there absolutely nothing in what it has delivered in the last five years that they are troubled by? For example, there are 1.8 million fewer jobs in our economy because of the Tory hard Brexit, and the academics who have studied this recognise that that figure will rise to 3 million by 2035. Trade is down 27% with the European Union—a bloc that we do five times more trade with than we do with America. Over 16,000 businesses have given up trading with Europe all together, because the truth about Brexit is that it was just paperwork—reams and reams of it—and small businesses in this country have sadly had to up sticks.

I declare an interest as the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe. I am not standing here arguing to rejoin, but I am a red against red tape and what I see is the amount of paperwork—[Interruption.] I am loving the fact that Conservative Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, as if this was some sort of revelation. Perhaps they can borrow some tin foil from their fellow Members and talk about a conspiracy. They would do better to reflect on the impact of the border trading operating model—an entirely self-inflicted wound by the previous Government on British farmers and British food supply chains that pushed up inflation, because charging for pallets of food coming into the country created more and more paperwork. Unless Conservative Members are genuinely telling us that they think “chef’s kiss” for the trade and co-operation agreement, it is right for us to look at whether there are things we can do to deal with the problems it has created for our constituents—including the £6.95 billion of additional cost to households—and to account for some of the myths that have been created.

Again, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—he will accuse me of being obsessed, but let us look at what he talked about—said that somehow being out of the European Union made our response to covid better. Well, he might want to talk to the UK covid inquiry, which found that it was the reverse. It found that our failure to prepare was increased by the fact that we were dealing with a no-deal Brexit; it harmed our covid response. He might even want to reflect on the words of the UK medicines regulator, which said we could have used the emergency processes to bring forward our own vaccine. I am sure that is what he was talking about.

The hon. Member also talked about Ukraine. He might want to reflect, as he thinks about the summit on Monday, on how hard it was for us to make the case about the importance of standing with Ukraine from outside of the room, and that those who were less convinced who were part of the European Union would have heard our message more clearly if we were inside the room, particularly when it came to gas imports. We championed Ukraine, but we had to shout from outside rather than being part of the conversations from the start.

This summit needs a strong agenda, and that is exactly what this Government are talking about. It is an agenda focused on fixing the problems that this trade and co-operation agreement has created. That is what the public want—they agree with us. They do not want us to spend five to 10 years on treaty renegotiation and the possibility of rejoining; they want us to salvage this country from the damage that Brexit has done. Two thirds of the country say that Brexit is bad for the cost of living, and 65% say that it has had a negative impact on the economy. Opposition Members might want to reflect on the fact that that is nearly twice the number of people who think that immigration is bad for our economy.

The British public are not daft; they are wise about what needs to happen next. They understand the value of a defence deal. They understand that, in a world with Putin at our doorstep, with the challenges we face and the uncertainty in other parts of the world, it is absolutely right and proper, and will complement NATO, to work more closely with our European counterparts, to increase investment in the UK defence industry and to collaborate on crime. Those of us who used to have constituents whose needs were served by the EU arrest warrants know the damage that the previous Government’s deal has done. Those of us who want to see us stepping up the way we collaborate on international aid know that we need to get round the table with our European counterparts. The best way to tackle those who might be stuck on a boat, fleeing persecution, is to try to stop the conflict at the source. That is what collaborating on international aid with Europe could offer.

The public understand the value of an SPS deal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) mentioned, and the value of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, which deals with the paperwork about rules of origin. Thanks to the Tory hard Brexit, those rules mean that every time a tomato is brought into this country to make a pizza in the Wirral, extra paperwork comes with it. The public would want us to look at the VAT rules, because small businesses are now struggling with 27 different VAT regimes. They would also want us to sort out the carbon border adjustment mechanism; that is how we save British steel, which will be affected if there is a divergence. We need to look at how the emissions trading schemes can be linked, and we can save British business £800 million in charges.

The public want us to look at mutual conformity assessments to try to reduce duplication. They want common sense on regulation. The previous Government tried to bring in separate regulatory regimes and, understandably, British business said, “That is twice the cost.” British businesses want to be able to sell to their neighbours; they do not want extra pieces of paperwork. The previous Government tried to make us have separate regulations on airline safety—as if an aeroplane taking off in London would need to follow a different set of regimes if it landed in Berlin. That is bonkers. Understandably, we walked back from it, and we should not go back to those kind of arguments just because those on the Conservative Benches have a blindness when it comes to Europe.

