Rejoining the EU
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Youth Hubs
Over the last two years, the Government have increased the cost of employing young people with higher national insurance charges on employers and imposed the 350 pages of additional regulation contained in their “unemployment rights Act”. Does the Minister agree that the best way of reducing youth unemployment is to cut the cost of employing young people rather than an endless array of hubs, grants, schemes and guarantees?
- Hansard source
International Update
On the Prime Minister’s international agenda, should he not also focus on the appalling humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan, and avoid making policy on Israel, the timing of which enhances Netanyahu’s prospects of re-election? On Yemen, as well as defending Saudi Arabia from the outrageous Houthi attacks, should the Prime Minister not use Britain’s deep historical links and connections to Yemen to support constitutional negotiations and prevent the situation from getting any worse?
- Hansard source
International Update
Irrespective of how we voted in the referendum, I hope the Prime Minister will agree that if one wants to be called a democrat, one has to abide by that decision and make it work, but the Windsor framework illustrates that no deal is ever cast into tablets of stone and that things are capable of sensible evolution. Will the Prime Minister accept that at this time, as always, businesses large and small, urban and rural, need certainty? They need to know the regulatory regime in which they are trading, the opportunities that exist and the barriers that they may need to overcome. Will he commit that, whatever evolution he is envisaging, it will be delivered speedily to be able to give confidence, certainty and clarity to North Dorset businesses and those across the country?
- Hansard source
International Update
North!
- Hansard source
Draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has set out, the regulations are being <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>laid to implement the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in SW <em>v</em><em>.</em> United Kingdom, application number 87/18, to allow for damages in respect of a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights on the right to respect for a private and family life. We are here today because, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act, when a provision of legislation is found to be incompatible with the ECHR a Minister may, under section 10, make an order to make such amendments to the legislation as the Minister considers necessary to remove the incompatibility. Remedial orders are therefore powerful legislative instruments used to amend primary legislation. I wonder about the decision taken to make this change using a remedial order rather than primary legislation, given the time that has passed. The family court laid down its judgments in 2014 and the Court of Appeal in 2016, and the European Court made its ruling in 2021. The Government have argued the rationale is that they “consider there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future”— which is perhaps more revealing of the quality and suitability of much of the Government’s legislation during this Parliament. It is important to remember that the limitation in the Human Rights Act on the availability of damages in proceedings in respect of a judicial act done in good faith is there to preserve the principle of judicial immunity, a principle that is a key aspect of judicial independence—a cornerstone of a democracy. Any amendments to it therefore have to be carried out with the greatest care and consideration. The debate today demonstrates the challenges that are faced by the two sovereign powers of the EU and the UK. It is becoming increasing clear that the ECHR repeatedly ties Ministers’ hands, blocking the democratic decisions of this place and frustrating the will of our constituents. The prime example: over 83,000 people have crossed the channel under Labour. I am afraid that the Government may have to recognise that as long as we stay shackled to the ECHR, foreign criminals can use the courts to block deportation, meaning that we will never be able to deter illegal channel crossings—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Do not worry, Sir Desmond, I am moving on. I highly recommend to any member of the Committee the report by Lord Wolfson, the shadow Attorney General, on our position on the ECHR. As he says himself, “the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability”<span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span> to address issues such as immigration. Leaving would allow us to “legislate freely on any of the issues raised in this paper, without being tied to the expansive interpretation of human rights that has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights” For as long as the European Court of Human Rights regards the ECHR as “a ‘living instrument’ such that its decisions, and in consequence those of domestic courts, are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR itself” we will have problems. As a society, we can either continue to pass statutory instruments and orders piecemeal, as we are today, as the EU’s jurisprudence expands, or we can take decisive actions based on our own laws and the strength of this place.
- Hansard source
Draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026
I invite the Minister to acknowledge that the interpretation the ECHR has expanded far beyond what was intended when it was first created in that post-war period.
- Hansard source
International Update
If the Prime Minister is so keen to support our farmers, there is one step he could take that is entirely within his control, which is to scrap the family farm tax. Will he do so, and show a genuine commitment to our farmers?
- Hansard source
International Update
The whole House will have noted that when the Prime Minister was asked about freedom of movement, he evaded the question. May I ask him directly—it is a simple yes or no—to say that in any future negotiation on rejoining the EU, freedom of movement will not be on the table?
