EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Butler. May I also congratulate myself on securing this debate? It came as a bit of a surprise to me. I thought that there would be an overwhelming clamour to secure a debate to celebrate the 10 years since the Brexit referendum. I thought people would be tripping over themselves to ensure that they could tell us about all the wonderful things that have happened. It would have been an opportunity to go wandering through the sunlit uplands to celebrate the dynamic economic growth and political stability that had been secured, the fact that immigration was under control, and all the wonders of our new-found freedoms. Do you remember, Ms Butler? We were going to have our cake and eat it, we were going to secure the easiest trade deal in history, and of course we were going to take back control. From the lofty heights up there in the sunlit uplands, we could have peered down and admired all the shiny new hospitals that we had managed to build because of the £350 million we had saved weekly from the evil and wicked EU. Perhaps, in a more reflective moment, we could have thought back and wondered why we ever put up with those bendy bananas, the vacuum cleaners that lacked that extra Brexit suction, or EU lightbulbs that would not even light, and about how, thank goodness, the existential threat to the great British sausage had been removed and Brexit had saved us from all the barmy Brussels bureaucrats. There are some anniversaries that we look forward to, such as birthdays and weddings, and some that invite solemn reflection, such as the end of wars, the passing of great men and women, and great historical events. Then, of course, there is the Brexit referendum anniversary, which somehow feels so different from all the other things that we mark. Brexit is a rather extraordinary anniversary to celebrate.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will just finish this point. It is 10 years since we embarked on what has turned out to be one of the most self-defeating exercises in political and economic self-harm inflicted in modern political history—a bizarre, destructive and economically illiterate political project that has made everybody in this country so much worse off. On that note, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I am very confused. The hon. Gentleman seems passionate about independence for Scotland, so why does he not believe in independence for the whole United Kingdom?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman within a second that I am all for independence—but not for the bizarre notion that keeps on coming up that membership of the European Union means automatically losing independence. Tell that to the French, the Germans, the Italians or any of the other members of the European Union, who as far as I am concerned pretty much enjoy their own independence. That is what we want to do in Scotland. In the 10 years since the Brexit referendum, we have had seven Prime Ministers. Even a new Labour Government with a majority of 172 have not been immune from the instability of the Brexit era, barely making it to the two-year mark before they had to replace their first Prime Minister. Let us turn first to the economy. I am grateful, as always, to the House of Commons Library, which produced an excellent briefing for this debate. I really encourage colleagues to have a look at it. It is remarkably clear about the broad economic evidence. There is now substantial and significant consensus that the UK economy is smaller than it would have been had we remained in the European Union.

My constituency has one of the busiest roll-on roll-off ports, in Holyhead. There has been an announcement regarding passport requirements for travel between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Teithiau Elfyn, a local tour company, has warned me of the serious economic impact of such short-notice announcements. Does the hon. Member agree that the Brexit agreement has not worked for the people of Ynys Môn or Wales, and has had a negative impact on the economy?

This hon. Member more than agrees with the hon. Lady and thoroughly endorses what she says. It is not just Ynys Môn or Wales; every part of this United Kingdom has been impacted and hurt by this crazy project.

My hon. Friend is making a humorous speech about bananas and sausages that is making me hungry. Yesterday, the new Prime Minister spoke of wrong turns going back as far as the 1980s. There is a wrong turn he could do something about, because the EU reset that the previous Prime Minister promised was a disaster. He gave away 12 years’ access to our waters in Scotland in return for very little. In fact, when the coastal and fishing growth fund was disbursed, there was a pittance for Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Prime Minister is serious about undoing wrong turns, he should have the courage to do something about Brexit?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he brings us right up to date in the debate about Brexit. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister yesterday and what he had to say about European Union membership. I want to come on to that because we are at an important juncture. We have new opportunities to go forward, and I hope that this new Labour UK Government make the right choice. I will come to that, so I ask my hon. Friend for his patience, which I know he will be able to supply me with. I want to get back to the economics. It is now estimated that GDP is anything between 2% and 8% lower than if we had remained in the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests a 4% reduction in productivity, and Goldman Sachs estimates that the UK economy is around 6% smaller than it would otherwise have been. I want to be clear: that does not mean that Britain suddenly became 8% poorer on the morning of 24 June 2016. Of course, Britain continued to grow, and we have experienced some economic growth. The argument is that the UK has grown less than it otherwise would have done. Brexit was never going to be a spectacular economic crash. If anything, it is more insidious than that. Brexit is more akin to a slow puncture. The economy keeps growing, the car keeps moving forward, but the driving gets tougher as we negotiate in a harsher environment.

On the economy, does the hon. Gentleman remember, as I do, the weeks before the referendum, when we were told amid all the scaremongering that if we voted to leave, house prices would decline by 28%? They did not. We were also told that unemployment would rise, but it did not. Does he recall those scaremongering headlines?

Indeed I do. They were almost as ridiculous as the extraordinary claims that were made about what would happen if we left the European Union, from the £350 million saved per week to the claims about bendy bananas and sausages. They were absurd, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it was a poor debate, but he cannot disagree with the evidence from the House of Commons Library and all the major financial institutions that Brexit has been an economic disaster. I do not think anybody could possibly disagree with that basic statement. I will come on to trade, because that is equally important. The OBR assumes that Brexit will ultimately reduce UK imports and exports by around 15% relative to the scenario had we remained in the European Union. Again, that does not mean that our exports have literally fallen by 15%, but the additional barriers created by Brexit mean we trade less than we otherwise would have done. That matters because the European Union is still by far our largest trading partner. In 2025, the EU accounted for 41% of our exports of goods and services and around half of our imports. So much for the idea that we would effortlessly turn our back on Europe and replace all that trade with new deals around the world. Yes, of course, there have been useful, good trade deals with the likes of New Zealand, Australia and India. They have benefits, but they barely touch the sides of the trade relationship we already had with the European Union.

In Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton we have been negatively impacted by the effects of the steel strategy and by measures brought in by the EU such as tariffs and quotas. Does the hon. Member agree that if we had a closer trading relationship with the EU, constituencies like mine and likely his would be far better off?

Most definitely. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady. It is hard to think of any sector that has not suffered as a result of our leaving the European Union. She is right to reference the steel sector, although it could be any sector. I am pretty certain that today we will hear quite a lot about how leaving the EU has disastrously impacted so many sectors throughout the United Kingdom. I want to get on to immigration. How do we start to deal with the subject of immigration? It is perhaps the saddest but funniest part of the whole saga. Immigration was supposed to be the one thing that Brexit would fix. That seemed to be the whole point of it: it was about taking back control and stopping uncontrolled immigration. But what did we find? Immigration skyrocketed and reached the extraordinarily high level of 1.47 million in the year to March 2023. Without a doubt, leaving the EU closed the door to EU immigration. Net migration from the EU has been negative since June 2022. The conveyor belt of talent that had been coming to the UK for the best part of the past two decades was stopped. After closing off Europe, we quickly discovered that we actually quite liked having EU people working in all our different sectors, from hospitals to farms, hotels, restaurants, universities, care services, businesses, the City and our creative sector. We all found that we actually needed people from the EU and people quite liked employing them.

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany I spend a lot of time meeting German businesses that want to invest in this country. One issue that comes up time and again is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about business mobility and persuading German boards to invest in British companies to grow the economy, and one constraint on that is the ability of German professionals to come here. Does he recognise that point, and will he join me in paying tribute to Ulrich Hoppe, the director general at the German-British Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who does formidable work trying to resolve some of these issues to support the British economy?

I join the hon. Gentleman overwhelmingly and enthusiastically. He is absolutely right. It is hard to think of a sector that has remained untouched by the fact that we cannot access European talent. It is a problem for hospitality and restaurant businesses in constituencies like mine, and in the City, where many dynamic figures helped build some of the success stories that we see just a few miles from where we are today. Before Brexit, there was barely a small boat sighted in the channel, and now we are told that that is perhaps the single biggest issue that confronts this country. Various Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries have come up with a variety of different wheezes to try to stop those small boats coming to the UK, but all have been hampered because we left the one international agreement that might have dealt with returning some of those people to the European Union. When we left the European Union, we also left the Dublin III regulation—the one thing that might have achieved some of the ambition that people had about stopping small boats. Then there is the irony that Brexit did not just make it harder for Europeans to come here; it made it harder for us to move around Europe, too. British citizens are now third country nationals in their own continent. We can still travel across Europe, of course, but there is now a 90-day limit in a rolling 180-day period. For ordinary holidaymakers who have been away enjoying the sun, that might mean nothing more than the huge queues that we have seen in some airports across Europe—a minor inconvenience, perhaps—but for businesses it means more red tape, more restrictions and more unnecessary difficulties. For those in my former profession—musicians, performers and other creative professionals—it can mean a bewildering collection of different rules about work permits, visas, carnets and documentation. Brexit has been such a destructive and invidious political project that it has even managed to stop the music moving freely. This Labour Government gave a commitment that they would fix that. We are talking about ambitions, so come on, Minister: stop the Brexit imposition on music. Let the music move freely again. Let the current generation of musicians enjoy the opportunities that I had as a musician. Who knows, we might even have the Prime Minister on a European tour if he manages to get it fixed!

Over the summer I was with a constituent who, while celebrating the UK Government’s recent music strategy, recognised the hon. Gentleman’s point about the significant challenge of getting into Europe. Fifty-nine per cent of UK musicians say that touring in Europe has become unviable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that British musicians and other touring artists face barriers that did not exist pre Brexit? Would he encourage the Minister to look seriously at accelerating improvement in this area?

Absolutely. We have had this issue for seven or eight years. I remember securing the first urgent question when it was recognised as a problem. We have had a long time to fix it. I see that the Minister is taking notes; one thing he could reassure the House on is that the music will move. Get it moving, because there is no reason why it should be stuck behind the English channel. We are told that all this is happening—and I am afraid to say that we are going to hear it again today—because it is the wrong type of Brexit. Who knew? Apparently, it was the wrong deal. Variously, it was the wrong Government—the wrong everything—but the hard Brexiteers got everything they wanted. They got everything they asked for and more: no customs union, no freedom of movement, no single market, no European court jurisdiction, no EU institutions and no going back. What we have now is not an accidental form of Brexit that just happened to emerge out of the ashes. It was everything that they fought for decades to achieve. The conclusion is that there is no magic Brexit. There is no Brexit where we get all the benefits of membership without the obligations. There is no Brexit where we have frictionless trade without accepting that the rules are necessary for frictionless trade. There is no cake and eating it. Lastly, there is the extraordinary position of this Labour Government. They know that Brexit is an absolute and utter disaster. There is no getting away from it. The evidence is right in front of them. I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday, and he was absolutely right to reference Brexit as one of the biggest issues that has damaged this country in the last 10 years. They know that our relationship with our largest trading partner is fundamentally broken, but they have tied themselves up in knots with these unnecessary and useless red lines. Instead of actually fixing the problem, they continue to tinker around the edges. There is a little veterinary agreement here, a little customs improvement there, a bit of mutual recognition, a bit of youth mobility, a bit of this, a bit of that—a bit of a big fat nothing, because that is what it is. The Government have their reset plans, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will almost exclusively tell us about, but they are nothing more than the same old tinkering.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Sorry, but lots of people wish to speak. None of the Government’s plans solves the real problem, which is getting back into the EU. The British public are so far ahead of them on this, it is almost unbelievable. Rejoining the EU is by far the most popular option when presented to the British public. According to Ipsos, 58% of voters would back rejoining the bloc, with almost half supporting a new referendum after the next general election. Only 33% think that the UK should stay out. If only the Government had that in their manifesto, they would be an absolute shoo-in to continue in government maybe not just for the next Parliament, but for the one after that. Not everything that has gone wrong in the UK in the last 10 years is down to Brexit—of course not. We have had covid, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, inflation and 14 years of the chaotic Tories to help make matters much worse. But Brexit is a slow puncture rather than a spectacular crash, and since 2016 we have had to navigate the increasingly difficult terrain of all these international difficulties with a flat Brexit tyre. Brexit was sold as a moment when we would open our doors and regain our freedom, but all we have done is secure more paperwork. We were told that we would take back control, but immigration has skyrocketed to record levels. We were told that Brexit would free us from Brussels bureaucracy, but we have only created our own UK bureaucracy to deal with leaving the Brussels bureaucracy. Perhaps the best thing that we can do today is remember what was promised and what was achieved. We in Scotland most definitely remember. We remember back in another referendum—the referendum on Scottish independence—being told that the only way to secure Scotland’s EU future was to vote to stay within the UK Union. What happened to that? Brexit has been an utter disaster. It is a shameless project that has made everybody worse off. Let us reflect on that again, and hopefully in 10 years’ time we will be back in the European Union enjoying the prosperity that we deserve.