This Government have got their head on. They are looking at what they can do to help the chemicals industry and supply chains, and of course it is looking at what a deal on youth mobility might look like. This is a summit; it is about having the conversation, looking at the details and looking at how we can support apprenticeships through youth mobility. Clearly, youth mobility is not freedom of movement, otherwise I would have heard complaints from Opposition Members about the fact that we have freedom of movement deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay—[Interruption.] I can see a Conservative Member saying, “Yes, indeed.” I presume they are going to call for the abolition of freedom of movement from Canada, then; that would be consistency.

We could also do more to help our creative services and financial services, and, yes, to resolve some of the tensions in Northern Ireland. Many of us feel deeply that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered the most as a result of the Tory hard Brexit. Yes, we could do a deal on fishing. We could acknowledge the fact that our fisheries industry felt sold out by the previous Government by supporting them to be sustainable. All those are issues that we can return to in that Back-Bench debate, but we cannot do that if we do not have the summit. We cannot walk into the summit saying, “No, no, no.” We need to walk in saying, “What gives? What are the opportunities here? How can we solve some of these challenges?”

Many, many years ago, one of my next-door constituency neighbours was Winston Churchill. We on the Labour Benches have become the defenders of his vision of ending conflict in Europe. Conservative Members spend all their time fighting with each other and fighting a ghost. We need to talk about the future. We need to get away from the fantasy that somehow Brexit will deliver and start getting back to the cost of living crisis in our communities and how we can help people.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

I was going to sit down, I promise, but I cannot resist. I give way.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady mentioned Churchill, so I cannot let her sit down yet. She talked about conflict within the Conservative party. Winston Churchill had a few battles in his own party, as she might recall—he was not averse to that. Sometimes one has to stand up for what is right, which is what Conservative Brexiteers did. Does she really think that Winston Churchill would have supported the EU in its current form? Does she really think that he would have supported what the ECHR has become? How can she possibly claim Winston Churchill for the politics that she stands for? Go on!

[Ms Creasy]

I think Winston Churchill would turn in his grave if he saw what the Conservative party and its libertarian wing have become, and how the proud defence of our ability to participate in international organisations, and to speak up for freedom, for shared interests and for the national interest, have been diminished as a result of the previous Government’s approach to Brexit, as well as that of Conservative Members today.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The world is changing. We are living in a world in which trade, security, co-operation and climate issues move at pace. Many of us could not have predicted—remember, it has been only 120 days since President Trump was elected—what would happen next. Never more have we needed good relationships with our neighbours. Monday is about being good neighbours. The world might be changing, but we have the same old Conservative party, on the same page as Reform—that is all they seem to care about. We care about the British interest. I look forward to hearing what comes out of the summit, and I look forward to the Back-Bench debate to discuss it. That really is taking back control.

EU Trading Relationship

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and to be part of today’s debate.

It is less than 100 days since Donald Trump entered the White House, and in those 100 days, I hope we have finally seen an end to the myth that leaving the European Union and isolating ourselves would somehow increase our sovereignty. We are now uniquely exposed to world events, whether it is tariffs, the actions of President Putin, or our ability to exercise influence in relation to the concerns we might have regarding Israel and Palestine. The public are paying the price, and they deserve better from all of us. Let us be frank: blue passports are no substitute for British jobs.

However, I come to Westminster Hall today not to say, “I told you so,” but to play my part in fixing the problem. In the short time available to me, I want to say that, while the MPs may be getting younger, too often in this place, the debates are old. I reassure the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), that although I may be the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe—I declare that interest—I do not come here to campaign for rejoin. We have left the European Union. Instead, I come to campaign for my constituents and people across this country who need the jobs and growth that a reset with Europe will offer, moving on from the red lines of the old debates to look at what is in our mutual interest and the summit that is ahead of us on 19 May.