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
The hon. Gentleman is incredibly generous in giving way and is making an excellent speech. When there is a gap with therapeutic care, there are charities, such as the Lily Mae Foundation in my constituency, that fill it. We have also talked about Sands and Tommy’s—there are lots of charities out there that need support as they do that important work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should consider more support for them as well?
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
I start by paying tribute to all the excellent speakers who have shared their story with the utmost bravery. This debate is one I have attended since I was first elected, and it is the only debate I know during which the Doorkeepers, quite rightly, distribute tissues. I am the vice-chair of the APPG on baby loss, and I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to this debate and to the inquiry that the APPG has carried out. I will start with a slightly more positive story, which is a personal one, but while the outcome is positive, this is relevant to some of the experiences we have heard about. We have just welcomed our third baby—he is about seven months old—and we had the good fortune <span id="127" class="column-number" data-column-number="127"></span>to attend the midwifery unit at Warwick hospital. It is not in my constituency, but I would still encourage the Secretary of State to go to visit it, which I am sure the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) would welcome. We had a very positive experience in the sense that the midwives were really good in their communication. I am going to protect my baby’s identity, but he has crazy hair, so I am going to call him baby Elvis. However, when baby Elvis came out, he was not breathing. I remember the moment, because the midwife had pressed the panic alarm and he came out and he was grey. I suppose I am speaking about it today because my wife has been trying to get me to talk about it for about seven months and I haven’t. And now I will do it in front of the TV cameras; she is a very patient woman. What I remember in those moments—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) talked about CPR—was that the midwife just went straight into action. I did not realise that the room had filled up with health professionals from across the hospital. It was quite a sight to see when I turned around, once everything had settled down. In the moment I thought, “Oh my god, we’re about to become another statistic,” but the midwives worked their magic. The support needed by non-birthing partners has come up in the debate. I do not want to take away anything from mothers and what they go through—clearly, they go through everything, as we have heard—but there is a call that whatever support is provided takes into account partners and parents too. I admit that I have thought about that moment many, many times in the past seven months and I still do—those images do not leave you—so I hope that, in anything the Secretary of State can do and will do, they are taken into account. In the limited time I have, I am going to make a few calls and recognise some of the charities I have worked with in my locality. There is work on a national framework to ensure that standards are put in place. Of course, any standards that are put in place will need key performance indicators and accountability along with them. I am sure the Secretary of State is looking at that and I welcome her being in her place today. Many parents go through the NCT—National Childbirth Trust—training, but we went through a private provider called Bump to Baby. One key thing that came up was the training to be able to challenge what was given to us—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford spoke about this—and to have the confidence to be able to say no or to ask why. That really helped us as a family to talk about our baby. The midwives, recognising that there were questions that needed to be answered, spent a lot of time answering questions afterwards—they really went over and above. The training during pregnancy is really important because it gives parents the power in their arsenal to be able to ask those questions. The point about data and miscarriages has been made. It has also been made to me by my constituents, so I hope the Secretary of State can clarify what thought process she is going through around collecting data on miscarriages. In my intervention earlier on the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), I mentioned the Lily Mae Foundation. I met Amy and Ryan, who set <span id="128" class="column-number" data-column-number="128"></span>up the foundation over a decade ago and who have recently received the British Empire Medal. It is a smallish charity that punches way above its weight and they are incredibly strong in what they do. They have given therapy to over 1,000 parents grieving baby loss. They have supported professionals by giving them training, too. They pointed out the postcode lottery that does occur. Smaller charities do not always get the support and they are being asked to do more with less, so that is an important point that I wanted to stress. They see first-hand that increased load. I want to pay tribute to a couple of friends of mine. Baby loss can touch anybody and they have gone through it in the past couple of months. They experienced it at Musgrove Park hospital. They were really keen for me to stress how great the labour team were, but they did see grieving bereaved parents next to families who were celebrating a birth. Clearly, that disparity still continues and it is one I have seen in other hospitals, too. Perhaps the Secretary of State could reflect on that, pay tribute to the staff of Musgrove Park and recognise baby Merlin, who they sadly lost. Finally, on Thursday at St Philip’s church in Dorridge, many of my constituents will be gathering for the “Wave of Light” service and the windmill dedication set up by the TeddyRose Foundation.
