PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK - 24 February 2026 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

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 be here with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank colleagues for turning out for today’s debate.

We are now on the 10th anniversary of the vote to leave the European Union: a lost decade for the economy, a lost decade for business, and a lost decade for future generations and in particular our young people, which has left us poorer, more isolated and less secure in a changing world. I note—again, I am grateful to colleagues for turning up today—that those of us who seek to discuss the issue are overwhelmingly those of us who want a closer relationship with the European Union, because, bluntly, we know it has been a disaster. Nobody is arguing that leaving the EU was a good idea, or that it has left us any wealthier or made us better off. In fact, no other state has sought to leave the European Union since the Brexit debacle unfolded. Such isolationism and exceptionalism is something we must reflect upon very seriously indeed. I know the Government are, but we have a number of specific questions for them.

Will the hon. Member give way?

Not at the moment.

I want to reflect for a moment that, although the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I made him aware that I would be referencing him today, in this one instance—told us that the UK would not be the last member to leave, no one left and more members are seeking to join. That has been the legacy of this period. Are any colleagues from Reform here today? No. There are some from the Conservatives—I can never quite tell who is in and who is out and which way round they are—but there are no Reform Members in this debate on its showcase policy platform. This is an isolationist, nationalist project, and it has failed profoundly. On that point, I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he is always very courteous in the Chamber.

That is very kind. The legacy for us in Northern Ireland is that we are half in and half out, and our businesses, our exports and imports, and our people suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have very different opinions on Brexit, but does he not agree that Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit that everybody else got, which we wanted?

It certainly did not get the Brexit it voted for, because the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to reject it—and no wonder; it was a Brexit that undermined the peace process. But do not worry. Mr Gove, who is not in this place so I do not need to notify him, told Northern Ireland that it was going to get the best of both worlds. Well, if only we had all had the best of both worlds.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am not going to take too many interventions, but as I took one from the hon. Member for Strangford, I think I should take a viewpoint from the majority point of view in Northern Ireland as well.

Yes, indeed—I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I remind colleagues that Northern Ireland voted to remain. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt in all of this. I do not spend my time relitigating Brexit, because it tore my country apart, but for our community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, the legacy is that we have never had the European social funds replaced like for like by any Government since we left the EU, and that is a disgraceful legacy.

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful point, and the respectful way in which she makes her case regularly. I was in this place at the time; Northern Ireland was consecutively overlooked, and its views disregarded.

I hope Members will forgive me, because I am going to try to make some progress, but I think it is incredibly important that the first two interventions, although from different sides, were from Members from Northern Ireland, which is overlooked far too often in this place, because the peace process was a price that others thought was worth paying—to a far greater degree than it should have been.

Let me talk about the economy. The National Bureau of Economic Research states that £90 billion has been lost in tax revenues, or £250 million every day. That means that the amount wasted, and not taken in tax, every 48 hours is the entire annual budget of the council of the city of Dundee, part of which I represent. Investment is lower than it would have been, too. Despite that, the UK paid out billions for the privilege of putting itself in this ludicrous situation. More seriously, small and medium-sized enterprises, which grow our economy and employ so many people, have found it harder to grow; for households, the cost of living has increased at a time when they can ill afford it—the Government know this, and they know how serious it is for households—and trade deals that we knew would do nothing to compensate for the loss continue to do nothing.

There is a human element, too, in the form of opportunities for young people. As politicians, we should all leave more opportunities for the generations who come after us than we enjoyed ourselves, but this place leaves fewer opportunities. My life was transformed by doing Erasmus at the University of Dundee. I am glad that the Government have belatedly come round and reintroduced it, but there is a lost generation of those who never had it, and who no longer have freedom of movement, which allowed our young people to live and work in the EU. Why on earth do Members think—I wonder if the Minister can tell me—there was such an explosion in those with Polish, French or, in my case, Irish ancestry seeking second passports?

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

If the hon. Member can tell me that, then I welcome her intervention.

The hon. Gentleman is very generous. Does he agree that it is totally unfair that one person in my constituency missed out on their gap year and the opportunity to travel abroad because they have a British passport while their friend got to travel and have that experience because they could access an Irish passport?

I absolutely agree. That is the benefit of Ireland being a member of the European Union and why I cannot fathom why Labour and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats—I can understand the Conservatives and Reform—do not endorse rejoining the European Union. It is staring them in the face.

I tire sometimes of the hon. Member’s party in Scotland making this fuss about us not wanting to rejoin. If he looks back, he will see that the Liberal Democrats were the ones who desperately wanted not to leave. We campaigned for a second referendum. We want to create a new customs union. We desperately want to be closer to Europe, so, please, will the hon. Member kindly give the correct picture of the Liberal Democrat position?

The correct picture is this—let us talk about the present. Do the Liberal Democrats want to rejoin the EU right now? My party does; does the hon. Lady’s? I will give way again—yes or no?