I agree with many of the points that colleagues have made, so let me try to offer two further points. Particularly given that President von der Leyen is here today and has talked about the importance of us working together on regulation, I want to talk about the energy summit, and in particular about addressing the carbon border adjustment mechanism—I agree very much with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), about that. UK exporters of energy, including our electricity industry, our steel industry, our ceramics industry and more, will pay the price if we do not tackle the impact of having a different emissions trading scheme.

We also have to tackle all the paperwork—we in the Labour Movement for Europe are the reds against the red tape—so yes, we need to deal with the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. We also need to deal with SPS and with the VAT differences that people are facing. Farmers, the chemical industry, the border target operating model and car industries will all benefit if we tackle those things; and of course, we need a visa system. We do not have time to talk about rejoin—it would take too long—but we can do something about the 17,000 businesses that have stopped trading with Europe. If we do that, we will bring back the British jobs and the British growth that we so desperately need. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

European Union: UK Membership

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting out the nature of this debate so well.

May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) that many of us who were here during the Brexit negotiations and remember the pain of those evenings—as well as the fisticuffs—know only too well that the scars cut deep? That is also why Robert, who I congratulate on his petition, needs to know the truth. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was in the country, I am sure that he would be telling all of us that we need straight talking, so let us have some straight talking.

Brexit is a disaster. It is a disaster by anybody’s metric, not least those according to whom it was purported to be a route to the promised land. The pandemic spared some of the blushes of those who still try to claim that we have got some elusive sovereignty as a result of leaving the European Union, but we can see the damage. Our constituents can see the damage.

Many Members have already cited some of the relevant figures; let me cite some more. As a result of Brexit, 1.8 million fewer jobs have been created in our economy, and that number is likely to rise to 3 million by 2035. Some 16,500 small businesses have stopped exporting to Europe all together. Those of us who were part of the parliamentary delegation last week had the pleasure of listening to Lord Frost trying to argue that up was down, but we know the truth for our constituents. We have seen the damage.

Indeed, we have seen that what was a bad situation in leaving the European Union was compounded by the ways in which the previous Administration chose to leave it. What on earth made them decide that we would not even share security alerts with our colleagues in Europe? How on earth is it in the interests of British farmers to not even share food security alerts with our colleagues, simply because the system had the word “Europe” in the title? The border operating model is adding billions of pounds to the cost of food in this country. What on earth made them think that adding £145 every time that a pallet of food came over here was somehow in the interests of British consumers or indeed British businesses? And that is before we even get on to the uncertain geopolitical situation that we are in. By any metric, it is easy to understand why Robert brought forward the petition.

To me, the Brexiteers are like those people—we all have met them on a night out—who join the group, start a fight in the club and get everyone kicked out, but who still maintain, three hours later, as they are walking everyone around a completely empty industrial estate somewhere, that they know a great club that everyone can get into. The challenge for those of us who recognise the damage done to this country—the damage to our national reputation and to our economies, communities and values from the idea that our European neighbours and friends would feel in any way unwelcome—is that we do not want to be that weirdo who says, “Well, if we walk around the streets a few more times, we can go back. It’s fine: the bouncers won’t recognise us; we can walk back in.” The brutal reality is that we have left the European Union, and we owe it to people who care about this country—I think everybody in this Chamber does, even if they still purport to believe that Brexit was a good idea—to talk truths to our constituents and work out what we can do to salvage what is left. That is what today’s debate is all about.

Nobody here is saying that rejoining should be the sole priority of the Government. We know full well that, because we are facing a salvage operation, Europe will only talk to us once more. Who can blame them? For years, we were like that difficult, awkward man our aunt married, who turned up at Christmas and always caused a fuss—and thank God she divorced him. Now we appear acting as if nothing has changed and that we should be invited to Sunday lunch. We owe respect to our colleagues in Europe when they are dealing with challenges such as Putin and economic uncertainty, and looking at what we can all do to secure peace in the middle east. They are owed some respect from us, and although sometimes it appears, frankly, as if we think our colleagues in Europe do not read our newspapers, I promise that they do.