Order. I remind Members that they need to stand if they would like to participate in the debate. I will impose a hard three-minute time limit. Please be mindful of your comrades if you take interventions.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. The behaviour of the right-wing media outlets that peddled the views of their billionaire owners about the Brexit referendum was a perfect example of the wealthy and powerful influencing our politics and, ultimately, striving to maintain the existing class structure of our country. Much of the multimillionaire and billionaire class saw the Brexit referendum as a business opportunity and, through the media, they latched on to and exploited the despair that many working-class communities felt. It is incredibly frustrating that politicians refuse to accept why millions of working-class people voted for Brexit, but it really should not take too much analysis. Communities felt demoralised and desperate, and people needed something to change—so much so that they grasped on to the notion that leaving the European Union was the answer to improve their lives. I do not blame them, because places have been asset-stripped and abandoned. MPs arrogantly preaching to people that they were wrong to vote for Brexit will not cut through in marginalised communities. That only drives people into the political extremes of the right.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the public were misled by the information provided to them about Brexit. Does he agree with that?

That is a reasonable, candid and honest assessment, and I agree with it. It is up to us, now that we are in government, to raise living standards and give people faith and hope. If we do that, the spivs and speculators of Reform and Restore will be rejected. So I say to the Minister: can we properly analyse why right-wing parties are convincing people that they are the ones who will turn people’s lives around? They are conning people again, even after the lies that they told about Brexit. Referendums have a vital place in our democracy, but let us acknowledge that they can create uneasy bedfellows and awkward alliances. The impact of that is clear when I look at the fortunes of my Scottish Labour party. I am afraid that Scotland is still dominated by the constitutional question. Painting everyone as either nationalist or Unionist has distracted Scots from the real political issue that affects us: whether you are from Alloa or Aldershot, Stenhousemuir or Stoke, politics is always about class. Class must be put back on the political agenda. Many people back home do not know what we in Scottish Labour now stand for or who we stand with. We must appreciate that campaigning alongside Tories, who did so much damage to Scotland, was seen as a betrayal of our class. If we ever want a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood again, we must appeal to what was once a large chunk of our Scottish Labour vote, which has found its political home in the Scottish National party. Do we not see that competing for just a small, diminishing Unionist vote is swimming in shallow, crowded waters and will never lead to us being in government again? I am not saying that we should back independence, but we should lay out the democratic route to having another referendum. If we do that, we will be speaking to a huge number of Scots who left us. Who knows? They might even listen to us again. Scotland needs to break the constitutional deadlock and Scottish Labour needs to shift from a position of dogged inflexibility, otherwise we are heading for the irrelevance of perpetual opposition. That would mean we would never be able to put Labour values into a Government that Scotland so desperately needs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Gentleman for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. He and I know that we will not agree on this subject, but we are good friends and Gaelic cousins. I appreciate his point of view; my point of view will be very different. Ten years ago, the people of the United Kingdom made a historic sovereign decision to leave the European Union. They voted to take back control of our laws, borders and cash, but as a proud Unionist and staunch Brexiteer, I stand here to declare that the impact of the referendum is uncertain because the job is not yet finished. There is still work to be done. I will outline some of the issues in Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework does not fix the problem; it institutionalises it. It leaves a border in the Irish sea, dividing us from our biggest market and tearing at the economic and constitutional fabric of our country. How can we say we have fully left the EU when Northern Ireland is still subject to laws that it has no say in making and that are judged by a foreign court? How can we say that we have taken back control when our hard-working farmers face losing half their vital veterinary medicines simply because Brussels dictates what can and cannot cross the Irish sea? That is a fundamental denial of democracy. How can we talk about the result of the vote when it is a constitutional outrage that our own Government’s ability to support British businesses in Northern Ireland is legally handcuffed by European competition courts through a ban on state aid? How can we talk about the vote and the UK when every time a consumer in my Strangford constituency picks up a pint of milk stamped with “Not for the EU” they are looking at a badge of foreign interference in our internal UK market? True Brexit means Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for the mainland of Great Britain. We have been trapped in a dynamic alignment. If the mainland innovates and cuts red tape, Northern Ireland is legally forbidden from joining them because we are chained to the EU customs code. That is not the best of both worlds; it is economic partition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a classic example of that, which we had some time ago, was when companies selling plants and seeds in Great Britain could not supply them to Northern Ireland, but people could buy them here and take them over on a plane? That was all down to the Windsor framework and the subsequent hash that Governments have made of the Brexit vote.

