Terri White, "The reality is, we have seen negative consequences (from Brexit)" "(Rejoiing the EU) will give us flexibility in terms of trade, skills" "And this is how young people, especially young working class people, used to experience the world" My view: Brexit wasn't simply about leaving a political institution. It fundamentally changed the opportunities available to British people, particularly younger generations who had no say in the original referendum but will live with its consequences for decades. Freedom of movement wasn't just about immigration. It was about opportunity, ambition, education, cultural exchange and social mobility. For young working-class Britons, the ability to move to another European country, find employment, learn a language, develop new skills and experience a different culture without navigating expensive visa systems was an extraordinary freedom. And that freedom mattered most to those who couldn't afford complicated immigration processes or the financial advantages enjoyed by wealthier families. We should also remember that freedom of movement worked in both directions. British businesses could recruit from a much larger pool of talent, while British workers could pursue opportunities across an entire continent. The Brexit debate has focused overwhelmingly on borders and immigration, while paying far too little attention to the freedoms British citizens themselves surrendered. The question now is whether Britain is prepared to have an honest conversation about restoring those opportunities, particularly for a generation whose horizons should be expanding rather than contracting.

Suella Braverman used 368% more water than the average similar-sized household. That's a lot of bubble baths. Hi @ipsaUK I'm generally ok with the principle MPs expenses, but does this not seem a bit excessive to you?

Some are claiming that freedom of movement with the EU would mean hundreds of millions of Europeans wanting to come to Britain. They didn’t do that before 2016. The scale of the claim is absurd. And more importantly, free movement never meant anyone could simply move here indefinitely without meeting any conditions. After three months, people who weren’t working, studying or genuinely seeking work could lose their right to reside if they also lacked sufficient resources and health insurance. David Cameron’s government chose not to enforce those rules. Blaming free movement for that choice doesn’t make the scare stories true.

Daisy Cooper, "We need to get Britain growing again, and the single biggest lever to grow our economy, is to get a better deal with t he European Union" "Join the EU Single Market, join the Customs Union, get a better defence pack - and that includes Freedom of Movement" "If we can do that, we can be safer, stronger, and more prosperous" "Ten years on from Brexit, whether it's immigration or asylum, we now have the worst of both worlds" "Under Freedom of Movement it worked both ways, its a reciprocal agreement" "If there aren't any jobs here in the UK you're not going to get a lot of people coming over here for jobs that don't exist" "It will reduce the cost of doing business, it will tear down the red tape and the paperwork, more businesses will come here, business here can create new jobs" Very well said @libdemdaisy 👏 My view: Daisy Cooper makes an important economic argument that deserves serious consideration. For a decade, Brexit was sold as a way to reduce bureaucracy, strengthen British businesses and create greater prosperity. Yet businesses now face additional paperwork, customs requirements and barriers when trading with our nearest and largest trading partner. The OBR estimates that Brexit will leave UK productivity 4% lower in the long run, with imports and exports 15% below what they would otherwise have been. And Freedom of Movement was never simply about Europeans coming to Britain. It gave British citizens reciprocal rights to live, work, study and build their futures across Europe. Those opportunities mattered enormously, particularly to younger generations. Cooper is also right to connect trade with investment and employment. Reducing barriers can make Britain more attractive to businesses, support expansion and create opportunities for workers. Of course, Single Market participation involves obligations as well as benefits, including accepting common rules. But that raises an even bigger question: why settle for following European rules without having a vote in shaping them? Full EU membership would restore Britain's representation in European decision-making alongside the economic advantages of deeper integration. The debate should now be about the practical costs, benefits and choices involved in rebuilding that relationship, rather than repeating the promises made in 2016. #RejoinEU