The challenge for all of us is that we owe truth to our colleagues in Europe and truth to our constituents. It would take years to renegotiate to rejoin the European Union, even if we were to get a fast-tracked arrangement and they could be confident that we would not change our mind again. I recognise that the public are far ahead of politicians in this debate, including all of us scarred by those Brexit years. It would take years, because it would mean going around every individual country. It is worth remembering that our membership of the European Union was vetoed twice by France, because that is the way the process works. It is not a quick process. Those of us who are passionate about our relationship with Europe and what is possible—I stand here as chair of the Labour movement for Europe—hold our constituents in our hearts, and they need us to do what we can in the next 18 months, or else the damage that Brexit has done to the country will be so irreparable that there will be little left to negotiate.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for all that my hon. Friend has done on this issue. Does she agree that it would be really helpful now, nine years on, to have a comprehensive impact assessment? In 2016, we talked about the projected harm that Brexit would cause. Now that we have the evidence, should Government prepare an assessment, so that we can make sound judgments on the basis of that?

[Ms Creasy]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but it is so plain to see how we have cut ourselves off. Even in the pandemic, and initially standing up to Putin in Ukraine, we were outside the room shouting in. We owe it to our constituents now to be as brutal as we can be and humble as we need to be to make the case for what we can do in the next 18 months.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I just want to say a little more on that, because I am supremely conscious of time. The previous Administration chose to walk us out of any foreign affairs co-operation. That includes not just hard power, but soft power. For us in the Labour movement for Europe, it is an utter priority to secure a defence and security co-operation agreement, and to include aid in that conversation. Europe is the third largest donor around the world. Whatever one thinks of the cuts to the aid budget, duplication is a problem, but so too is separation, when looking at how we can stand up to threats we face around the world.

We absolutely must join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, as my colleagues have pointed out. These times call for moving on from talk of red lines to talk of mutual benefit. With the uncertainty and inconsistency of whoever is in the White House, our constituents need us to remember a simple truth about Brexit: we can fight many things in life, but we cannot fight geography. Trade with our neighbours is always going to be critical to the future economy, so we must do what we can to reduce the trade barriers.

Some of us were into the youth mobility scheme before it was fashionable; and some of us, over a year ago, were arguing for it. We consider that it is absolutely in the interests of the British public to get one. We do not believe what came back last summer was the right deal for this country, but we should absolutely be looking at what is possible. In that conversation, we must prioritise our apprenticeships. I am old enough to remember when this country used to celebrate, as part of our national cultural life, young men from the north-east going to Germany to upskill and train. That programme was called “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”, and I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was a regular viewer. That was absolutely youth mobility at the time.

Our young people in this country did not vote for this situation, and they should not bear the brunt of it. They need us to fight for every opportunity that can come for them. A youth mobility deal—not freedom of movement, because we can control how people come here—which we already have with other countries, is in their interest if it is not just about students. Let us talk about every young person.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am a former Erasmus exchange student and have personal lived experience of the immense opportunities that youth mobility provides. Does my hon. Friend recognise not only that it would create significant opportunities for British students abroad, as well as for European students potentially coming to the UK, but that it would not fundamentally rub up against the red lines in the Labour manifesto last year? Youth mobility does not provide a pathway to citizenship, it is not freedom of movement and it does not provide for financial dependency on the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all fronts. A youth mobility or opportunity scheme with apprenticeships at its heart is the right thing to do, and crucially—in the timeline I have set out for the salvation of this country and for salvaging something from the damage Brexit has done—it could be achieved within an 18-month window. One final item to add to the list of things we could do in 18 months is about our energy security, in particular the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. For many of us, for our vital industries and for defence, including steel, it is absolutely critical that we get our CBAM and emissions trading schemes aligned.

Aneurin Bevan told us that

“The language of priorities is the religion of socialism.”

I stand here, ruthlessly prioritising the British interest, which was always about being stronger and taller on the world stage, and being confident that we could work with other countries. Never more have we needed that spirit, but never more have we needed to be clear about what needs to be done and when. I recognise the passion behind this petition; I simply say to those petitioning: let us not fall into the Brexiteers’ trap of offering false hope, when the people in this country need real change, real relationships and real solutions. The hon. Member for Clacton may not be here, but his spirit infuses our debate if we do otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

Let me give the hon. Member and others some rather uncomfortable facts. I am delighted to tell those Euro-fanatics who gather in this hallowed hall today that only 50 of my constituents in North Antrim signed this petition. Of course that is for very good reason, because unlike the rest of you, we have continued to have to live under the EU. We have continued to be subject to the bureaucratic stranglehold of the EU single market and its customs code. What has that meant? It has meant that in over 300 areas of law we in Northern Ireland are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament in which we have no say. That is the product of the denial of Brexit to the people of Northern Ireland. That is how we have been left. Those are the laws that govern the single market.

