Wes Streeting completely skewered on GB News over Brexit – ‘Hang on!’
Wes Streeting has faced a pointed challenge on GB News over Labour’s increasingly contentious debate about Britain’s relationship with the European Union, after presenter Camilla Tominey questioned whether the party’s economic arguments about Brexit were consistent.
The exchange centred on the apparent contradiction between Labour politicians arguing that leaving the EU has inflicted lasting damage on the British economy while also highlighting the country’s economic growth performance. Tominey pressed the Cabinet minister to explain how both claims could be true, forcing the discussion towards the difficult trade-offs surrounding closer cooperation with Brussels.
The confrontation comes as Prime Minister Andy Burnham is expected to set out options for closer ties with the European Union later this year, potentially reopening one of the most divisive questions in British politics.
Streeting acknowledged that Brexit had carried significant economic and security costs, but insisted that stronger growth and the negative consequences of leaving the bloc were not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The exchange has highlighted the challenge facing Labour as it attempts to improve Britain’s economic prospects without reopening the political divisions associated with the 2016 referendum.
‘Hang on!’ – Tominey challenges Labour’s Brexit argument
The discussion became particularly pointed when Tominey questioned the consistency of Labour’s public messaging on the economy.
The GB News presenter asked Streeting to explain how Labour could argue that Brexit had caused lasting damage while simultaneously celebrating Britain’s reported growth performance compared with European economies.
“Hang on. Let me just ask you something please. There’s a paradox here in the minds of Labour politicians,” she said.
GB News presenter Camilla Tominey grills Cabinet minister Wes Streeting (Image: GB NEWS)
She continued: “On one hand, you’re saying Brexit has irrevocably harmed the British economy and then in the same breath you’re saying we’ve got the fastest growth in the Eurozone. Both can’t be true, can they?”
Her question put the minister under pressure to distinguish between the effects of Brexit on Britain’s economic potential and the country’s performance over a particular period.
The distinction is important because economic growth can be measured in several ways. A country can experience positive growth, or even outperform other economies over a particular period, while still producing less than it might have done under a different set of economic circumstances.
Equally, a country’s relative position can improve or deteriorate depending on the performance of other economies. Being among the fastest-growing economies over a particular period does not automatically establish that every major economic policy has been successful.
Streeting rejected the suggestion that Labour’s two arguments were incompatible.
“Well, I think they are both true,” he replied.
He went on to argue that leaving the EU had affected economic cooperation and security cooperation, describing the consequences as significant.
The minister’s response sought to move the discussion away from a simple comparison of growth rates and towards a broader assessment of Britain’s economic relationship with Europe.
However, the exchange also illustrates why Labour’s approach remains vulnerable to scrutiny. If ministers want to argue that Brexit has damaged the economy, they must explain what evidence supports that assessment and how the effects can be distinguished from other influences, including domestic policy decisions and wider international economic conditions.
Why economic growth does not settle the Brexit debate
At the heart of the disagreement is a question that has repeatedly surfaced since the 2016 referendum: how should the economic consequences of Brexit be measured?
Supporters of leaving the EU have frequently argued that Britain can pursue its own trade policies, regulatory priorities and international agreements outside the bloc. They also point to the importance of examining actual economic performance rather than assuming that membership of a particular institution guarantees stronger growth.
Those who argue that Brexit has imposed economic costs generally focus on the additional barriers to trade, the loss of some benefits associated with the single market and the administrative burdens facing businesses trading across borders.
Both sides can point to individual economic indicators, but establishing the overall effect requires a more detailed analysis than comparing one year’s growth figures.
For example, gross domestic product measures the value of economic output, while GDP per capita provides a different perspective by accounting for population. Productivity, business investment, trade volumes, employment and household living standards offer further ways of assessing economic performance.
These measures do not always move in the same direction.
An economy can expand while productivity remains weak. Employment can increase without producing a corresponding improvement in living standards for every household. Similarly, a country may grow faster than its neighbours during a particular year while still experiencing weaker long-term performance than economists believe it could otherwise have achieved.
This is the distinction Streeting was attempting to make during the interview.
Nevertheless, claims about Brexit’s economic impact require careful qualification. Economic outcomes are shaped by multiple factors, including the pandemic, energy prices, interest rates, global demand, domestic investment and government decisions. Separating the consequences of Brexit from these other influences requires comparisons with credible alternative scenarios.
The political difficulty for Labour is that voters are unlikely to be satisfied with abstract arguments about economic potential if they continue to experience pressure from high living costs, housing expenses and concerns about public services.
Ministers will need to demonstrate how any proposed changes to the UK’s relationship with Europe would translate into practical benefits for workers, consumers and businesses.
Streeting acknowledges the limits of reversing Brexit
Streeting also made clear that the government could not simply undo Brexit through a straightforward political declaration.
“The EU and membership of the EU is not an on and off switch,” he said. “You can’t just leave and then just rejoin.”
His comments reflected the complicated nature of Britain’s relationship with the bloc after years outside its political and economic structures.
Rejoining the EU would require a formal process involving negotiations with member states and agreement on the terms of membership. It would not automatically restore the arrangements Britain previously enjoyed, and any future accession would be subject to the relevant European procedures.
