All blogs

Today, European Movement UK has launched the petition for the UK to join the EU single market.

For six years the UK has been outside the European single market, our largest trading partner and closest neighbour. Being outside it has been a catastrophe for our businesses, with more unnecessary trade barriers, more checks, more paperwork, more delays, lost investment, lost growth, lost jobs and business, and a divergence of rules and standards from the world’s largest trading bloc.

Businesses across the UK are speaking more loudly than ever and, hand-in-hand with them, our message to the UK Government is clear: it’s time for the UK to join the EU’s single market.

To deliver the economic growth we need to fund our public services, we need, and are calling for, a full reset of our economic relationship with Europe. We are calling on the Government to:

• Seek to join the single market and customs union.
• Ensure any negotiated arrangement includes the restoration of freedom of movement.
• Include small and medium-sized businesses in future engagement with the European Union.

Together, we can make sure that the Government takes the voice of British business seriously at the negotiation table.

Sign the petition now.

The UK government has today announced that, to cut red tape and costs for importing and exporting with the EU, the UK will align with most EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) legislation.

The announcement, published today by DEFRA, can be found here.

David Catt, a fruit and vegetable farmer based in Kent, said:

"UK farming exports to the EU are down 34% since Brexit. You've got dairy farmers going out of business on a weekly basis because they can't export because of the red tape. 

"Potatoes are down, peas are down, milk is down, fruit is down - we need to get rid of the extra red tape as soon as possible, so the government aligning with EU rules is an important step towards breathing life back into the UK farming, growing and fishing industries.

"Now the government should rapidly bring forward the legislation necessary to implement this announcement. At the same time, Ministers must urgently finalise the promised deal with the EU. That is key to providing the mutual confidence for vast swathes of Brexit red tape to be removed. This cannot come soon enough."

Dr Mike Galsworthy, Chair of European Movement UK, said:

"This is long overdue. This commitment to aligning laws is welcome in itself but realising the full benefits depends on getting a deal with the EU. That will make it much easier to export and import food products, reducing the red tape that led to lengthy lorry queues at the border. 

"Equally importantly, it can help keep down the cost of the food shop for British families, at a time when higher energy costs threaten to send the cost of living soaring.

“Anyone screaming that this is a Brexit betrayal simply doesn't understand the dire situation our food industry has faced since the UK left the EU, and cut trading ties with its closest partner."

At the beginning of this Parliament, against some stern opposition, the Government declined to establish a dedicated committee on European relations. As the Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by former shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry, has now highlighted, that decision must be revisited.

For some time, the Government’s caution in describing its ambitions for the UK’s relationship with the European Union was understandable. Ministers were reluctant to overstate the prospect of a “reset” before there was enough substance behind it, or before the political conditions existed to sustain such a claim. A European scrutiny committee, with no European scrutiny to conduct, could have hung like a millstone around the neck of Keir Starmer. 

That caution was reasonable. But it is no longer sufficient. 

The UK-EU relationship is now moving into a more structured phase. The pattern of engagement is becoming more regular, the agenda more extensive, and negotiations more organised. As that happens, the House of Commons needs a scrutiny structure that reflects the reality of the relationship now taking shape. 

This is a straightforward constitutional point. As the UK’s relationship with the EU becomes more developed and systematic, Parliament must have the means to examine it properly. That requires more than occasional debates, and more than scrutiny dispersed across departmental select committees. Those committees do important work, but they are not designed to provide a continuous, cross-cutting view of the UK-EU relationship as a whole. 

The lack of a dedicated European Scrutiny Committee matters because the issues under discussion do not sit neatly within departmental boundaries. Trade is often bound up with regulation. Security cooperation can involve data, legal frameworks and institutional questions. The alignment of UK law with EU law, or indeed divergence from it, poses challenges in terms of both parliamentary procedure and minimising trade barriers on the ground. Individual agreements may appear limited in isolation, but together they can amount to a significant shift in the overall character of the relationship. The House of Commons should be able to assess that wider picture clearly and consistently. 