If the hon. Member can explain the contradiction between wanting to join one union and give up sovereignty and wanting to leave another.

The hon. Member has fallen into the nationalist exceptionalism trap that I would expect more from the Conservatives or Reform. Why is it that the 27 member states of the European Union consider themselves independent and sovereign? The European Union is a club for independent states; the UK is not. That is the fundamental difference.

I will talk briefly about migration, because it is important—and I want to make progress, as a lot of Members want to speak. The UK left the Dublin regulation, which led to an explosion in the number of small boats—the Brexit boats, the Reform boats, the Tory boats. In the EU, irregular border crossings have gone down, but in the UK they have gone up. I know that the Government are looking at returns, but that is a desperate situation.

On the impact on devolution, Scotland voted to leave, but even within the deal we have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I hope the Minister will revisit that Act—one that Labour cried out about previously, and the Scottish Parliament refused consent for. We have talked about Northern Ireland. Because we do not have the purest of pure Brexits, now the European convention on human rights is under threat. It is a bit like the purest of pure communism has apparently never been tried; the purest of pure Brexits, for the ultimate Brexiteers, has never been tried either. The threat to devolution continues under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and I hope the Minister will address that.

Finally, we are less secure. Today is four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I know we are all in the same place on that. It turned the whole of Europe upside down. The EU is integral to our security, so will the Minister tell me why Canada can join the defence procurement scheme but the UK cannot? What progress is being made on that? It is a fundamentally important issue.

Let me just make one more point, and then I will take an intervention from the Labour Benches.

We know the importance of food and energy security, and Ukraine, Moldova and others see their future in Europe, so why on earth does the UK not? Eighty per cent of our 16 to 24-year olds want not a customs union, but to rejoin the EU. Seventy-five per cent of Scots want to rejoin, because Brexit has been a failure.

Nobody can doubt the hon. Member’s Europhile credentials, but I do doubt his party’s commitment to unions of any kind. Why else would the SNP spend more fighting a by-election in Shetland than it did fighting the Brexit referendum? When he has finished answering that, perhaps he can tell us why his party spent more fighting the Glenrothes by-election than it did fighting Brexit.

I am glad the hon. Member raised that. In Scotland we campaigned and overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU—a vote that was ignored by his party and by this place as an anti-democratic protest. On the point of how much campaigning was done, the Brexit referendum took place six weeks after the Scottish, Welsh and London elections. In order to make the campaigning period longer, I tabled an amendment to the European Union Referendum Bill so that we could campaign more, spend more and make the case more, but his party rejected it. Its Members walked into the Lobby with the Conservative party, as they often do, to reject that amendment. I tabled an amendment so that 16-year-olds could vote, as they do in Scotland; his party rejected it. The only amendment it endorsed, and I am glad it did, was one that allowed European nationals to have the vote—that one was accepted. Throughout the process, we sought to amend the damage that his party had done under the Labour leader at the time, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Who’s he?

“Who’s he?” he says. He was your leader over two general elections.

Brexit has failed. Many of those who spoke of democracy have since taken their seats in the House of Lords and will never have to face the electorate again. We even have limitations on discussing and debating the Head of State, as has been happening today on, in fairness, a Liberal Democrat motion. To those who bewail the chaos and failure that has enveloped the UK over the past decade, which has seen us run through six—soon to be seven, apparently, if the Scottish Labour leader has their way—British prime ministers since the Brexit referendum, I say: please, reflect on where we are. We need to rejoin. I will endorse anything that brings us closer to the EU, but we know that anything would be simply less bad.

Ten years on, enough is enough. I am about to listen to all these Members make the case for Europe. I say to Liberal Members, to Tory Members, and to Labour Members in particular: have the courage of your convictions and get us closer to Europe, get us rejoining Europe, and stop damaging the UK.

Order. There will be a two-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I will begin calling Front Benchers for the wind-ups at quarter-past 5.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). There is a thirst to discuss this in the Chamber—apart from the shadow Minister’s side; he looks rather lonely.

Cambridge was one of the most pro-remain areas in the UK. I am proud that the Market ward in central Cambridge had the highest remain vote anywhere in the country; I share that view with a passion. That early morning of 24 June 2016 in an empty sports centre in Chelmsford, where the votes in the east of England were being counted, was one of the lowest points of my political life.

I accept that the vote was lost in 2016, but the years that followed have cost us dear. In the science and research field, we have clawed our way back into Horizon, but look at the damage done: relationships broken and ground lost that will take years to rebuild. I am thrilled that the Government will return us to the Erasmus scheme, which, as the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry said, has done so much to enrich lives, although again years have been lost.