I absolutely agree. I was going to come on to that issue, but he has done it for me so I will leave it at that. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is a friend of mine, but we fundamentally cannot agree on this issue. I believe in accepting a democratic vote, not ignoring it. When we believe that we know better than the people, it is no longer a democracy; it is a dictatorship. Hon. Members are allowed to hate that result, but they are not allowed to overrule it without due process. We need to finish the job that the people voted for in 2016. That means removing the Windsor framework, stripping away the remaining vestiges of EU interference and fully restoring the internal market of the United Kingdom. We must solidify our precious Union. We are undeniably stronger together; I am sure my friends in the SNP and Plaid Cymru will take note of that. Our economic, cultural and political bonds are what makes this nation great. Our focus must be on strengthening the ties between Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London, not managing an artificial barrier forced on us by Brussels. Let us stand firm, deliver on the full promise of 2016 and secure a truly United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for generations to come. We are always better together.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Before I start, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on the media’s conduct in the referendum. I will touch briefly on the issue of music. I was speaking recently to an orchestra member who is active in my local party over the weekend about the issues that he has experienced with touring, and to a local venue operator who used to welcome musicians from Europe to Northumberland. It supported our tourism sector and supported the exchange of ideas. It enhanced opportunities for young people to see the world beyond the north-east. It is a crying shame that we have lost not just the ability for our musicians to go abroad, but the ability to welcome people into our areas to play in some of the iconic venues of the north-east. Given the time allowed, I will focus my remarks on trade deals and the way that the agricultural community has been treated in those trade deals—in particular, the impact of leaving the EU and the now complete absence of scrutiny of those deals. We no longer have any appropriate democratic input into how those terms of reference are agreed and how civil society can properly feed into them. When we were a member of the European Parliament, we at least had a methodology, however imperfect, for agreeing those terms of reference, bringing them forward and making sure that farmers had a seat at the table when those trade deals were being agreed. Given how the Australian and New Zealand trade deals disadvantaged sheep farmers in my constituency, had there been a meaningful vote or meaningful parliamentary consultation, there is no way that the former MP for my constituency could have voted for that deal with a clean conscience. It is to his shame that he never raised his voice in opposition to it. I also want to touch on the issue of trade movements, referred to in the introductory speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I thank him for securing the debate and apologise for forgetting to do so earlier. When the EU brings in bans on products, there is a real risk that those goods are then immediately diverted into the UK because we do not have consistency of policy. I have heard that from manufacturers in my constituency who make furniture: they see lower-quality wood products from China coming in that were originally destined for the EU but, because of a policy shift from the EU, have then been redirected en route into the UK market, with the consistent risk of decimating jobs. Constituency MPs then have to run to Ministers and ask for exemptions and for us to catch up to Europe. We must ensure that we have consistency of approach, not just to safeguard jobs, but to grow economies and give business the impetus and confidence to invest in the long term. This is a shorter speech than I intended to give, but I would be grateful if the Minister could come back on those two points about scrutiny and consistency of application of trade protection measures.

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for allowing us to debate this issue, 10 years on from the sovereign decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave a political union—that is the important message that seems to evade most people in this Chamber today. We were not part of a simple trading arrangement: under the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government of John Major signed us up to without a referendum, our sovereignty was handed away to a political union. When my parents voted to join a common market, or to stay in a common market, in the 1970s, that was about free trade; it was about co-operation and working together as neighbours. But over the years it became a political union, and our laws—the laws that we are elected to make—were overridden by a massive unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. Our trade has to be global—

It is elected—it is a Parliament.

A Parliament that had no real power, as the hon. Member knows. Our democracy and our historic constitutional rights and liberties were gradually being eroded. I want this country to be prosperous. The real prosperity in the world today does not come with a diminishing market in the continent. The global market is there for us to grab if we take that opportunity. Unfortunately, the political establishment of this country has failed in the last 10 years to grab the opportunities that being independent has given us. Those in the civil service, those in government under Theresa May and the establishment in this country did everything they possibly could to derail Brexit. Under Theresa May’s agreement, we would have been half in and half out of the European Union. That would have been a disaster. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), myself and others voted against that deal, and gave us a Brexit that actually meant something. The opportunities are there for Britain to take if we choose to do so. The alternative is to go back into a political union and be subjected to rules, laws, regulations, the euro—all the things that come with being in the European Union—and free movement. If the people of Iceland had the good sense to say no, then we should have the good sense to think of the long-term future of our country, retain our independence, never go back to the European Union, but maintain good relations and trade co-operation with our neighbours.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I will talk about the impact of the EU referendum on my part of the UK. In ’99, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly was recognised as a region in the EU in its own right and granted objective 1 status, reflecting the fact that we were one of the poorest areas not just in the UK but in western Europe. We received over €1 billion in EU funding between 2014 and 2020. Our economy would not have grown as much as it did over the 20 years of objective 1 status without EU money, but the impact went far beyond economic growth. To give some examples: on trains, we had a passing loop and points put into our train service, which made it much quicker and better; on buses, we set up park and ride; on cars, we had the dualling of the A30. We had an airport funded, which is now floundering. On renewables, United Downs meant our first geothermal power plant was established, while on culture, we had the Hall for Cornwall. In healthcare we had dental and medical schools; we have a combined university campus in Cornwall for the first time. The impacts were huge, and we lost a great deal because of the referendum. Almost everywhere people go in Cornwall, they can see a distinctive—but far too small—blue sign signifying that a building or something else was funded by the EU. That was transformational for us. In 2016, the leave campaign promised that Cornwall and the UK as a whole would not be worse off. That promise has fallen short. We did get shared prosperity funding from the Government afterwards and, along with the other Cornish Labour MPs, I helped to secure the Kernow industrial growth fund for economic growth, but there is a gap: because of that funding, other Government support dwindled. We are now looking forward to a devolution deal, as the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, to make sure that some of that capacity and growth is restored. The impact on our rural communities has been significant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out: particularly on our fishers, who were sold out by the leave campaign, and on our farmers, who had a rocky and uncertain road out of the common agricultural policy and the unhelpful trade deals that we had to deal with. Fortunately, we now have a new land use strategy and the environmental land management deal, and we are working our way out of that. On exports, this Government are looking at a new EU trade and veterinary deal as well.