A dedicated European Scrutiny Committee would provide the mechanism to deliver this.  

It would allow MPs to examine negotiations as they develop, consider the cumulative effect of agreements, and hold ministers to account for the broader direction of policy. In other words, it would give the elected House the institutional capacity to scrutinise a relationship that is once again in flux and becoming more complex and consequential. 

They should not be viewed through the lens of the cantankerous European Scrutiny Committee of the “Get Brexit Done” parliaments. On the contrary, stronger parliamentary oversight could make any improvement in our trading and diplomatic relationship with the EU more durable. A closer relationship must carry the legitimacy that comes from visible, serious and democratic scrutiny. A deal done in the dark by ministers will not command the legitimacy that our EU politics now demands. 

There is already cross-party recognition of, and support for, this principle. Stella Creasy, Chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, has been consistent in calling for MPs to have a meaningful role in the reset and realignment of UK-EU relations. Even voices from the opposite end of the argument, such as Richard Tice, have argued that Parliament must not be side-lined in shaping the country’s future relationship with Europe.  

European Movement UK is proud to lead the secretariat of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Europe because it is a forum which has real value. It has helped sustain discussion across parties and keeps the UK’s relationship with Europe firmly on the parliamentary agenda. But an APPG cannot substitute for a select committee of the House of Commons. It does not have the same formal authority, the same powers, or the same role in holding ministers and departments to account. The APPG would instead aim to work alongside a new European Scrutiny Committee, providing a wider channel for both civil society and the public to engage with the open and democratic process of parliamentary scrutiny.

A dedicated European Scrutiny Committee is the sensible and proportionate response to the stage the relationship has now reached. If ministers are serious about building a more constructive and better organised agreement with the European Union, they should also be serious about ensuring that it is properly scrutinised by the elected House. 

Today, the Chancellor has said in her spring statement that Brexit has cut the UK off from its closest trading partners.

Rachel Reeves also said she would announce three new changes in a speech in three weeks' time, including 'breaking down trade barriers with our European neighbours.'

It comes a month after the Chancellor said she would push for closer integration with the EU, to reduce the trade barriers put up by Brexit.

The economic impact of Brexit so far in facts and figures 

• Brexit is on course to cut UK trade intensity by 15%, the Government’s independent financial watchdog has warned. (Source: OBR) 
• Brexit has cut the UK economy by £140 billion, while London's economy has lost more than £30 billion. The same report suggests the UK will be more than £300 billion worse off by 2035. (Source: Cambridge Econometrics) 
• The CER uses a similar estimate, putting the economic loss at 5% of UK GDP, or around £130 billion. (Source: CER) 
• Estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. "We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%." (Source: National Bureau of Economic Research)

So how much could closer trade ties with the EU help the UK's economy?

Research last year showed that deep alignment in both goods and services could grow GDP by 1.7% to 2.2%. Alignment on goods alone could boost GDP by 1% to 1.5%.

Dr Mike Galsworthy, Chair of European Movement UK, said:

"This decade has seen the UK economy on life-support, with some of the worst growth in a century. There is an obvious treatment right on our doorstep, but the government has so far ignored it. Rachel Reeves's comments today in her Spring Statement perhaps signal that they are finally ready to break down the barriers that Brexit imposed on UK businesses, and take real steps to align with our closest trading partner.

"Every month we delay discussing a customs union or single market access with the EU, or dynamic alignment or a proper sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, more contracts move to Rotterdam or Düsseldorf and never come back. The UK-EU reset cannot just be a summit photo, it must mean market access. The UK's economic woes are the true cost of a bad deal. It is time to stop managing decline and start rebuilding a trading relationship that actually works for British industry."

A new report says that UK-EU couples are struggling with 'complex and restrictive' visa issues after Brexit.

The joint study from academics at the University of Bristol and Exeter University is available here.