As a Food Minister, I saw directly the problems that so many of our brilliant food producers have faced getting their products to European customers, such as all those export health certificates that had to be completed. That is why I am so pleased that the Government are doing the long, hard, painstaking work to build a new SPS agreement. Let me finish this brief contribution on that positive note. If that day in Chelmsford was a low point, the agreement of the SPS process last year was one of the high points. As Food Minister, I was privileged to be with a number of major food companies in the Downing Street garden celebrating that occasion. Pieces of cake with EU and UK flags were a joy to see. That was a sight that would bring joy to so many of my Cambridge constituents who are passionate Europeans. Yes, a decade has been lost but we are now on the right path.

I suppose I should be timid about entering this echo chamber of remainers and remoaners, but here I am. The first thing that strikes one is the utter disrespect for the largest democratic vote ever in the history of this nation. To many in this place, that is a nothing to be swept aside. I say to them, if they are democrats: “Shame on you!”

I am intrigued by the approach of the Scottish National party. The raison d’être of that party is a sovereign, independent Scotland but, as soon as they get that, they want to hand away their sovereignty and independence and subjugate it to the sovereignty of a foreign EU. No doubt they also want to build a Hadrian’s wall international customs border—if they join the EU, and the rest of the United Kingdom does not, that is what they are going to have. Let me tell them what that means, from the experience of Northern Ireland. It means that supply goods from the main market in Great Britain will be subject to international customs declarations, tariffs, paperwork and extra costs. That is what the independence-seeking SNP thinks is the recipe for the future.

We have heard much propaganda today about the alleged failures of Brexit. Yes, it has failed where it has not been given, which is in Northern Ireland, but look at manufacturing, which is probably the area most affected by Brexit. Is it not strange that the UK’s productivity performance in manufacturing has been the strongest of any country in the G7?

Order.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for his powerful speech in opening the debate.

In June 2016, my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, following a campaign in which I and my team worked as hard as we have in any election where my name was on the ballot paper. For the vast majority of residents in Dulwich and West Norwood, the UK’s membership of the EU and their consequential status as both British and European citizens was fundamental to their identity, and their loss by such a narrow margin was viscerally felt.

The loss has turned out to be much greater than the replacement of our burgundy passports with navy ones. During the campaign, we consistently raised our evidence-based concerns that Brexit would harm our country. We were accused of scaremongering, but on every single one of the issues on which we campaigned, the passage of time has proved us right.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that, because of Brexit, the economy is 6% to 8% smaller than it otherwise would be. At the first Black Country Chamber of Commerce meeting I went to, most of the businesses were talking about the adverse effects of Brexit.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the step forward now is to carry on and make the most of the agreement that the Government have made with the European Union, with a view to growing the economy and backing British jobs?

My hon. Friend is right. The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear that Brexit has caused a 4% long-term reduction in GDP and has created a structural challenge in UK manufacturing. The export of UK goods to the EU has fallen by 27% and imports have fallen by 32%.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will not give way, because of the number of Members who wish to speak. Some 16,400 SMEs have given up exporting to the EU because of Brexit-related red tape. [Interruption.] I will not give way, because of the number of colleagues who wish to get in.

Our food is more expensive, regulation has dropped, and there was no £350 million a week for the NHS. During the debates that followed the referendum, I took the view that I would prioritise representing my constituents’ views, and that on such an important matter, even if we were losing the argument, democratic representation and plurality of voices mattered. It led me to rebel on a number of votes and to resign from the shadow Front Bench in order not to vote in support of the Conservatives’ Brexit deal.

Brexit drove a huge wedge through the middle of our country. It divided regions from each other, split communities and even families, according to strong and sincerely held views. We do not need to re-litigate those arguments and to keep telling each other we were wrong, or seek to convince ourselves that we can easily return to where we were. However, responsible government demands that we reckon with the reality we find ourselves in. We must acknowledge the immense harm that has been done—that we are poorer and less secure as a consequence of Brexit—and it is right that we seek to undo the damage.

I welcome the steps that the Government have already taken to reset our relationship with the European Union, starting with re-establishing the warmth of our friendship, reopening regular and constructive dialogue, negotiating new deals and rejoining Erasmus+. There is further to go, but we must move forward, step by step, making the consensus, building community and connection, and moving forward in a realistic way, recognising that relationships are mutual, not unilateral, and that there is more to do to rebuild our relationship.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing this important debate.

In South Cambridgeshire, the majority of constituents, 60.2%, voted to remain in the European Union. They did so from a clear understanding that our prosperity, freedoms and security depend on and benefit from co-operation with our closest neighbours, but the effects of the Brexit referendum deal have been stark and deeply damaging. Our young people have lost the freedoms that we as their parents once took for granted—the right to travel, work, study, live and love across the EU. Economically, Brexit has blown a £90 billion-a-year hole in the public finances, with around £250 million every single day in lost tax revenue, and an economy now between 6% and 8% smaller than if we had not left, which particularly hits our small and medium-sized businesses.