I hear the moving desire of hon. Members to be back in the single market, but let me tell them what that has meant for Northern Ireland: we were told that it was the best of both worlds and a panacea, and if only we all had the best of both worlds. Well, having the best of both worlds and being able to sell into the mighty market of the EU was supposed to bring a flood of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. According to some enthusiasts, we were going to be the Singapore of the west, but the reality is that there has not been one foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland because of single market access.

Before people get what they wish for, I caution them that being in the single market is no panacea. As I have already illustrated, in Northern Ireland it comes at the price of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Everyone here seems to want to put the whole United Kingdom in that position. I have heard hon. Members lament American tariffs, but they want to put themselves in the club that will be most tariffed by the United States. Where is the logic in that? It really is beyond belief.

The real lesson from Northern Ireland is that the growth in our economy has come in the services sector, which is the sector that is outside EU control. Of the two sectors—manufacturing and services—the sector that has grown is the one outside EU control. The one that is still under the EU’s control is the one that has struggled and has not grown. That is a telling reminder of what it means for people to subjugate themselves in a subservient way to rules made in a foreign Parliament.

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. and learned Member is right that many of us feel desperately sad about the position that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. However, I hate to tell him that because of the value of the Good Friday agreement, the services sector is included in the Northern Ireland protocol.

The hon. and learned Gentleman made much stir of the 50 people from his constituency who deigned to sign the petition, dismissing those who might be supportive of having a relationship with the European Union. What does he say to the 693,525 voters in Northern Ireland—the majority of voters in Northern Ireland—who voted to remain? There are many issues of contention thrown around in this debate, but if he wants to talk numbers, those numbers matter.

[Jim Allister]

Two things: the hon. Member is wrong that services fall under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. They are not. They are free from it, so she is simply wrong about that. On the question of Northern Ireland voting in favour of remaining, so what? [Laughter.] That was not the question on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

As Members titter and congratulate each other, they might as well say, “Well didn’t London vote to remain?” So what? It was a national vote; it was not about how the regions voted, because the question on my ballot paper, as on yours Sir John, was did I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay—that was the question. My only regret is that in my part of the United Kingdom, we were not delivered the Brexit that was voted for.

Ukraine

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am really pleased that the announcement that we made over the weekend was for jobs in Belfast; that is hugely important. That is the model that we should follow. As we ramp up defence spending and capability, we should be looking at it predominantly supporting UK jobs and the UK economy. The secure, skilled jobs that go with that should be in our economy, because economic security is important in the UK, just as defence and security is important.

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

I join those thanking the Prime Minister for setting out how clearly the safety of the world and the future of Ukraine relies on this moment. I for one am saddened that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is no longer in his place, because he might have learned a thing or two. His previous advice to Prime Ministers was that when President Macron was elected, he would loathe us and be anti-British—how out of depth and out of touch with the British national interest that advice is. Given the coalition that the Prime Minister is building, and the concern of all of us about using resources effectively, will he please tell us a little more about what conversations he has had with our European allies on how we can reduce the duplication of effort involved in the plans going forward?

[The Prime Minister]

I do think it is important that we work with our European allies, whether on ramping up spending or on capability, but the point my hon. Friend made about co-ordination is also important. We have to learn the lessons of the last three years. Many European allies and others have provided capability to Ukraine, but it has not been co-ordinated enough. Our collective security and defence, to my mind, requires that we co-ordinate our efforts much more closely as well.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

It is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister has had a couple of warm exchanges with the incoming President-elect of the United States, which I think is entirely right and appropriate. We now have a new UK ambassador, and I pay due tribute to the work of Karen Pierce, his predecessor, who did an exemplary job on behalf of the United Kingdom during the period of transition. It remains an indisputable fact, however, that Howard Lutnick is not yet in office as the US Commerce Secretary, and that Jamieson Greer is not in place as the US trade representative. Those are the individuals through whom these dialogues are normally conducted.

