Rejoining the EU

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 749128 relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.

I thank Robert McMaster from Reading Central, who started the petition and is in the Gallery, as well as the 111,687 people who signed it, including 199 of my constituents. One of Mr McMaster’s biggest frustrations with Brexit is that it was never defined. It was not about what our future relationship would look like; it was simply about leaving the treaties on the European Union, and our post-Brexit relationship with the EU has left Britain worse off than if we had remained a member. People can feel that, and polling shows that most of the British public now regard Brexit as a mistake.

In whose interest was Brexit? It was certainly in the interest of countries such as Russia that want to see Britain’s influence weakened and Europe fractured. With Brexit, that is what they got. With Russia doing everything it can to provoke further division and war in Europe, this petition is a good opportunity to ask ourselves not just whether we should rejoin the EU, but the much bigger questions of what relationship we want with Europe, why, and how we get there.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents voted to leave the EU because they were bombarded with lies, from the mythical £350 million a week for the NHS that never appeared to the lie that immigration would come down when it actually trebled. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s announcement of the new national centre for information defence will help protect our constituents from foreign state influence as we consider our relationship with the EU again?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend raises a fundamental point. These are very real things that have been known for a long time, but we have not moved quickly enough to address them. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement about that threat centre, because it is the only way that we can drill down beneath the surface of what is being said online and understand who is influencing our politics.

The answers to those questions about what our future relationship should look like will determine how we secure our prosperity for the future.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Two thirds of my constituents recognise the folly of Brexit, because they realised that 20,000 jobs in Glasgow city depended on the EU, and now they realise that there is an additional £250 on their food bill. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that solidarity is always better than separation, that the unintended consequences of smashing apart our union are evident in the Brexit conversation, and that the optimal arrangement for my constituents in Glasgow South West and for Scotland is to be part of a strong United Kingdom inside a better settlement with the European Union?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is not what just his constituents think; the polling shows it is what most people across the country think.

My hon. Friend alludes to not just an economic argument but a much wider one about where we belong. I will dwell on the economics, because it is important to start with that. My constituency of Folkestone and Hythe is a good place to look at where things have gone wrong. We are home to the channel tunnel, which is one of the main gateways to Europe; for us, the relationship with Europe directly affects whether lorries move, whether businesses can recruit and whether exports reach customers, as well as whether our young people can seize opportunities abroad.

It is fair to say that Mr McMaster’s case is, above all, an economic one. He argues that our relationship with the EU has made our economy smaller and our trading relationship with our nearest and largest markets more difficult.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

As a former MEP and as MP for one of the youngest constituencies in the country, it is important for me to say on the record that Brexit has been a disaster for young people. Opportunities that the EU offered, such as the ability to live, work and learn alongside our friends in Europe, are now gone, and Brexit’s devastating economic impact has been felt mostly by young people. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a closer relationship with the EU would positively impact our young people, including those in Manchester Rusholme?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree, and that is why it is so vital that progress is made immediately on the youth experience scheme, about which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister later.

Every single economist agrees with Mr McMaster’s assessment that we have been left in a much worse economic position, and the experience of businesses in my constituency is proof that he is right. Alcaline, a major local employer, is an international haulage company that serves customers across Europe. Nearly a quarter of its fleet is currently off the road, not because it lacks work, but because its British drivers can only spend 90 in every 180 days in the Schengen area due to post-Brexit rules and EU drivers are hard to find because they need a work visa and have to deal with all the friction at the UK border. This is a major local business that should be expanding but, because of Brexit rules, is struggling to survive. It is a travesty that haulage firms across the country are going bust because of these kinds of post-Brexit rules.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I am grateful, Sir Edward. I will bear that in mind. I will take a very brief intervention from my hon. Friend and will be sparing thereafter.

[Tulip Siddiq]

On the topic of local businesses, 87% of my constituents voted to remain in the EU, but kitchen designer Neil Lerner told me that he had to close the doors on a family business that had lasted for more than 30 years because of a severe downturn in sales caused by Brexit, a local bakery told me that its paperwork nearly doubled before it closed because of Brexit, and—this is my personal favourite—John Atkins, who ran a flower stall next to the Royal Free hospital for nearly 40 years, said that, because of post-Brexit bureaucracy, the cost of tulips has gone up by 50% since 2020. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Brexit has made our high streets significantly worse?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will give her a further example—it will be my last. I have a sole trader in my constituency who has for three decades hand-made stringed instruments and exported his craftsmanship across the world. In some years, most of his sales went to the EU, but under post-Brexit rules, one Italian customer had to be charged around €1,000 in import costs on an instrument worth €3,200. That business faces post-Brexit red tape that is making it extremely difficult for him to compete. He describes it as

“nail after nail being hammered into a coffin”

for his business.

We have heard of three different businesses that are in quite different environments but tell the same story: these post-Brexit trading arrangements have added cost, delay and uncertainty to British businesses that should be focusing on investment and growing. How can we be serious about reindustrialising our country while our British manufacturers are being hammered day after day by trading rules that are purely a creature of Brexit? In 2026 we cannot accept that status quo any longer.