There are wider issues of security, too. As Dr Paul Browne, chair of Cambridge for Europe, said,

“the world of 2026 is not the world of 2016… Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine shows us that democracy, defence and economic security are one”.

After a decade of working internationally with communities and economies devastated by climate change, I became much more politically active when I realised that Brexit would threaten our environment. Nature knows no borders. Wildlife mates and nests in one country while feeding in another, and the habitats and water framework directives were hugely effective in respecting that. However, we are now diverging from those protections of the nature and wildlife that we all hold so dear. The Institute for European Environmental Policy has found that since Brexit the EU has introduced 28 new or strengthened pieces of environmental legislation that the UK has not adopted. Meanwhile, we have weakened protections in areas such as habitats, pesticides, forever chemicals and fisheries. We must be bolder, rejoin, closer to the EU and—

Order.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I was going to talk about business, trade and many other factors, but let me focus my remarks on young people. When I go to schools and speak to young people across Beckenham and Penge, they describe the significant impact Brexit has had on them. Young people in my constituency and across the country continue to face the brunt of such a consequential decision that they had no say in whatsoever. In January last year, YouGov found that over 75% of 18 to 24-year-olds thought Brexit was a mistake. Behind that percentage are real people whose aspirations and ambitions are being held back.

Does the hon. Gentleman find it bizarre that at the moment British citizens can spend only 90 days out of every 180 in Europe, yet reciprocally EU nationals can spend six months in the UK? Does he think that at the next EU-UK summit we could pursue a reciprocal visa travel arrangement?

That is something the Government are looking at, and I would welcome the Minister’s response.

This week, I have had the pleasure of being joined by two university students from Beckenham and Penge, Zoe and Isaac, who are in the Public Gallery today. I asked them what Brexit has meant for them in practical terms. Zoe said that although her course offers a year abroad, which is something she has always wanted to do, it is now implausible for her to go because of how expensive it has become given increased mobility, visa and administrative costs. Likewise, Isaac would like to study in the EU after he graduates or to work abroad, but current restrictions mean he is unlikely to be able to do so.

I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to address some of these issues through plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027 or indeed through the EU-UK youth mobility scheme, which would give those aged 18 to 35 the chance to study and work for up to four years abroad. Will the Minister tell us how quickly that will be rolled out?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing this debate.

Almost a decade since we held that fateful referendum, let us look back and count the many and varied so-called “Brexit benefits” that some promised us. As we bask in the glorious position that the UK now enjoys on the world stage, admired and envied by nations that remain tethered to the huge co-operative trading bloc—with its equal standards, paperless flow of goods, shorter passport queues, easier travel, investment infrastructure, tourism, shared intelligence, movement for students and those in shortage occupations, shared research and development, and art and music projects—the stark reality, 10 years on from the infamous and baseless bus slogans, is not really freedom at all. It is not freedom for those of us whose constituencies have so many ties with our continental neighbours—ties that go back centuries and are embedded in this nation’s social, political, industrial, legal, creative and academic history.

My constituency’s very soul—our magnificent cathedral, heritage, people and institutions—are not only British but European. We are practically joined to France. A few days ago, we welcomed the French ambassador and other dignitaries to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the signing of the channel tunnel treaty by Mrs Thatcher and President Mitterrand, in a cathedral built mostly of French stone.

Kent is essentially Britain’s front door to European travellers. Thankfully, as a UNESCO world heritage site, it will always be a thriving and popular destination, but that is despite Brexit. Our easy relationship with the neighbours who could just pop over from next door has changed dramatically. Our economy is based on tourism, agriculture, produce, and our trading relationship. Whitstable oysters supply French restaurants, but that once seamless transaction involved 72 pieces of paper and multiple checks after Brexit. Our farms and local food businesses—

Order.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

It has been a rather dreary February. Despite looking quite hard, I have not been able to see any of the rainbows or unicorns that we were promised during the debate of the Brexit days, or the millions promised to the NHS. However, let us be realistic and build our hopes for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) mentioned young people, and of course the vast majority of this House would agree that we want collaboration, shared security, shared prosperity and more jobs. What we need to talk about are the social and cultural consequences of the UK’s departure from the European Union, and we need economic common sense.

The Government have already made great progress in resetting the relationship with the EU after the Tory years of chaos.

I worked in buying in a retail head office at the time of Brexit. It was an extremely uncertain time. I remember having to stay up quite literally all night to figure out how we were going to move stock from the EU into the UK to protect sales ahead of Black Friday. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK-EU reset is a real opportunity to offer certainty to businesses that the Conservative party let down at that time?

My hon. Friend knows of what she speaks in the area of trade in the EU and manufacturing in the UK.

The new UK-EU partnership includes an agreement to work towards making agrifood trade easier, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) mentioned. Ultimately, the sanitary and phytosanitary deal will add £9 billion to the UK economy in the long term, but we need to get on with it. We are 18 months into this Parliament. We need to put our foot on the accelerator to fight against food poverty, bring down food prices and help manufacturers.