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

I echo Labour Members’ support for steel as a nationally important infrastructure industry that we must protect in this country. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee—who is no longer in the Chamber—I also agree that we must try to avoid escalation. Part of that is about our relationship with Europe, which is our largest market for exported steel after America, so can the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with his European counterparts? This issue of CBAM is absolutely critical to the British steel industry, which is on its knees after 15 years of a Conservative Government who failed to see its value. Will he also reassure us that the resolution of the emissions trading scheme is still on the agenda for the May talks with Europe?

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working on that EU reset, and continue to work on it, through the good offices of my new colleagues in the Cabinet Office. One element of that reset is looking at those linkages and how they can work effectively, and the level of engagement in relation to that reset is significantly ramping up. Again, frankly, there had to be almost confidence-building measures established after the deep betrayal of trust that was felt by our European friends, neighbours and allies—let us remember that a previous Conservative Prime Minister could not even bring herself to acknowledge President Macron as a friend and ally of the United Kingdom. In that sense, we have built the relationships, we have established trust, and we are looking forward with a clear-headed sense of national interest to the reset talks that are getting under way this year.

UK-EU Relations

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful as always for the contribution of the hon. Lady; we had a fine debate in Westminster Hall last week. All I would say to her about speed, though, is that this Government are acting on the red lines in our manifesto around the single market, customs union and freedom of movement, on which we were elected and which delivered this majority last July. I looked at the Liberal Democrats manifesto and its plans for the relationship with the European Union, and it contained four steps. If we were choosing to do this in four different phases, we would be moving a lot more slowly than we are at the moment, so I hope the hon. Lady will welcome the progress we are making.

I know there is a lot of speculation on the issue of youth mobility. Of course, we consider sensible proposals in accordance with our red lines, but our position remains the same: there are no plans for a youth mobility scheme, and we have been clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement.

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

I guess I should not be surprised to hear the Conservatives trying to defend an impossibly bad deal for British business, which is why I am so relieved that the grown-ups are going to Europe and working out what is in the national interest. May I press the Minister on something that it is very clearly in the national interest to resolve with our European partners? National Grid estimates that it will cost the UK Exchequer £5 billion to £8 billion over this Parliament to have a differential emissions trading scheme between us and Europe. Pollution does not respect borders, and we all want to tackle the climate crisis. Can he confirm that resolving the issues around the carbon border adjustment mechanism will be on the agenda for the summit in May?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned on this issue. Energy is very much a priority for the discussions—specifically the emissions trading scheme and linkage. The existing trade and co-operation agreement commits the UK and the EU to considering that.

Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very nice words. I totally understand the issues around the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland; all I would say is that instituting a youth mobility scheme would go a long way to improving relations with the EU, and I think it would unlock some of the other issues we are experiencing.

We already have youth mobility schemes in place with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so why not with EU countries? It would once again allow young people across the UK to be able to spend time with our nearest neighbours without having to navigate Brexit red tape. A youth mobility scheme with the EU would open up opportunities for British young people to learn new skills, languages and cultures and bring all that back with them to benefit our economy and our society.

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

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ interest in youth mobility. Those of us who bought their first album recognise that one of the challenges here is to get the right deal for British workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that the deal that was offered last year, which would have seen British workers being able to go to only one country under the scheme, was not the right one for this country and that, if we are to have a youth mobility scheme, we need to renegotiate what is being offered?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I am not sure what she means by the first album. We are talking about a comprehensive agreement. The EU has already indicated that it would be willing to discuss, and of course we should not enter agreements that are not to our advantage.

As the Government know, a youth mobility scheme would not lead to a return to freedom of movement. After all, under the terms of the existing scheme, youth mobility visas are limited in duration and the number of eligible young people is capped. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power, which was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. The scheme that the Liberal Democrats propose is familiar and tried and tested; it allows those aged 18 to 30 to live, work and study in the countries involved for a set period.

The advantages of a youth mobility scheme go far beyond the extension to a new generation of young people of the opportunities that many of us took for granted in our own youth. The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses. We have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of red tape, which have created huge barriers to growth. Exports by small businesses have dropped by 30%, and 20,000 small firms across the UK have stopped all exports to the EU. The UK faces acute labour shortages in sectors such as hospitality, the arts, entertainment and retail—exactly the kinds of jobs that young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will just say, first, that when the hon. Lady talks about a “comprehensive programme of engagement”, that is precisely what the Government have been engaging in.