I think we need to be really explicit about the impact on farmers. It costs £200 for health certificates on each consignment with physical checks on dairy, fish and red meat. My hon. Friend does a huge amount of work on behalf of her constituents who are farmers, but does she agree that that £200 figure should not be forgotten in debates like this? It is a significant burden on our farmers.

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I was rushing through due to lack of time. The impact on farmers has been huge in so many ways, particularly with exports and imports. It is really important that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement takes that into account. We are lucky in that we are hoping for a fast outcome on that agreement, to try to mend some of the terrible damage that has been done to our food sector. To conclude, perhaps the most pernicious aspect—maybe even more than the financial trauma—was the way that the Brexit vote split us as a society and hardened and coarsened our discourse. Families fell out. We are still polarised, quick to anger and less tolerant. Politicians and the media—all of us, really—had a part to play in that, and that is taking even longer to fix.

Order. To try to fit everybody in, we are going to have to drop the time limit to two and a half minutes. I call Clive Jones.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, backed by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), continues to burden the UK economy. Back in 2016 he, Boris Johnson and others told us that Brexit would lead to a stronger and more prosperous economy. Today, we are confronting the reality that those promises were misleading, with no substance behind them. The botched Brexit deal has cost the Treasury billions of pounds in revenue, held back British business and left our young people without the opportunities they need to begin their working lives and careers. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said, Britain’s GDP is 6% smaller as a result of Brexit—a disaster for families across the country. In my Wokingham constituency, I have heard from businesses that once exported successfully to the EU but, since Brexit, have seen their profits reduced. It is small and medium-sized businesses that have suffered as a result of Brexit. The botched Brexit deal has created almost 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork for British businesses since we left the EU, enough to wrap around the Earth nearly 15 times. That is certainly not the freedom from bureaucracy that the hon. Member for Clacton, Boris Johnson and others promised. I know from speaking to businesses in Wokingham that they are eager to grow again and to rebuild partnerships with European businesses. That is why the Government should listen to the Liberal Democrats’ call for a growth and defence partnership with Europe. Such a partnership would cut trade barriers, reduce red tape and help businesses to grow. It would boost jobs and incomes while giving the Government more money to tackle the costs of living, strengthen the armed forces, and invest in our NHS workforce and hospitals. It might even help to fund a new Royal Berkshire hospital to serve my constituency. Beyond the economic benefits, a new partnership with the EU would bring much-needed stability and security. Trump has proved himself to be an unreliable and erratic partner on the global stage, while Putin has shown no signs of halting his expansion plans in Europe. Now is the time for the Government to show ambition and to rebuild security ties with our dependable European allies.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler, in the first week of a new term. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate. Brexit has been an unmitigated failure: our economy is smaller, thousands of UK businesses have stopped exporting to the EU altogether and our position in the world has been diminished. I put on the record my thanks to the former Prime Minister and Chancellor for all the work that they did on a repair job in the first two years of this Government, but, in the brief time that I have today, I will focus on what comes next. I am pleased to see the Minister in Westminster Hall today and I welcome him to his role. I will talk specifically today about the importance of a youth mobility deal, because a visa-based scheme for 18 to 30-year-olds to allow them to travel freely between the United Kingdom and the European Union is something I have advocated for since my first few weeks in this place, and publicly since April 2025. The Government are in active negotiations with the EU about a youth mobility scheme as we speak. The prospect of such a deal has proven popular with the public; every poll on the subject consistently shows that there is broad support for a youth mobility deal. However, this is a moment to be courageous and ambitious, because we read in the media that there is a live debate about the number of people who will be subject to a youth mobility scheme—100,000, or slightly more than 100,000. In a context where net migration to the United Kingdom has fallen from a record high of over 800,000 to less than 200,000, I hope and believe that that should give Ministers the space and the confidence to agree an ambitious youth mobility deal. This negotiation is also a test of our Government’s ability to secure an agreement. Lots of pro-Europeans engaging with this subject and watching this debate want to see our Government engage in something that meaningfully moves our relationship with Europe forward. Achieving a youth mobility deal can be a test of that. I admire the Prime Minister’s courage in saying that he is going to walk towards difficult issues. With respect to the European Union and the opportunity for a youth mobility deal, I think that he and the Minister can walk towards an opportunity and I hope that they can secure it this year.