Let me emphasise that there is so much more we can do to support our creative sector. We need specific commitments on touring to allow artists to travel visa-free and to carry their instruments, equipment and props without prohibitive admin and bureaucracy. A special cultural exemption from the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement would go a long way towards that and I know that is at the heart of the discussions for the Cabinet Office.

The hon. Lady mentions the trade and co-operation agreement, which was of course meant to remove tariffs. Does she share my concern about companies, such as those in Taunton and Wellington, that do not have to pay tariffs but who have to pay £300 for every cross-border transaction, to have all the paperwork done? That is effectively a tariff, and not the free trade we were promised. Does that not show the lunacy of the way the Brexit decision was carried out?

The hon. Member is completely right that there is far too much unnecessary bureaucracy that did not exist before. If we can develop the relationship with European partners, those creases can be ironed out and we can have much more friction-free trade.

To realise our full potential in tackling global challenges such as climate change, the UK needs to play a fuller part in the latest iteration of the EU’s research and innovation framework programme, FP10, as we did with Horizon Europe 2024. I would welcome an update from the Minister on that point.

Nothing says more about who we are and our place in the world than our relationship with our closest neighbours. The new UK-EU strategic partnership is a great start, but there is lots more to do. Let us not waste this wonderful opportunity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Eighty years ago, just after the second world war, my great-uncle Zelia stood outside this Parliament building. He doffed his hat—everyone had a hat in those days—and he said, “She saved us all.” He was a Latvian Jew who lived in Paris; I was always told he had fought with the French resistance. He certainly knew what Britain had meant to Europe. The whole of Europe knew that.

At that moment, Europe looked to Britain for a lead, but we pulled back. Even when we finally joined them, we developed the habit of blaming Brussels more than reminding people of the benefits. So when the 2016 referendum came, people answered on the basis of what they had been told and what they had not been told. Now, 10 years on, the cost is clear. Boris Johnson promised the NHS £19 billion a year. Instead, we have lost £90 billion a year, every year, in tax revenue.

My predecessor, Boris Johnson, promised much that never seemed to materialise, locally as well as nationally. My hon. Friend is right in his assertion that we have seen significant economic impacts. Pharmaceutical companies in my constituency talk about double administration and double testing of the exports of drugs now, with the need to go through both the European and UK medicines agencies for approvals. They say that has directly harmed investment and jobs in the UK. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that?

I do. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on replacing Boris Johnson with a much nicer man, who definitely has much better hair. I absolutely agree.

We have to recognise that the swiftest path to growth for this country lies in tackling the red tape that Brexit introduced. I think of a small butcher in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, who used to import most of his goods from Spain and Italy and now has shelves half bare because his small distributors just cannot cope with the paperwork.

We do not have that £90 billion in tax revenue any more, and that is money that we need badly for our NHS, police and schools after years of Conservative austerity. I am not dismissing the concerns that drove the leave vote, least of all the feeling of not being heard, but the response that the referendum conveyed has made all those problems worse. If we left to take back control, the evidence is that we simply have much less of it. No wonder that two thirds of the British people, including six out of 10 of those who voted to leave, now say that they want a closer relationship with the European Union, which my Government are pursuing.

The British people deserve better. This country, diminished though it is, but still undefeated, has never shrunk from doing what the moment requires. Let us seize this moment to repair the damage, welcome the reset, act with ambition, optimism and hope, and put Brexit right.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I never inhaled: I always opposed Brexit, and I continue to fight for a closer relationship with Europe. I also recognise that the way the previous Government left the European Union was the hardest of Brexits. They compounded the damage that walking out of the room did to this country, and we see that in our constituencies every single day. I do not believe that anybody voted for 1.8 million fewer jobs to be created in our economy, or for 16,000 businesses to give up on trading with Europe because the basic consequence of Brexit was paperwork. I do not believe that anybody in this country really wanted those outcomes.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I apologise, but I am aware of the time available. I also recognise that 2016 was over a decade ago. One of the challenges in this nation is that we have always acted as if the hard part about our relationship with Europe was us deciding what we wanted to happen, and the easy part was going and telling our European counterparts what we wanted to do. In a decade, President Trump has been elected twice, covid has happened, the #MeToo movement occurred and TikTok was invented—not to mention the antics of President Putin. If we are going to get this right then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) is right to argue, we need to get closer to Europe, but, in what we ask now, we have to show them the respect of recognising the damage we did in walking out of the door.

First and foremost, we need a salvage operation for British businesses, jobs, climate and people. That requires looking at the deal that has been done with Switzerland. We must get closer to the single market, because the customs union is not our European counterparts and European freedom of movement. There is so much more that we can do but, first, let us start by respecting those people we disavowed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for introducing the debate. I simply wanted to say that, for years, I watched from afar as a normal member of the public in Northern Ireland as this place discussed my, my family’s and my country’s future. I really meant it when I said that Brexit tore my country apart, because it did.