- Hansard source
The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026
Will the hon. Lady give way?
- Hansard source
The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026
We are about to vote on a statutory instrument that will impose an additional tax on our farmers, going over and above the many other overheads that they are experiencing as a result of this Government. Fertiliser is already one of the most volatile and expensive inputs for many of our farmers and growers. Industry analysts project that the CBAM will add an additional £50 to £75 return on imported nitrous fertiliser, inflating farmers’ procurement costs by up to 20% to 25%. I would like to understand from the Minister what financial assessment the Government have made of the increase in costs associated with producing much of the food that this country likes to eat, and indeed much of the food that is exported too. There is also a structural flaw. Analysis has rightly identified that CBAM applies a tax on fertiliser inputs but does not directly provide a tax on imported goods. It is putting a tax only on the fertiliser that our UK farmers are utilising to produce food in this country, not on the imported food that we are bringing into this country. It is therefore not creating a level playing field.
- Hansard source
The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026
The Conservatives are clear that we will vote against the implementation of the CBAM. We are against the increase in costs associated with this tax on our fertiliser. A level playing field must be generated, but that is not what this legislation will implement.
- Hansard source
The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026
It is frightening that the Liberal Democrats will, I suspect, be voting today to impose an additional tax on our farmers on the cost of producing food. Foreign growers outside the UK and EU can continue to use cheap, high-carbon fertilisers without penalty, while that food has direct access to UK markets and supermarkets, undercutting our British farmers. The <span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span>UK has virtually no domestic mass scale fertiliser production left, so there is no option but to import that fertiliser into this country, which will carry increased costs through this tax being implemented by the Government. The tax cannot protect the domestic sector; its functions are therefore a direct penalty on UK growers. I would also like to understand what assessment the Government have made of environmental implications. The mechanism is expected to apply a flat-rate tax based on weight or broad carbon categories. Industry specialists have noted that in this format it is likely to incentivise—accidentally, or maybe this is the Government’s intention—the use of nutrient-dense raw urea rather than cheaper, clean liquid options. That is completely contrary to DEFRA’s existing air quality policies, which actively discourage raw urea, due to high ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions. What assessment have the Government made of the roll-out of CBAM in relation to DEFRA’s own air quality policies, because they seem to be in contradiction? Will the Minister outline again when the rate will be announced, with its implication for many of our UK farmers? What timeframe will apply for implementation? What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of all the other increases to the cost of food production under this Government? What interplay is there with DEFRA’s own assessments, undertaken with Minette Batters’s profitability review, and with the air quality targets that have already been set by DEFRA? I reiterate that I do not support this carbon tax. The Opposition will vote firmly against it when the Committee divides on the motion.
- Hansard source
International Update
There are only just over five weeks to go until the European summit that the Prime Minister has announced. The Prime Minister makes reference to our farmers, but the agricultural sector is putting out huge warnings at the moment. I wonder if the Prime Minister could specifically reference and refer to CropLife UK’s detailed report, which outlines that aligning the UK’s crop protection rules with the EU would slash farming income by up to £810 million in the first year alone, trigger steep falls in UK crop protection, and significantly negatively impact the progress made through the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. Can the Prime Minister comment on those concerns that are being made right now?
- Hansard source
Employment Support: Young People
I recently visited Portugal to observe a NATO exercise using maritime uncrewed systems, and the young man who drove our safety boat had done his apprenticeship at SeaRegs in Plymouth. However, it came to light over the recess that Skills England is consulting to axe the small commercial vessel crewmember level 3 apprenticeship. This 18-year-old did that apprenticeship for the Plymouth Cattewater harbour authority, but he would not have been able to qualify if it had been scrapped. The small enrolment numbers for this course reflect the specialist nature of the industry, not a lack of value. The apprenticeship gives young people in coastal communities such as mine a direct route into skilled jobs that support our national defence. So will the Secretary of State step in and stop this apprenticeship, and others like it that are also being consulted on, being scrapped?
- Hansard source
Employment: Rural Areas
Rural areas could create and support more jobs if they had the right transport infrastructure. Now that the Government have cancelled the A12 widening scheme, paused the dualling of the A120 and scrapped the A127 economic corridor in Essex, what will the Minister do to lobby his colleagues across Government to help support more rural job creation in Essex?