It is a pleasure, Ms Butler, to serve under your chairship. Clearly, Brexit has been a disaster for Britain—the sooner we acknowledge that, the better our conversations will be, because we will then be able to move forward. It has been economically disastrous. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, it has been a slow puncture; in fact, it has been a huge slow puncture, taking 4%, 6% or 8% off our GDP, which costs every household in the country enormously in real terms. It makes us all much worse off. In North Herefordshire, business owners have spoken about the additional barriers they face when trading with Europe and the admin created by the supposed reduction in bureaucracy. Brexit has been an economic disaster, but it is not just economic: environmentally, we are diverging from Europe, and in 28 areas of law, we now have weaker protection for our natural environment. Socially, politically and culturally, Brexit has been poisonous. It has catalysed and reinforced a toxic political debate, leading to polarisation, the proliferation of disinformation, political short-termism, and a discounting of the rights, opportunities and needs of young people in particular. The UK is now poorer, weaker and more isolated in a context in which we have a completely unreliable and unstable partner in the US President, and we have war on the eastern border of Europe with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am sorry, but because of time I will not. We are also facing the climate crisis barrelling down towards us. All of these issues require stronger co-operation with our closest neighbours. In that context, more than 10 years on from this disastrous wrong turn in British politics—this monumental act of self-harm—it is time to change course. I welcome the noises that the Government have made about resetting. That is certainly a start, but we need to be honest about what we have lost. We need to recognise the importance of co-operation and working together politically as well as economically. We need to recognise that the majority of the British people think that we would be better off back in the European Union, and that is why I believe we need to set out a path to rejoin. The best future for the UK lies within Europe. With the summit coming up, I hope that the Minister will be genuinely ambitious and deep in setting out the path forward.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. There can simply be no argument: Brexit has been one of the most disastrous decisions that the UK has made in modern times. This extraordinary moment of self-harm has irreparably damaged the British economy and society, and for what? There are longer queues at airports, bureaucracy at the ports and hundreds of thousands of boats crossing the channel every year. Let us never forget that there were no small boats before Brexit. Ten years on, Brexit has perhaps had the greatest impact on Cornwall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) mentioned. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of the late Member for Falmouth and Camborne, Candy Atherton, Cornwall secured objective 1 status from the EU, which greatly supported our economic development according to all metrics. As was mentioned, Cornwall received over £100 million a year, which included support for the Eden Project, Newquay airport, our combined universities, superfast broadband and improvements to the A30. It was a transformational programme. The Vote Leave campaign promised that not a penny of that funding would be lost. It said that the money we sent to Brussels would be reinvested back into Cornwall, but that promise never materialised, and we are now looking to the Government to reinstate our economic development funding in the devolution deal that the Prime Minister alluded to at the Dispatch Box yesterday. We have lost not only our objective 1 funding, but the common-sense free trade we once had with our closest neighbours and allies. All told, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, and the time has come to rethink and renegotiate a relationship with our nearest trading partners, our allies and friends in the European Union.

As a rather lone voice in this debate, I do not complain that it is not going to be a balanced debate, but somebody has to make the case.

There are four of us.

Indeed, there are a few of us, but what we are hearing is a group of aggrieved remain supporters who have never come to terms with their grief and remain ideologically committed to rejoining. To anybody who wants to have another referendum, I do not say, “Bring it on,” because that is the last thing the public want, but I say that we would win again. When it comes down to the crunch, the British public do not want to hand back control of our laws to the European Union, and all the polls show that. If we ask them in a poll, “Do you want Westminster or Brussels to control farming policy?”, or whatever policy it is, people always vote for Westminster to maintain control.

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the pleasant experience we had in Odesa recently, with Russian drones almost falling on our heads. Reports from Germany suggest that the recent drone attack on Leipzig airport was indeed coming from Moscow. Does he not agree that dealing with and having a good relationship with our nearest allies is the safest route to our national security?

I totally agree. Defence is a reserved matter for member states in the European Union. The European Union does not have any troops. NATO is the forum through which we operate, and it is NATO to which we should be committed, rather than setting up a rival defence organisation in the European Union. I will also point out the contributions. According to a table from the House of Commons Library, we were making a gross contribution of £16 billion or £17 billion a year, but, with the rebate, the net contribution was £9.4 billion in the last year of membership. Our latest contribution was £103 million. To all those people who advocate for rejoining or for the reset, where will the money come from? Will it come out of defence or welfare, or will there be more taxation to generate the extra revenue needed once we start making increased contributions to the European Union? There is also the myth-making. There is a myth that there were no small boats until Brexit—what rubbish. The small boats started in 2018, before we left, and by 2020 there were more than 8,500 crossings. That is not due to Brexit. The Dublin regulation was useless. It was in place during those years and it was never enforced. I will finish on the question of forecasts, which are all conjectural. They are all based on what the British economy might look like compared with a basket of other economies, including the United States, which has had a huge fiscal stimulus and an AI boom, and has more free enterprise policies. The fact is that since we left the European Union, Wolfgang Münchau, who somewhat reluctantly voted remain, has made it clear that leaving was an economic non-event. We were growing at about the same rate of France and Germany, and we still are. There has been no smashing disaster in the economy. There is a disaster in Scotland, where the SNP is campaigning against reopening the North sea and supports the high energy costs imposed by the ridiculous dash to net zero—the Government are doing that too—but the fact is that we are better off outside the EU in the long term.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. The impact of the 2016 EU referendum is felt particularly sharply in our fields, glasshouses and farming communities. For agriculture and horticulture, leaving the EU has fundamentally changed access to labour. The end of free movement has effectively ended the dependable flow of workers from the EU, on which many growers rely to plant, tend and harvest their crops. The result has been greater complexity and cost, and many farmers and growers cannot afford that cost. We have replaced the common agricultural policy with the environmental land management scheme and sustainable farming incentive. I strongly support paying farmers to look after the countryside, but we must be honest about the consequences of an all-or-nothing approach. Global shocks have driven up the cost of energy, fertiliser, feed and other inputs. As a result, there are crops that are simply no longer profitable to grow. What happens then? Either farms are amalgamated into larger operations, potentially owned by distant multinational corporations, or crops simply stop being grown in the UK. Neither outcome is good for our food security. I believe that we need a mixed system that rewards farmers for producing the food we need while also supporting them to protect and improve our land. Brexit has brought new trade barriers. Tariffs, paperwork and non-tariff barriers have disrupted what were once smooth trading relationships with our nearest market, while new trade deals bring both opportunities and uncertainties.

Which goods does the EU charge tariffs on? The hon. Member said that it charges tariffs; which goods are they on?

We have to look at non-trade barriers as well.