I stand here today as the only elected Member from Northern Ireland who is neither nationalist or Unionist. I am really proud of that, and of the decision that Lagan Valley made. No doubt, others may later say that I am simply a nationalist, or that I am just a vehicle for a populist argument. I find that really denigrating, because Northern Ireland did vote to remain, but that was across Unionist people, nationalist people and people like me who are neither of those things.

We will hear that there are issues with the protocol—of course there are. I sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee; we discuss it regularly, and I table written questions regularly. I did not want to leave, because I am British, I am Irish, I am Northern Irish and I am European. I will never choose; do not make me choose. But that is what this did. It ripped away that umbrella of identity, and Northern Ireland has never recovered. Others simply will not let it.

Truth be told, it was such a great burden for so many that I am not sure what the way forward is. Others throw out simple referendums as the cure to it all. I do not believe them. I do not believe the others throwing out simple referendums about a united Ireland as the cure. I do believe that, as other Members have suggested, we have to have something for the UK as a whole, because we simply need to get closer. I just wanted to say that the referendum broke my heart and the hearts of many others, and it caused great unrest and strife. Many of us in Northern Ireland are recovering.

We know so much now, 10 years on from the referendum, about the economic impacts of the Conservative Brexit deal. I will not spend too much time discussing them, other than to say that they come up every time I knock on a door in Reading that belongs to an owner of a small or medium-sized enterprise. Across the UK, their exports have fallen by almost a third since Brexit. We are now bearing the costs of that.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No thank you.

There is much we can now do to mitigate the costs of Brexit for our constituents, including securing a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement with the EU. I ask the Minister to give an update on the progress of that. Colleagues on the living standards coalition of MPs found that securing such an agreement could reduce EU food import prices by between 3% to 6% in the next few years. That will go a substantial way to reducing our constituents’ cost of living.

In order to move forward, we have to look at where we are now and see how the world sees us. In my previous job reporting on trade from Brussels as a British journalist for a British newspaper, I would often attract wry comments from other members of the European Commission and community about my nationality and the choices that my country made. During the years of the Brexit negotiations, we had five Foreign Secretaries and six Business Secretaries, so no wonder they had some comments about my Government.

Contrast that with the reception that our Prime Minister had at the Munich Security Conference. I was in the audience and heard the spontaneous applause when the Prime Minister declared that

“we are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore”,

that we must

“build a stronger Europe and a more European NATO”,

and that

“there is no British security without Europe, and no European security without Britain.”

Security does not just mean defence—it means food, energy, and climate and the environment, and I am proud that in my constituency we have one of the last remaining European institutions headquartered in the UK: the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which will build on its new site. Soon, it will raise the British flag alongside the flags of all its partners.

I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for the way in which he introduced the debate. He did forget, though, in his recollections, that we could have had a customs union if he had not abstained on that decision, along with his 35 SNP colleagues. That is a simple fact. Perhaps he can address that in his winding-up speech.

One of the challenges we face as a country is that so many people in the UK feel left behind. They still feel the impacts of the banking crisis and of covid. Both were once in a lifetime but have been exaggerated and amplified by Brexit. The Brexiteers told us that all we needed to do to set our country on a wealthier path was to get rid of the Europeans. I have to say that it is very similar to the argument we hear from Donald Trump about Mexicans and also the argument we hear from the SNP about getting rid of the rest of the UK. All three are wrong for exactly the same reasons.

Now the same Brexiteers tell us that all we have to do to set our country on a wealthier path is to get rid of immigrants—to other them. Again, that is not correct, particularly when we remember that there are about 350,000 immigrants working in our NHS. We all know that the route to prosperity is to work more closely with our biggest trading partners, and for us that is the European Union. I am proud that this Government have taken us in that direction. I do hope that one day we rejoin the EU, but I do recognise that, as others have hinted, that has to come after a manifesto commitment and a referendum. It is not something that any of us want to rush into right now, but I welcome the fact that, day by day, we are getting closer to our European partners.

There is now a one-minute limit.

Our duty in this place is to build bridges, not walls, and yet, since the Brexit vote, we have seen our country pull itself apart day by day because the disruptors who caused the Brexit vote have continued to disrupt our communities. Why is that? They have made our country poorer, they have regressed our economy, we have lost jobs and our services are no longer supported in the way that they were.

We have to build our way back and build our way back fast. Rebuilding the relationships is the first step, but we must move forward, as so many have said, to a customs union, to the single market and ultimately to our membership back in the European Parliament, being rule-makers, not rule-takers. That is what my city voted for back in 2016; two thirds of my constituents voted to remain. It is why we need to come together and reach a decision among ourselves on a pathway to hope once again.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate. In 2016, the British people were offered a vision of life outside the European Union built on easy promises: £350 million a week for the NHS, effortless global trade deals, and all the benefits of membership with none of the obligations. There was no detailed blueprint, no agreed destination and no serious plan. As the still comparatively new Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, I am acutely aware that my predecessor played a large part in leading us down that track.