I fully support what the Labour Government have been doing to strengthen our ties with Europe—the work on the agrifood agreement, a youth experience scheme, Erasmus+ and a security and defence partnership are useful steps—but the measures that would make the most difference to our country are not in those draft agreements, at least as it appears so far.

Given the need to reindustrialise our nation, the economic challenges that we face, the need to address irregular migration and, most fundamentally, the need for democratic and rule-of-law-respecting states to pull together and stand up for our values against Russia’s vile war of aggression in Ukraine, we cannot, as a country, afford to keep taking small steps away from the disastrous Brexit settlement that we have now. Instead, we should be looking at all the options for fundamentally refreshing our relationship with Europe, which I believe is strongly in the interests of British people, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to be calling for a more ambitious approach.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will take interventions a bit later. I will make some progress.

Many of my constituents who voted to leave the EU, whose decision I respect, agree with me that, 10 years on, the world is changing. Technology is changing, migration flows are changing, our climate is changing, and wars start, spread and are fought differently. All that leaves us as a nation far more exposed to external shocks. I think that most people are pragmatic enough to see that when the world changes it is a good idea to ask ourselves how we should change with it.

As a country, we have formidable strengths: the English language, the rule of law, a trusted legal system, world-class universities, financial and professional services, and leading science and research. Our future economic model should be to combine all those strengths and be the best place in Europe to invent, make, finance and export, but we will not achieve that by keeping rules that make it difficult for manufacturers to access their nearest market, for exporters to sell their goods or for companies to operate across borders.

I want very quickly to say something about asylum and immigration, because it is an important element of why we must have closer relations with Europe. When we left the EU, we lost the returns agreement that we had with it and were left with no returns agreement at all. Small boat crossings then shot up. Today we are left negotiating one-off, ad hoc arrangements with individual countries—most recently with France—which are hard-won but too limited in scope to tackle the problem fully.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I need to press on, because of the time.

We now have no access to the Eurodac fingerprint database, so we do not know how a person has travelled through Europe or whether they have already claimed asylum elsewhere. Despite all those constraints, the Government are making huge strides to reduce irregular crossings, but we could be making infinitely more progress if we were working inside the EU or more closely with it. We need practical co-operation with all our European partners, including action against people-smuggling networks, intelligence sharing and stronger enforcement, all of which will drive a faster, fairer asylum system here at home.

In conclusion, I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to investigate and set out the long-term options for our relationship with Europe, and I urge the Minister to make sure that membership is on the list of possible options. I am also keen to hear from him on the following points. First, what progress are the Government making in securing the agrifood agreement, access to the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence loans programme and the youth experience scheme? Secondly, what action are we taking to ensure that British manufacturing does not suffer as a result of the EU’s “Made in Europe” scheme? Thirdly, do the Government see any way forward based on our current—or even future—arrangements to negotiate away the 90/180 rule that has been so devastating to hauliers? Finally, what consideration are the Government giving to levying tariffs on imports of Chinese electric vehicles so that we can have alignment with the EU and protect our domestic car industry?

Mr McMaster, the petitioners, businesses and many people in Folkestone and Hythe who want a closer relationship with Europe are not asking us to turn back wistfully; they are asking for hope again. They are asking for recognition that we are all paying a Brexit bill: our manufacturers, our farmers, our universities, our young people, our hospitality sector—I could go on. Brexit has not served our national interest. The world we now find ourselves in demands new choices about how we can prosper in the years ahead. I thank the petitioner and those who signed the petition and look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister about how we move forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

Listening to this debate is amusing, but rather depressing in other ways. There is a heartfelt hope among a great many people here that rejoining the EU would somehow be transformative for the British economy, which they think has done much worse as a result of being outside the EU. [Interruption.] That is the thesis, isn’t it? Let’s look at the facts.

The UK economy has outgrown France and Germany since we left the EU in 2021. In fact, some of our economic growth is a direct result of leaving the EU. We have not over-regulated our tech sector in the way that the EU has, so we are getting the lion’s share of inward investment and far greater gross value added in that sector than France or Germany. Interestingly, the tech sector has been excluded from the EU reset talks.

Before covid, the City of London employed some 500,000 people. Today, over 680,000 people are employed in the City. The financial services sector is booming outside the EU because we have scrapped MiFID II, the bonus cap and regulations on derivatives trading, and all the people who left because of the fear campaign are coming back.

What is the basis for saying the EU has damaged our economy except for these two forecasts, which are conjectural projections and not things that have happened? They are not facts. They are quoted by the OBR and the Treasury and the Prime Minister believes them, and I am sure there is sincere belief in those figures across Westminster Hall today, but they are not facts. The only facts are that the UK economy has grown by 7.9% over that period, while France’s economy has grown by 6.8% and Germany’s economy has grown by only 1.1%. I was not aware that Germany or France had left the EU and that their economies had been damaged by their leaving, but that is the basis on which we are being told that we have damaged our economy.

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, I will not give way; I am going to be very brief.