- Hansard source
The Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. British Steel’s vitality and sustainability is very important to those of us on the Opposition Benches as well. When Scunthorpe faced crisis, it was a Conservative Government who stepped in. We provided financial support and kept the plant running and the workers in employment. We began the work with Tata Steel on a package to secure a future for steelmaking in Wales, and delivered an emergency loan to Celsa Steel to help it to continue trading during the covid pandemic. The Conservative party will never be indifferent to the steel industry. We agree with the Government that retaining primary steelmaking capacity in the United Kingdom matters, but they have offered no credible plan for making British Steel viable. I have a few questions. What is the Government’s strategy for profitability? What is their plan for the energy costs that make UK steelmaking uncompetitive? What is the timeline to commercial viability? We have heard no real detail that amounts to a serious industrial strategy for steel. The Government have spent their first period in office piling cost after <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>cost on to British business—the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Act 2025, and a regulatory burden that keeps growing. I would welcome clarity on how the Government’s approach for British Steel will succeed where the private sector could not. The Labour party cannot adhere to an ideological obsession with nationalisation that has nothing to do with what is best for steelworkers. We need to look forward, not back. We know that history did not end well for 1970s industrial policy, and the Government would do well to remember that. Let me turn to the specific provisions in the SI and a number of questions it raises in respect of accountability. I want to press the Minister specifically on regulation 7, which disapplies the Procurement Act 2023 to BCo and its group undertakings. The 2023 Act is meant to ensure transparency, competition and value for money in public contracting, to protect the taxpayer from poor procurement decisions, but here we have a publicly owned company operating entirely outside those rules. Will the Minister outline why the exemption is necessary, whether it will last indefinitely, and what alternative procurement standards will apply in its place? I have another question for the Minister about the broader nationalised steel sector. The Government will now own not only British Steel but Sheffield Forgemasters and Speciality Steel UK Ltd. These are complementary assets with different capabilities and different products, but they are all part of the same strategic picture for UK steel. The Minister touched on this, but some clarity would be appreciated. Will he outline whether there are any plans to allow Sheffield Forgemasters or Speciality Steel UK to make use of British Steel’s intellectual property or trademarks, or the British Steel brand itself? I would welcome the Minister’s thinking on that. British Steel can and should have a future, but taxpayers are now the owners of the company, and they deserve transparency, accountability and a credible plan for commercial viability. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, in particular, his answer on the procurement question.
- Hansard source
International Update
Can I just get clarity? The Prime Minister said that he wanted to increase defence spending, but then he backtracked. He then said he would prioritise welfare—sorry, he promised to cut welfare, before prioritising it over defence. Despite his making a commitment to not reopen the Brexit debate, that is exactly what he has now done. He said here in the Chamber that there would be no referendum. Does that mean he would consider taking Britain back into Europe unilaterally?
- Hansard source
International Update
The Prime Minister has adopted a fascinating negotiating strategy by revealing his hand and goals in advance of any discussions with the EU. Is he aware that the price of any deal therefore went up with every word that he said? As a former Trade Minister, may I also advise the Prime Minister—because his officials and Ministers clearly have not—that it may not be so easy after all, because of some of the clauses in the 70-plus other trade deals that we did with other countries to unwind all the things that he would like to do? It may not be as simple as he thinks.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
Order. This is a very powerful debate, but it is limited to three hours. I will not be able to get all the Members in if speeches are long, but I appreciate the sensitivity.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
Order. We now have a speaking limit of seven minutes.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
Order. The speaking limit has dropped to six minutes. I do not want to interrupt anyone’s speeches, but using “you” and “your” is not good form. You are speaking through the Chair, and please remember that.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
Order. With colleagues withdrawing, we have a few more minutes on the clock, so Back Benchers are now on an eight-minute speaking limit.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss Awareness Week
I call shadow Minister Dr Caroline Johnson.