Ten years on, we are living with the consequences of those events. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Brexit has suppressed UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, a loss equivalent to around £250 million a day. The trade deals struck with Australia and New Zealand amount to a fraction of 1% of GDP. They do not come close to compensating for the loss of frictionless trade with our largest and closest market, Europe.

With the President of the United States threatening a 15% blanket tariff on all trade with the US, does my hon. Friend agree that a closer relationship with the EU should be at the top of our priority list?

The capriciousness of the United States makes the case for closer economic co-operation with Europe all the greater. This is not abstract. Businesses up and down the UK are grappling with rules of origin paperwork, border delays and lost contracts. Investment is held back. Productivity is squeezed. Growth has slowed.

This is not only about economics. Three quarters of young people voted to remain. A generation has lost the freedom to live, work and study across Europe. We withdrew from Erasmus+. We stepped back from the easy exchange of ideas and opportunity that strengthened our country. At a time of war in our continent, and growing geopolitical instability, stepping back from Europe has not made us stronger. It has left us more exposed.

The Liberal Democrats have always been clear: Britain’s future lies at the heart of Europe. We are unapologetically pro co-operation, pro political and economic unions of all shapes and sizes, and pro-European. We believe that sovereignty in the modern world is strengthened by partnership. Pooling power with allies does not diminish Britain: it amplifies us. That is why we have proposed a new UK-EU customs union—a practical, deliverable step to rebuild economic partnership and provide certainty for British businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.

Last year, the House backed that approach in a vote that, for the first time in years, appeared to nudge the Government into speaking seriously about rebuilding our relationship with Europe. A customs union would remove tariffs and rules of origin barriers, cut border friction, strengthen supply chains and support growth. It is neither the final destination nor the sum total of our ambition for the UK—I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry to our four-point plan—but it is the next step in restoring a close economic partnership with the European Union and rebuilding trust with our largest trading partner. That is absolutely essential in the low-trust environment created by the events of the last 10 years.

Britain was, and will always be, a European country. Our prosperity, security and influence depend on recognising that fact. This is not a debate about the past. It is not a betrayal of 2016, as some would have us believe. It is a test of whether we are prepared to act now in the national interest. It is time to be ambitious for the United Kingdom again. It is time to rebuild a serious partnership with Europe. It is time to deliver growth, widen opportunity and secure Britain’s place at the heart of European economic, cultural and strategic life.

More than seven in 10 voters in my constituency voted to leave. That was not an accident, it was not confusion, and it was not because they were lied to.

Having spent seven happy years working in the European Parliament, I was not unfamiliar with the EU’s strengths, as well as its faults, but if there was one thing that caused me some hesitation before I decided to campaign for leave, it was knowing that it would be a huge undertaking. Unpicking 50 years of legislation and regulation would clearly be disruptive for many businesses, including many in my constituency, and would use up a lot of Government time for at least a decade. Of course, a global pandemic, a once-in-a-generation energy crisis and the shockwaves of war in Europe have added to the disruption. But to attribute every headwind to Brexit, as some Members have done, may be politically convenient, but it is economically simplistic.

Some Members have spoken about a £90 billion hit. The reality is that, since Brexit, UK GDP has grown at about the same rate as Italy’s, and above that of France and Germany.

Will the hon. Member give way?

No, I only have five minutes.

For that £90 billion to be credible, one would have to imagine that we would have vastly exceeded the growth of every large European country if only we had stuck to what we were already doing, closer to the framework that those countries with lower growth are still in.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will very quickly.

I think the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has had his say, quite significantly.

The EU is a failing entity and we got out at the right time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the continued capitulation of this Government and other UK parties, and a failure to accept the democratic outcome, that has led us to this point—especially the problems we are experiencing in Northern Ireland? Joining the EU is not the solution; it is about a strong Government leading this United Kingdom as a whole.

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Last summer, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that two thirds of the SMEs in Northern Ireland that moved goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ceased to do so because of the way EU checks were being conducted. The Northern Ireland protocol says that if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we can take unilateral action. If two thirds of small businesses does not count as diversion of trade, what does? As the record shows, exports to the EU grew more in the five years since we left in 2021 than they did in the six years before the referendum.

The Opposition have set five clear tests for any renegotiation with the European Union: no return to free movement; no new payments to the EU; no loss of fishing rights; no dynamic alignment with EU rules; and no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence. Those tests are not ideological; they are the minimum requirement for respecting the 2016 mandate. Dynamic alignment may sound technical, but it means accepting rules that we no longer shape. Budgetary contributions may be dressed as programmes, but they mean sending money back without membership—often far more than can be fairly attributed to the costs caused by our participation. A customs arrangement that restricts our trade autonomy undermines the very sovereignty that voters endorsed.