The research, The Brexit Couples Project, showed that prohibitive visa costs, complex and confusing paperwork, increased bureaucracy and minimum earning stipulations meant many UK-EU couples faced either 'separation or exile'.

Negative impacts of post-Brexit rules included constrained choices around employment and further education, negative impacts on financial wellbeing, couples forced to delay or abandon life aspirations, inhibited political engagement, and an undermined sense of belonging in the UK.

Sir Nick Harvey, CEO of European Movement UK, said:

"This research paints a stark and depressing picture of an issue that has made life extremely difficult for so many couples for years.

"Leaving the European Union also meant separation for many UK-EU couples, as new red-tape kicked in and made the process of simply living with your partner not only far more complex than it had previously been, but also incredibly expensive.

"With UK citizens suddenly subject to the 90-in-180-day rule, couples were forced to spend months apart every year until they could afford to navigate the winding and difficult path to obtain a visa.

"It's time to look very carefully at the entire system, including the minimum income requirement, and simplify what has become a prohibitively difficult process."

Words by Stephen Gethins, MP for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, who is hosting a debate in Westminster today on the impact of the 2016 referendum on the UK.

It is no surprise that those who shouted the loudest about the benefits of leaving the EU a decade ago are the quietest on its effects now. No wonder that no other else wanted to follow the UK out of Europe! 

Take Nigel Farage for example. He now campaigns on a promise to ‘stop the boats’ yet he refuses to acknowledge that it wasn’t until the UK left the EU that irregular crossings across the Channel increased exponentially. This is all after him arguing in 2016 that the “only way we can control immigration is by leaving the EU.”

However, the overwhelming evidence tells us that the reverse is true with detections of irregular migration falling by a whopping 37% across the EU in 2024, whereas the numbers in the UK have grown. 

No wonder it is those of us who campaigned to remain in the European Union who continue to put this issue on the agenda. I applied for the Westminster Hall debate to mark ten years on from the Brexit referendum as someone who remains pro-EU and would rejoin tomorrow. I am not alone in this aspiration as consistent polling shows that the UK public are in support of rejoining the EU.

In my own country Scotland, a whopping three quarters of all voters of all ages would rejoin. More broadly in the UK, the number is (unsurprisingly) especially high amongst young people, with a recent poll conducted by Savanta showing that 83% of 16-24-year-olds would vote to rejoin the EU.  

Young people are quite entitled to feel let down. The removal of rights and opportunities enjoyed by previous generations was one of the most appalling aspects of Brexit. We as politicians should always strive to leave behind more opportunities for future generations, than we ourselves enjoyed. Whilst the belated plans for the UK to rejoin the Erasmus programme are to be welcomed, it does not go far enough to address the breadth of experiences that our young people are missing out on by no longer being able to benefit from freedom of movement across Europe. 

We are also poorer by remaining outside of the EU, with analysis by the House of Commons Library showing that because of Brexit, the UK Treasury is losing £90bn a year. This astonishing figure almost equates to the entire budget for the three devolved nations combined, and this is without accounting for the billions that the UK continues to pay to the EU every year as part of the Brexit financial settlement. That is £250 million the Treasury must find from elsewhere every single day. These numbers are staggering and begs the question as to why the Government remain steadfast in their commitment to their red lines around staying outside of the Single Market and Customs Union. 

Even in areas where the Government has committed to a closer relationship with the EU, such as the UK-EU security and defence partnership announced in May last year, they consistently fall short of delivering any policy of substance. The recent collapse in negotiations regarding the UK involvement in the €150 billion SAFE financial assistance programme is not only detrimental to the UK defence industry who would have gained from access to this funding, but it also hinders the potential to improve defence capabilities across our continent. 

Other Europeans understand that the security of our continent is at a critical juncture in history. As democratic Europe continues to pull ever closer together in the face of the threat posed by Russia, the UK has been left exposed by leaving the EU, with this exposure being exacerbated by an unreliable partner in the USA. Our European neighbours continue to be astonished by the damage the UK has done to its national security by decreasing cooperation at a time of such volatility and danger and as Ukrainians die to defend their rights to sovereignty and to integrate with the rest of Europe. 