- Hansard source
International Update
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Since we last met, Iran has sponsored an attempted terror attack on a British military base; President Trump has withdrawn support from President Zelensky; and Saudi Arabia has been bombarded with Houthi missiles and asked Britain to come to her aid. UK household energy bills are set to rise by nearly £300 in January, and diesel prices have hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. Against that backdrop, the Chancellor will deliver a Budget in two weeks.<span id="26" class="column-number" data-column-number="26"></span> The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there is a £35 billion black hole in the public finances. More borrowing or more taxes are on the way, because we know that the Prime Minister will not cut spending. This is at a time when families and businesses are already suffering under the weight of £70 billion in Labour’s tax rises. So what has the Prime Minister chosen to focus on today? Brexit. His exact words earlier this year were that “the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments”, yet here he is, unpicking the deal that this country signed with the EU, a decade after the referendum. He is not going to get a better deal. Not only are the EU tough negotiators, but he has already revealed his entire negotiating hand. He has just blurted out everything he wants in this statement. I will tell him now, as a former Trade Secretary, that that is not how you conduct negotiations. He has told them everything, and negotiations have not even started—unbelievable! Over the weekend, on “The Rest is Politics” podcast, the Prime Minister implied that the referendum result was illegitimate because of Russian interference. Where has that come from? We all remember that in 2018, the head of MI5 said that there was no evidence that Russia had influenced the EU referendum result. Even this morning, the Prime Minister’s own Foreign Minister could not say if the evidence existed. Will the Prime Minister confirm, here and now, whether he believes that the referendum result was legitimate? If he does not, will he publish the evidence that Russia swung the result of the 2016 referendum? From my perspective, this is just another example of him trying to distract the country, rather than solving the immediate challenges we face. Just as some people thought that all Britain’s problems would be solved by leaving the EU, some now think that all our problems will be solved by rejoining it. Neither of those are serious positions; they are lazy thinking from people who do not have solutions to the real problems that we face, such as on defence. The Prime Minister told us that he would set out a target date for spending 3% of GDP on defence at the spending review in the spring. That spending review has now been delayed until next autumn. Labour delayed procurement by a year to hold the strategic defence review, then the defence investment plan took another 18 months. The armed forces now have to wait at least another 12 months to find out what they are getting. The defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government, and kicking it into the long grass is a dereliction of duty. I welcome the support that the Prime Minister has set out for our allies in Saudi Arabia and Ukraine, but they will require money, and serious questions on defence still need to be answered. The United States has withdrawn its bombers from RAF Fairford. Can the Prime Minister tell us why? What does that mean for the safety of our British aircraft and, more importantly, British personnel at that base? The Prime Minister said in his statement that we will not tolerate threats from Iran on our soil, so were he and his Foreign Secretary aware of those threats before the Foreign Secretary met and shook hands with the Iranian Foreign Minister at the UN? Does the Prime Minister now think that the Foreign Secretary was wrong to do that?<span id="27" class="column-number" data-column-number="27"></span> On 18 July, we were told that the Prime Minister would grant licences for the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oilfield. We are still waiting for a decision nearly three months later, as a global energy crisis is looming. Can the Prime Minister now confirm exactly when he will approve those licences? Britain cannot afford to wait until the end of the decade for him to act—he is the Prime Minister for today. Rather than promising things on the never-never, here are some things that he could do right now: cut welfare, fund our defence, drill in the North sea, bring down people’s taxes, get young people into work, build new prison places and put more police on our streets. He could do all those things today if he cut spending. That is what I would do. Instead, he is trying to reopen yesterday’s arguments to avoid today’s decisions. What this statement shows is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. We have answers to today’s problems; they are living in the past.
- Hansard source
Pension Scheme Surpluses
It did not sound as though the Minister could commit to improving outcomes for pensioners. That is no surprise given this Government’s record: they cut the winter fuel payments, undermined incentives to save into pensions through the salary sacrifice scheme, and dragged pensions into the scope of inheritance tax. The Prime Minister’s announcement at the Labour party conference created yet more uncertainty for those in or approaching retirement. Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that there will be no further policies undermining pensioners’ prospects and damaging their retirement?
- Hansard source
Milburn Report
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Labour has been talking up the Milburn report for months, and the Treasury is so pleased with the report that it has delayed it until after the Budget, which means it is not going to be good news for taxpayers or the bond market. While the Government dither and delay, we have published our plan for tough love on youth unemployment: support from day one to get back into work, and after six months, those who can work but won’t work will have their benefits cut. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome our cost-cutting plan in the Budget, so can the Secretary of State explain why the Treasury does not want his plan in the Budget?
