MPs have debated the consequences of Brexit for the first time since Britain left the European Union – with critics arguing it has been an “unmitigated disaster”.
The subject was discussed in a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall on Monday after 183,000 people signed a petition calling for a public inquiry into the effects of leaving the European Union.
The government says Brexit was a “democratic choice” and that it would not be an “appropriate subject for a public inquiry”.
But SNP MP Martin Day, who spoke in favour of the petition at the debate, noted that an inquiry had been set up by the government into the handling of the pandemic – and that Brexit’s impact would likely be even bigger.
“It is reasonable and I would suggest sensible that one is also held into the impact of Brexit. The public have a right to know,” he said.
“We need to know where we are so that we can plot our way forward to where we want to be.”
During Monday night’s debate MPs raised issues including the impact of Brexit on the economy, touring musicians, young people, trade, tourism, access to European Union programmes like Erasmus and Horizon, and Northern Ireland.
Individual impacts of leaving the EU have been discussed in parliament in isolation, but Monday’s discussion represents the first time that the consequences of leaving the bloc have been opened up to a general debate since the UK left.
Labour MP for Battersea Marsha de Cordova said Brexit had “been an unmitigated disaster” and called for the government to produce a “cumulative impact assessment”.
“Our economy is not growing, our rights and protections are now being infringed, and more importantly Britain’s standing in the world is also a challenge,” she said.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “One of the most valuable features of a democracy is that it has the potential for error-correction and that you can therefore take into account that if people’s minds, as increasingly is the case with Brexit, then the only logical thing to do is to change the decision.”
Labour says it will make some changes to the government’s trade deal although Keir Starmer has ruled out the return of free movement or single market membership.
The Liberal Democrats have called for the UK to move towards rejoining the single market.
But speaking against the petition on Monday night, Conservative MP Adam Holloway for Gravesham in Kent said: “It’s faintly depressing really to be here again, ostensibly debating whether the benefits of Brexit have been delivered, and if there should be a public inquiry – but in fact in reality the thing we’re really arguing about today is whether we should have voted to leave the EU, or if we should rejoin.”
Mr Holloway said the biggest benefit was that “our sovereignty has been repatriated”.
“It is easy to disdain patriotism if you’re economically and socially mobile and derive your self-worth from a well-paid job, or if you life is made easier by cheap labour brought by free movement,” the MP said.
“But in my constituency EU membership has brought with it social problems: pressures on housing, both in social and private sectors, an enormous stress on public services, and a sense of disenfranchisement.”
Last month Conservative trade secretary Kemi Badenoch, who supported leaving the EU, urged people to not to “keep talking about a vote from seven years ago”.
Summing up his argumentSNP MP Mr Day said: “This petition shows [Brexit] is still a matter of public concern and that we will not stop talking about it, despite the trade secretary’s request.”
The petition which triggered the debate, which was set up by Peter Packham from Leeds, states that the “benefits that were promised if the UK exited the European Union have not been delivered”.
“We call upon the Government to hold a Public Inquiry to assess the impact that Brexit has had on this country and its citizens,” it says.
In its response to the petition, the government said: “The UK’s departure from the EU was a democratic choice and the UK-EU institutions are functioning as intended. The Government does not believe this to be an appropriate subject for a public inquiry.”