Europe has also pulled together to become more self-sufficient to ensure greater energy and food security for its citizens. In contrast, since the UK left the EU in 2021, more households in Britain are food insecure. Inflation continues to rise and this has been compounded by the fact that as a significant number of workers in the agricultural sector had historically come from EU countries, the sector has experienced labour shortages for several years.

Additionally, the UK continues to have significantly higher electricity costs when compared with other European countries, which is yet another issue worsened by Brexit that adds further pressure on British households already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. 

It is beyond time for Westminster to face up to the consequences of its decisions on a hard Brexit that leave us poorer and less secure. Anniversaries such as this provide an opportunity for reflection on success and the benefits of learning from failure and as we mark ten years on from the referendum, it is clear that the project to leave the EU has failed the British public.

We need to ensure that Europe remains on the agenda at Westminster and that is why debates like mine today are critical for providing opportunities to make the case for a closer relationship with Europe.

Analysis by Greenpeace this week has revealed that ten harmful pesticides banned in the European Union are still being used on UK crops.

Some of the pesticides being used have been linked to cancer and infertility. The investigation by Greenpeace found that they were being used on UK crops, including strawberries and potatoes.

The research is available here.

Since the UK left the EU, it has been able to diverge from EU safety standards. This means the substances are still legal to use in the UK.

The government is currently negotiating a deal with the EU which could see the UK align with EU safety rules, after a 34% decline in food exports to the EU since Brexit.

Caroline Lucas, Co-president of European Movement UK, said:

"Yet again we’re seeing the real-world consequences of how damaging Brexit deregulation is to people's day-to-day lives.

"Toxic pesticides that the EU has rightly banned, because of links to cancer, infertility and environmental harm, are still being sprayed on crops here in the UK. No one thinks this is good enough and it should concern each of us.

"With food exports to the EU falling dramatically since Brexit, alignment with Europe on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules would help remove unnecessary barriers, support British producers and ensure that the food on our shelves in the UK meets the same robust protections as are active now in the EU.

"That’s why the current negotiations on a UK-EU SPS agreement are so crucial. Getting this right is fundamental to restoring trust, protecting our health and giving our farmers the stable, high-standard framework they need to trade and thrive.

"These negotiations are an opportunity for the government to protect public health by choosing higher standards and closer cooperation over risky deregulation.

"Public health, environmental protection and our economic interests all point in the same direction: alignment with Europe's higher standards.”

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with world leaders at the Munich Security Conference to discuss the future of European security. This annual event is a leading forum for international security policy.

"As Europe, we must stand on our two feet," said the PM. "It means acting together, to build a stronger Europe. A more European Nato. Underpinned by deeper links between the UK and the EU.

The PM was met with applause when he then said:

"We are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore. We know that in a dangerous world, we would not take control by looking inward, we would surrender it."

Responding to announcements from the PM on a shared weapons procurement fund designed to bolster Europe's ability to maintain its own defences, and become less reliant on American assistance, former armed forces minister and CEO of European Movement UK, Sir Nick Harvey, said:

"The nations of Europe collectively have a bigger population, wealthier economy and larger armed forces than Russia.  We should be more than capable of defending ourselves against Russia's military and wider security threat.

"But to make those advantages of scale count, we must plan, configure and equip our defence forces together - and not act in isolation from each other on a national level, as that leads to duplication, waste and serious strategic gaps. In particular, to lever our economic muscle and secure good value for taxpayers, we must procure and pay for weapons and equipment collectively.

"With American interest in European security now so unpredictable, European leaders are right to be acting with urgency on this. And Keir Starmer's strong commitment to Britain playing a central role - as one of Europe's larger military powers - is welcome and timely.

"Starmer is right. Britain's security is Europe's security, and vice versa."