There are no tariffs.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as he was a member of the Government who signed up to the dodgy trade deal with Australia and New Zealand that sold our farmers down the river, he has single-handedly undermined the sheep and cattle industry in the UK—something he can be very proud of. That is why I welcome the Government’s efforts to reset relations with the EU and pursue an SPS agreement, but I have one further warning to the Minister: in seeking closer alignment, we cannot lose Britain’s first-mover advantage on precision breeding. In South Norfolk, our scientists and growers are leading the way. Precision breeding is already showing enormous promise, including with sugar beet and other crops. Climate change, pests, diseases, drought and flooding are already threatening our food security. If we are serious about producing more food at home, we must allow our farmers to use every tool in the chest. We must learn from the impact of Brexit, address its consequences honestly, and build a system that backs British farmers and growers to give us the food security we need. On a wider issue, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for many of my constituents in South Norfolk. It has led to divided families, businesses not being able to thrive as much as they want to and a tidal wave of red tape that has harmed the UK economy. I urge the Minister to explain in his wind-up remarks how Labour will push forward to remove that red tape and those barriers so that we can have a faster and more productive economy for all.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for introducing this important debate. We were told that Brexit means Brexit, but what does that mean? We have heard a lot about sausages this morning; perhaps Brexit means breakfast—that certainly makes a lot more sense than that three-word slogan. A decade on from the EU membership referendum, we face higher costs, lower growth and less influence. Brexit has made the UK poorer, more isolated and less competitive. The promised trade deal with the US has failed to materialise; instead, Trump has threatened the UK with crippling tariffs. The post-Brexit trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand negotiated by the previous Conservative Government delivered only marginal economic benefits, while the deal with Singapore merely rolled over the arrangements that we enjoyed prior to Brexit. As for Canada, after years of negotiations, the UK has still been unable to secure an enhanced agreement. Rather than unlocking a new era of prosperity, those deals have largely fallen short of the promises. Since Brexit, trade with our largest market has become slower, costlier and more bureaucratic. British exporters now face customs checks and regulatory barriers that did not exist before, and goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-Brexit levels. The OBR estimates that UK trade will ultimately be around 15% lower than it would have been had we remained in the EU. Brexit’s worst effects can and must be reduced, and that is why this Government’s efforts to rebuild our relationship with the EU matter. By pursuing closer co-operation and greater regulatory alignment where it serves our national interest, the Government are helping to make trade easier, but we need to go much further. Europe remains our biggest trading partner, and a pragmatic relationship with our closest neighbours is not an ideological choice but an economic necessity. We cannot erase the damage and costs of Brexit overnight, but we can reduce them to help British business and industry thrive.

Thank you for chairing the debate, Ms Butler, and I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing it. If you ask the wrong questions, do not be surprised by the consequences. Brexit was about the politics of the time in the Conservative party, not about the economic future of our country. Let us remember the history and the poor deal that Lord Cameron tried to secure ahead of going to the country with this referendum. Our country is now poorer and more fractious. Trade is more challenged, and we see queues at the border, horizons closing to our young people and increased migration levels. We have to ask the value of the deal that was struck after 2016. As a country, we are now significantly weaker on the global stage in a more unstable world where we should be taking the lead as we did in Europe. Locally, we know that the consequences are significant. Our constituents are £3,000 poorer as a result, and they are now faced with the cost of living challenge. We have to dig deep on where we go next and ask the questions that should have been asked in 2016. How can we have a stronger and safer economy? How do we have good trade? How do we best control migration, collaborate on a destabilised planet and ensure that our interactions abroad bring people here at home better job security, financial security and, of course, hope for the future? As we move forward, yes, we need pragmatism, but we need boldness too. As the Minister enters the fray of negotiations, I ask him to look at rebuilding an economic union with Europe that will be of value to our constituents by ensuring that trade brings good-quality jobs and powers the research that drives our economy forward. On immigration, I ask him to consider the asylum and migration management strategy that Europe has adopted and look at a risk-sharing approach so that we can rebuild balance in our system to ensure that we are supporting vulnerable people in the right way instead of pointing the finger at them. That will help our communities and our country. And ultimately, our leadership will help our world.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and on the vim and vigour with which he introduced it. Ten years on, we can now see the devastating impact that the referendum had on this country—not just on our economy, but on the integrity of our democracy and political debate. Since June 2016, we have had seven Prime Ministers in a decade. We have had a Parliament that could not resolve the question in front of it, a Government who prorogued this House unlawfully to get round it and a public who have watched the whole spectacle and drawn the obvious conclusion that our political system is broken. The Conservatives put a question to the country that they had not thought through. They lost control of the answer and then spent years arguing among themselves about what it meant while the rest of the country paid for it. Into that vacuum walked the people who benefit from it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has built an entire career on a promise he never had to deliver and now takes no responsibility for. He and others like him told the public that leaving would let us take back control of our borders. Since then, over 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats. Before the referendum, there were no small boat crossings. They created the conditions, and they now travel to Dover to be photographed pointing at the result.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will willingly give way on whether 2016 was before 2018.

The referendum was in 2016, but all the legalities of membership of the European Union, including the Dublin convention, applied until 2021. The small boat crossings were rocketing before Brexit. They have nothing to do with it.