Brexit was never about isolation: it was about independence. It was about being outward looking on British terms. We now have the ability to strike trade agreements globally. We have joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, helping to open access to markets in 11 high-growth economies, from Canada to South Korea and Australia. Many of the bilateral trade deals that we have signed go far beyond the proceeding EU trade agreements, with deeper digital trade and data chapters that are important to so many of the sectors in which Britain is strongest.

Financial market reform has reduced the risk margin for life insurers, meaning that we can promote long-term growth and divert more to long-term infrastructure and green technologies. In agriculture, the UK has moved to environmental land management schemes, based on the principle of public money for public good, to support environmental outcomes instead of just paying landowners to own land. Our duty is clear: to honour the mandate, to defend the sovereignty the people voted for, to work with our allies as equal sovereign partners where we can, and to protect our country’s ability to take its own decisions in our nation’s interest.

I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate, and other Members for the many contributions today from all sides of the House and all parts of the UK—if not quite representing both sides of the debate in proportion to the referendum result.

I want to cover some of the questions raised regarding the Government’s approach, and reflect on the importance of the vote 10 years on. Whichever side we were on, the Brexit result was the most significant and defining political moment of a generation, not just in terms of our relationship with the EU but in reshaping our place in the world and challenging long-held assumptions about our economic and trading relationships, our security relationships and our diplomatic power and reach, as well as the very ties and bonds that hold together this great United Kingdom of ours—particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, where the referendum result has undoubtedly raised huge challenges, which were powerfully brought up earlier.

Of course, the referendum result also defined the political choices of the last decade, leading not just to the rise and fall of many Prime Ministers but to gridlock in Parliament and, in my view, to an overlooked consequence: the big domestic reforms that the country was crying out for—on special educational needs and disabilities, social care, planning and tackling inequality—were ignored because Parliament and successive Governments proved themselves incapable of doing Brexit and, frankly, anything else. [Interruption.] That—

I am afraid I will not give way. That is the silent tragedy of the Brexit decade. It is a mistake we will not repeat.

I have a quick confession: at the time of the referendum I was a youngish political adviser to the relatively new Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras. I remember sitting in his garden the day after the referendum, discussing what on earth we would do next. Suffice to say, he was not best pleased with the result, but he understood its significance and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to earlier, the importance of respecting that result and finding a way through.

After a short period of introspection, the now Prime Minister sketched out a vision of what he thought Britain should do. In time, this became known as “making Brexit work”. It meant being outside the EU, but being close to it. It meant leaving in an orderly way, while minimising the economic, cultural and diplomatic dislocation that we all knew would follow. It meant co operating where we can, protecting British businesses, supply chains and employment standards and, as he mentioned many times in the House during the subsequent debates, ensuring no hard border in Northern Ireland.

Nearly a decade on, this Labour Government were elected with a mandate to do precisely that. Last year, the Prime Minister hosted the first UK EU summit, where we agreed the first stage: the common understanding and a new framework for UK EU relations.

I am afraid I will not; I am so sorry.

That first stage includes a new security and defence partnership because, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. As mentioned, it also includes an SPS agreement which will—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made this point powerfully—make a huge difference to farmers and food producers. We are also in the process of negotiating access to the EU’s internal electricity market, which will cut bills for businesses and consumers.

We are negotiating the youth experience scheme, which a number of Members mentioned and which I strongly support and called for. I am also delighted that we have negotiated—quite quickly, I think—to rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme, which will benefit more than 100,000 young people. We will legislate for that shortly. We aim for the agreements to be in play by the first half of 2027. The progress we have made in the last 18 months is the basis of the closer relationship that the Prime Minister had in his mind’s eye when we discussed this back in his garden some 10 years ago.

To be clear—I say this proudly and confidently—this is just the start of a new relationship with the EU under this Government. We are no longer, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, the Britain of the Brexit years. We want a closer relationship with the EU and we want deeper integration. We were elected with a mandate to do precisely that and we will deliver it. In line with our manifesto, that will be outside the single market and the customs union and without freedom of movement.

We will not try to relitigate the referendum result, but we will repair the unnecessary national self harm of the deals negotiated in the last decade, and we will align with the single market where it is in our national interest and our sovereign right to do so. We will deliver a partnership with the EU, based on common economic and cultural interests and in the national interest, and turn the page on the last decade of failure.

Huge thanks to colleagues, genuinely, and in particular to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who came along to represent one particular perspective. I also thank the Minister, but I remind him, of course, that the Prime Minister voted for a referendum on the EU in 2019. I do hope that the Brexit omerta is over, and I gently remind the House that our democracy is no longer a democracy when we no longer have the ability to change our minds. Brexit has been a disaster.