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I warmly congratulate the petitioner and the people who added their names to the e-petition. In our parliamentary democracy, petitioning the Crown and Parliament is a cherished right, whether campaigning to save a beloved community hospital, to crack down on illegal fly-tipping or, as in this case, to casually ask the House of Commons to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history on a Monday afternoon. It is entirely right that those arguments are heard and debated in Parliament. Listening to the contributions today from the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and, indeed, some on the Government Benches, one might easily get the impression that rejoining the European Union is treated a bit like renewing an expired gym membership: we simply pop back down to reception, set up the direct debit and immediately pick up where we left off. Some hon. Members genuinely appear to believe that our European neighbours have spent the past decade sitting by the phone in the Berlaymont, tearfully gazing at an empty chair, desperate for the United Kingdom to saunter back in and instantly reclaim our rebate, opt-outs and front row seat at the summit table. I must gently break it to those hon. Members: Brussels does not accept refunds.<span id="34WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="34WH"></span> I may have disagreed with almost everything that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, but she was right that the process of rejoining the European Union would not be simple, short or straightforward. We have to be brutally honest about what applying to rejoin under article 49 actually involves in the cold light of day. The petitioners do not merely ask for warm words or polite co-operation; they ask this Parliament to formally trigger accession negotiations. That does not mean stepping into a time machine back to 2015; it means starting the accession process as a brand-new candidate country alongside countries such as Albania and North Macedonia. The European Commission has made the house rules for new joiners crystal clear. Under chapter 17 of the accession acquis, there is no bespoke menu where we can pick the bits we like and leave the rest.
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
Yes I have, as a member of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and as someone who spent seven very happy years working in the European Parliament and still has many friends who work there and in the institutions. There is no question of there being a speed line route back to full membership reserved for the United Kingdom; we would have to go through the full accession process. Joining means a binding treaty obligation to scrap pound sterling and adopt the euro, and to abolish our national border controls and join the Schengen area.
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
The question was whether I had had the conversations, and I certainly have had them with MEPs and people in the European institutions. We can see what anyone who reads the publicly available opinion polls can see: if asked, “Would you be in favour of the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union?”, a majority in France and Germany may say that they would support it, but if asked, “Would you support the United Kingdom joining the European Union with the opt-outs that it previously enjoyed?”. support goes from about 50% to just over 30%. It is not politically viable in those countries.
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
My hon. Friend is right. The same polls that show that citizens in France and Germany would support British membership only if it came without those previous opt-outs show that, among British voters, support for rejoining collapses if we do not have those previous opt-outs. If those previous opt-outs and derogations are removed, support again dips to barely 30%. I wonder how many of the people who signed this petition did so in the eager anticipation of trading His Majesty the King on our banknotes for a fistful of euro cents. Did they sign up to surrender our borders or did they imagine that, if we asked very politely, the European Union would grant us all the privileges of membership while demanding none of the obligations? As the independent economist Julian Jessop recently pointed out, public enthusiasm for rejoining has a funny habit of evaporating the precise moment that voters are confronted with the small print. That is why I am confident that, if the Government were to take up the petitioners’ proposal, and if they had the courage to put that question to the British people, it would be comprehensively rejected.
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
I have given way three times. I will for a fourth, but this may be the last.
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
No, not at all. I am not somebody who questions people’s motives or intelligence just because of the way they have approached the question of Europe; I very much leave that to others. I will say that approaching 70% of my constituents voted to leave in 2016, and if there was a referendum on rejoining, I would expect a larger proportion than that to vote no. When people realise that an accession bid means ditching our currency, tearing down our independent border controls and signing an annual membership cheque that independent analysts estimate would comfortably clear £25 billion a year, the rosy glow fades fast. We would be asking British taxpayers already feeling the squeeze from this Government’s domestic tax hikes to subsidise regional infrastructure funds across the continent while our own local roads are crying out for repair.
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
I will continue for a bit. I have given way four times; I think I have been more than generous.
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
I quoted you an awfully long time ago on something fairly sympathetic, I think. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em>
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
Is that parliamentary language, Mrs Barker? I do not know how long it takes for the cogs to turn, but it has been a while. What sort of economic club are the petitioners urging us to re-enter? Thirty years ago, the European Union accounted for more than a quarter of the global economy; today, that share has fallen to around 18%; within a generation, it is projected to drop below 10%. Applying to rejoin would mean surrendering our independent seat at the global top table. It would also mean being legally forced to tear up our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership dynamic trading pact—
- Hansard source
Rejoining the EU
Go on—just this once.