My point is that there were no small boat crossings before the 2016 referendum. I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me on that. British GDP is between 6% and 8% smaller than it would otherwise have been. Investment has been reduced by between 12% and 18%. Employment and productivity are each down by 3% to 4%. Estimates from the House of Commons Library, those well-known doughty remain campaigners, put the cost to the Exchequer somewhere in the region of £90 billion a year in tax revenue that is simply not there. Every Minister who stands at the Dispatch Box and says that money is not available is describing a hole that has been enlarged as a result of Brexit. That is £90 billion a year that could be used for projects across the country to support our constituents. It could be used to fund renovations to my Stepping Hill hospital, the rail services my constituents wait for every morning or cleaning up our waterways so that sewage stops being pumped into the Goyt or the Mersey. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned the nearly 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork that now sit on British firms—enough to wrap around the world 15 times. Tighter border restrictions with our European neighbours devastated our hauliers, with more than double the number of insolvencies seen between 2021 and 2025 than in the previous five years. In our food and farming sector, exports to the EU have fallen by 22% since 2018, which is close to £4 billion in lost trade. The question for the House is, “What do we do now?” Ministers know that the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever available to them. Their response so far has been to make small adjustments around the edges of a bad deal. They have ruled out the single market and a customs union, drawing red lines around two things that would make a material difference. On fisheries, the Government have made things worse. The EU came asking for a five-year extension to the arrangements in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement, and this Government agreed to 12 years. That is a loss worth around £6 billion over the period at today’s prices, down not only to the previous Government but to this Labour Government. Being timid is a political choice, and it has political consequences. When mainstream parties refuse to name the cause of a problem, the field is left to those who offer easy answers and no substantive solutions. The Lib Dems are offering something different. We want a growth and defence partnership with Europe. That would mean joining the single market and a UK-EU customs union, so that our businesses can trade again without drowning in red tape. It would mean a proper UK-EU defence pact. We currently sit outside EU decision making and outside funding streams such as the European Defence Fund and the Security Action for Europe loan programme, at the precise moment when Vladimir Putin is testing this continent’s resolve and the White House is reneging on international commitments. We want a new European security council, British participation in SAFE and a European rearmament bank to support collective rearmament. Our security does not stop at Dover, and it never has. We are also calling for the UK to join the EU’s migration and asylum pact, so that we can return people who arrive by small boat to the first EU country they entered, and so that we can see the biometric data that tells us whether someone has already been refused asylum elsewhere. That is how we actually take back control of our borders, rather than shouting about it on a beach. Finally, we should fix the politics that produced this. A system that hands total power to a party with a minority of the vote and then dares it to govern for everyone will keep generating exactly this kind of instability. The Liberal Democrats want proportional representation through the single transferable vote at local and general elections. We want a second Chamber with a democratic mandate. We want the big money taken out of politics. We want the Electoral Commission protected from ministerial direction and serious measures against foreign interference in our elections and referendums. From the cost of living to our broken public services, the result of the 2016 EU referendum stands in the way of making things better, and we have to fix it. Ten years on, it is clear that it has negatively impacted the UK, and I would be really grateful if the Minister could tell us today just what it would take for this Government to move their red lines.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to him or other hon. Members that we see the legacy of the 2016 referendum, and indeed the path forward for our country, through a very different lens. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one might almost assume that the United Kingdom was a sunlit, frictionless economic Shangri-La until a single ballot paper cast us into eternal ruin. He told us, echoed by other hon. Members, that leaving the European Union uniquely crippled our economy and that our only salvation lies in surrendering sovereignty through the Government’s grandly titled EU reset, or perhaps going further. That entire narrative collapses under the weight of hard economic reality. First, let us examine the great myth of the EU single market as an automatic engine of export growth. Ministers speak of the single market as if it were a place where magic happens, but if there was magic, the UK was firmly in the audience wondering when the rabbit would emerge from the hat. As former Trade and Industry Secretary Lord Lilley demonstrated in his Policy Exchange paper earlier this year, during our entire 28-year membership of the single market, from 1992, UK goods exports to our EU partners grew by less than 1% per year, but over that exact same period our goods exports to the 111 countries with which we traded on standard World Trade Organisation terms grew by 87%. In fact, according to the European Commission’s own single market scoreboard, the UK was the member state that benefited least from the goods single market. Rejoining that regulatory straitjacket in pursuit of export growth is the pure triumph of hope over experience. Secondly, we must address the sheer statistical alchemy deployed by advocates of rejoining. Several speakers have brandished a non-peer-reviewed National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that claims that Brexit cost the UK up to 8% of GDP, but let us look at how the model has constructed that parallel universe. It created a statistical doppelganger proxy that was dominated by the United States and Estonia, which between them provide almost three quarters of the entire weighting for the alternative proxies—apparently—for where the UK could have been without Brexit. It assumed that, had we remained in the EU, the UK would have miraculously mirrored the American economic performance. To attribute that divergence to Brexit requires an extraordinary leap of imagination. It requires one to pretend that there was no US artificial intelligence boom, no massive American fiscal stimulus—which was possible because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency—no transatlantic shale gas price advantage, no differing pandemic shock, and no North sea oil rundown. In fact, Germany fell 8% behind the same arbitrary index under that model, so unless German departure from the EU has passed us by unnoticed, blaming that divergence on Brexit is simply economic nonsense. When we examine the actual data, rather than econometric fairy tales, the evidence is clear. Between 2016 and 2025, the UK economy grew by 12.2%, and by 5.3% since we formally left, outpacing the European G7 average. Since Brexit, British economic growth has averaged 1.1% per annum, compared with just 0.1% for Germany. As hon. Members have mentioned, the Office for Budget Responsibility previously assumed an implausible 15% collapse in total UK global trade openness, but as its own November 2025 briefing conceded, UK trade intensity has remained stable at around 65% of GDP and has continued to track peer economies such as France. The single market was overwhelmingly designed for goods, but more than 80% of the UK economy is based on services. Our services exports continue to boom globally. Even the dire predictions of a mass exodus from the City of London proved dramatically overblown. Institutions such as JP Morgan, which had threatened to move thousands of jobs abroad, have instead been transferring staff back from Paris to London. Although business investment was undeniably delayed during the post-2016 political paralysis, dragged out by those trying to overturn the referendum, fixed investment to GDP rebounded, reaching 19.6% by the end of last year.

I have been listening very carefully and patiently to the hon. Gentleman, and he refuses to accept the reality. The House of Commons Library did us a great favour by bringing together all the evidence, which clearly suggests that there has been a fall in GDP and in the performance of the UK economy since we left the European Union. Is he credibly standing there and telling this House that there have been no impacts whatsoever of our leaving the EU?