Services exports to the EU have rocketed, because there is no single market in services and we export a huge amount to the EU, as we do to the rest of the world. Overall, our trade has boomed since Brexit; our trade with the EU and the rest of the world combined has grown very substantially.

Does anybody know what proportion of GDP is represented by goods exports to the EU? Hon. Members are quoting all these businesses from their constituencies, but how representative are they of the economy as a whole? The EU may be our single biggest export market, but it represents only 6% of our GDP. Hon. Members are looking very puzzled, because people have brainwashed themselves. They think that trade is the entire economy, but it is not; trade is only a proportion of the economy.

Our trade with the rest of the world has expanded much more in comparison with our period in the single market. For example, between 1997 and 2019, when we were in the single market, goods exports to non-EU countries grew by 85%, but goods exports to the EU fell from 10% to 7.8%. Our exports to the EU were already declining. Why was that? It was because the internal market is a failure. The countries that form the internal market today represented 30% of global GDP when we joined the single market in 1992. These are Library figures that I am citing, by the way; Members can go and check them out. Today, the EU represents 17.3% of global GDP. It is declining; it is losing global share.

The United States had 25% of global GDP in 1992 and it still has 25% of global GDP. Why is that? It is because its economy is much less regulated, it has much lower taxes, it rewards enterprise and risk, and it is not mired in the Code Napoléon and the way of cautiously regulating everything that the EU is. If the EU could deregulate, it would possibly be in our economic interests to join it, but it is incapable of deregulating. Therefore, the case for joining the single market has collapsed in the few minutes in which I have been speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank all hon. Members for turning up today and speaking in this debate. It is interesting that we have had one Conservative MP, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), a Reform MP—the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) is almost out the door, but I am going to acknowledge him all the same; he has left his colleague the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) in his place—and the shadow Minister speak up to defend the status quo. Their defence of the current Brexit rules referred to evidence that, I think it is fair to say, was selectively referenced and in denial of where the weight of the evidence is.

I will start with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who challenged the idea that Brexit has damaged our economy and referred to the fact that the GDP of other countries is lower than ours. But that is not the point: the comparison is with the situation that we would have had if we had not left the European Union. That point was made earlier. The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that our GDP was 6% to 8% lower by the end of 2025 than it would have been if we had not left the EU. It also found that investment in the UK was 12% to 13% lower, employment was 3% to 4% lower and productivity was 3% to 4% lower; the OBR agrees.

The hon. Member also minimised the significance of individual examples given by numerous hon. Members in this room about Brexit-related red tape and British exporters. But the evidence is clear: our trade volumes are billions less than before Brexit. For example, a study by the LSE found that in 2022, there was £27 billion less in goods exports, which is a 6% reduction compared with the no-Brexit counterfactual, and 14% of firms stopped exporting to the EU altogether after post-Brexit trading arrangements came into force. That research found that smaller firms were particularly affected by those arrangements, whereas larger firms were able to absorb the additional costs. That is what hon. Members are seeing all over the country.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I fear that the hon. Member’s points have not moved with the evidence, but I will give him a chance to respond.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The logic of the Government’s position is that because Canada sends 75% of its exports to the United States of America, they had better join the United States and give up their sovereignty in order to get rid of barriers to trade. The idea that Canada will become an associate member of the EU and that the EU is going to be able to get a grip of Canada seems rather fanciful, but can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Carney logic about the UK being in the single market does not apply to his own country?

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention but as far as I can see, none of what he said is relevant to the question of whether any of his points are well founded. The evidence is as I have read out. He needs to engage with the weight of the evidence, not the selective examples that those who oppose a closer relationship with Europe ultimately rely on.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I will not. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire, who is not here any more, at least accepted that our exports have been hit by Brexit, but his point was different. He said that where we have used our Brexit freedoms, we are better off. He seemed to be saying that where we do not have alignment, we are doing better. I am afraid that is not correct. UK firms that have to comply with multiple regulatory regimes will obviously incur greater costs to be able to trade with multiple markets. I have heard consistently from businesses that, as all hon. Members have said today, it is where we have no alignment that there have been disastrous consequences for businesses. The 90/180 rule the Minister referred to as being a fixity for now, which was negotiated by the Opposition, is just one example of those problems. Even if there were some benefits from regulatory divergence, they pale in comparison to the damage done to our economy by Brexit, so the thesis of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is wholly unsupported by the weight of the evidence.

The hon. Member also doubted whether the asylum returns agreement we had with the EU was ever used. The fact is that we sent back more people than we took under that agreement until 2016, the year of the Brexit vote, so it was a useful tool for addressing irregular migration. In any event, its absence was relied on and manipulated by smugglers to drum up business. The consequence of that was the boat numbers going up.

I accept that this debate will not end today. It has been a lively debate. I thank the Minister for his remarks and clarifications. I thank the petitioner, Mr McMaster, for creating this opportunity for Parliament to debate this important issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, these are conversations that have never gone away. They are constantly brought back to me in my constituency work, as they are for other hon. Members. I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, these conversations will lead to progress on a matter that is at the heart of how to build a prosperous nation for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 749128 relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.