The hon. Lady is certainly right to observe that of course world circumstances change, and I am sure that that will be the case in the years ahead as well. However, what will not change is the Government’s prioritisation of deepening our trade links with the European Union. It is also really important to say that that is of mutual benefit—it is of benefit to the United Kingdom and it is of benefit to the European Union that we move forward together on this agenda. That is precisely what will happen over the next few months.

[Ms Creasy]

I know more than most how much work my right hon. Friend has been doing on this issue. As for rejoining the pan-European scheme, it already exists; it is not a bespoke scheme. On youth mobility, it would be very helpful for us to understand things from the Minister’s perspective, because there are a lot of issues to balance in the best interests of the British economy and British growth. May I bring him back to that point? When there are so many challenges in the world, it is wonderful to have UK leaders in Europe who do not question whether we are friend or foe to our colleagues there, but we also need to speak up for British interests. I hope he can set out a bit more about what he considers those to be.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. It was a particularly low moment for the country when one of its Prime Ministers could not answer a question as to whether the French President was a friend or foe. France is our NATO ally, with huge and deep ties to us. The fact that we ever reached that point was, frankly, disgraceful. However, we are not in that position any more. We are very clear with our European friends and partners that our relationship with them is constructive and positive, and that we will make it even closer in the years ahead. That is hugely important. My hon. Friend also makes a really powerful point about national interests, because our national interests and those of European economies go hand in hand. This process is not some sort of zero-sum game. It is a negotiation—a set of discussions—from which both sides can mutually benefit.

Let us take, for example, an SPS agreement, as seeking negotiations on that is one of our specific manifesto pledges. It works for and reduced barriers on both sides. That is good for businesses and the agricultural sector on the European continent, and it is good for the agricultural sector here in Britain. Cultural exchanges are also good for both sides, as is mutual recognition of professional qualifications in services. That is not just about our brilliant services exports; it is about those services that we can get from the European Union.

I am conscious, Sir Jeremy, that this is a short Westminster Hall debate and we are coming to the last few moments. People-to-people contacts are hugely important; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous Government eased the position regarding school trips, particularly with France. We have just indicated our reinvestment in the Turing scheme. There are also numerous deep people-to-people links with Europe right across the United Kingdom.

As we have had this exchange across the Chamber many times, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that youth mobility was not part of the plans that the Government set out at the election. We have said that we will not go back to freedom of movement; that is a very clear red line. However, I approach the negotiations with the European Union in a constructive spirit. I, of course, will put forward and advocate for our national interests. It is, of course, for the EU to come forward with its negotiating position.

Who knows whether points in the Financial Times on this matter are accurate or not? They may or may not be, but I look forward to these negotiations. This is going to be a really positive period in relationships between the UK and the EU, and I am sure we can come back with the deliverables that are being asked for by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Finally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, for your chairmanship of this debate.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, that is very important. When spending any time with the families, you get a real sense of the agony they are going through, which is made even worse by the fact that they do not have any meaningful information about their loved ones. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: that is an essential step to at least reduce some of the agony.

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

We in my constituency stand today with our neighbour Sharone in saying the name of her father, Oded Lifschitz, a proud peace activist who has been held by Hamas for over a year now. We stand with our Palestinian neighbours who were able to escape from Gaza, who now fear for their relatives and what harm may befall them. We stand with our neighbour trying to get out of Lebanon, where he was trying to support local children to learn. We reject the lazy stereotype in this conflict that we have to pick a side. We pick peace, and we simply ask the Prime Minister to do and show the same, so what reassurance can my right hon. and learned Friend give me and my constituents today that everything that the British have—in fighting for the rule of law, in diplomacy, and even in our work on arms sales—will be dedicated towards peace and resolution for the innocent civilians in these regions?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is a reminder of the impact that the conflict is having on so many of our communities here in the United Kingdom. We are absolutely working with our allies on de-escalating across the region. That requires Iran to take responsibility and be held accountable for what it is doing, which is why in my view, it is important for the G7 to speak so powerfully together with a co-ordinated and collaborative approach.