However, Streeting stressed that Labour was not necessarily proposing a return to full membership.
“There are lots of ways in which we could work more closely with the EU without rejoining,” he explained.
He added that such arrangements would need to be negotiated and would involve choices and trade-offs.
This position provides Labour with a potential middle ground. The party can argue for reducing unnecessary barriers and strengthening cooperation without immediately committing itself to reversing the referendum result.
Possible areas for closer cooperation could include trade facilitation, scientific research, energy, security and arrangements affecting particular industries. The details would determine how much economic value could be recovered and what obligations Britain would have to accept in return.
Yet the same approach creates political challenges. Any agreement could involve compromises over regulations, oversight, financial contributions or the extent to which Britain would have to align its rules with those of the EU.
The government would therefore need to explain not only what it hopes to gain from closer relations but also what it would be prepared to concede.
Streeting sought to reassure viewers that the national interest would remain the deciding factor.
“If it’s not in our national interest we won’t do it,” he said.
That commitment may sound straightforward, but determining the national interest is likely to be one of the central political disputes surrounding any future negotiations.
Andy Burnham’s European ambitions raise further questions
The discussion comes as Prime Minister Andy Burnham is expected to outline options for closer ties with Brussels later in the year, according to the source report.
The possibility that Labour’s next general election manifesto could include a fresh referendum or even a commitment to rejoin the EU without holding another public vote has added to the uncertainty surrounding the party’s long-term position.
These possibilities represent different political approaches and should not be treated as equivalent.
A referendum would place the question directly before voters, requiring a campaign and a public decision. A manifesto commitment to pursue membership without a referendum would instead make the issue part of a party’s electoral programme, although the practical and political consequences would still depend on the terms proposed and the wider constitutional context.
Neither possibility should be interpreted as an established government policy solely on the basis of speculation about future manifesto commitments.
Labour’s current manifesto contains clear restrictions, ruling out rejoining the EU’s single market or customs union. Any significant shift towards those arrangements would therefore represent a departure from the party’s existing commitments.
The distinction matters because the single market and customs union are not interchangeable arrangements.
The single market is designed to support the free movement of goods, services, capital and people under a shared framework of rules. A customs union, meanwhile, concerns the treatment of goods and the application of common external tariffs, reducing the need for customs duties between participating members while limiting independent tariff arrangements in relevant areas.
Closer cooperation that stops short of membership could offer some benefits without requiring Britain to adopt either arrangement in full. However, the extent of those benefits would depend on the agreements negotiated and the conditions attached to them.
Labour must therefore navigate between voters who want a stronger economic relationship with Europe and those who believe the referendum result should be respected without further fundamental changes.
The political risks for Labour
For the government, the debate presents an opportunity and a potential liability.
A more constructive relationship with the EU could help reduce friction for businesses, improve cooperation in selected sectors and provide greater certainty for companies operating across European markets.
Supporters of closer ties argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could help improve investment and productivity over time. They also believe that cooperation in areas such as security and research can produce benefits that extend beyond trade alone.
However, any substantial agreement would require negotiation, and there is no guarantee that Brussels would accept every British proposal.
The EU would have its own priorities and would need to determine whether the proposed arrangements were compatible with its rules and wider interests. Britain’s willingness to make concessions could become a major factor in determining the scope of any agreement.
Domestically, Labour would face a different challenge: persuading voters that closer ties with Europe could improve their lives without reopening the divisions that followed the referendum.
The political landscape has changed considerably since 2016, but Brexit remains an emotionally charged issue for many voters. Some believe leaving the EU created opportunities for greater national independence, while others consider the decision economically damaging and support closer integration.
A policy that satisfies one group could alienate another.
This is why the government’s language matters. Ministers must explain whether they are seeking practical cooperation, a substantial change in the trading relationship or a longer-term path towards membership.
Without that clarity, opponents could accuse Labour of attempting to reverse Brexit gradually without being sufficiently open about its ultimate intentions.
Conversely, refusing to consider closer cooperation because it might prove politically controversial could limit the government’s options for addressing economic challenges.
What happens next?
Streeting’s appearance on GB News has brought these competing arguments into sharper focus.
Tominey’s challenge forced the minister to defend the idea that Brexit could have imposed long-term economic costs even while Britain recorded periods of comparatively strong growth.
Streeting’s answer was that the two outcomes could coexist, and that Britain’s future relationship with Europe should be assessed through a wider discussion about economic cooperation, security and the trade-offs involved in negotiating new arrangements.
The key question is whether the government can turn that argument into a clear and measurable programme.
To make its case convincingly, Labour would need to identify the specific barriers it wants to address, explain the likely benefits of proposed agreements and acknowledge the costs or obligations that might accompany them.
It would also need to distinguish between short-term economic fluctuations and longer-term changes in productivity, investment and trade.
For voters, the debate will ultimately be judged less by political rhetoric than by tangible outcomes. Businesses will want to know whether trading across borders becomes easier. Workers will want to see whether economic opportunities improve. Households will expect any wider economic gains to translate into better living standards.
The government will also need to be transparent about what it can realistically achieve through negotiations and what would require a more fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with the EU.
For now, Streeting’s exchange with Tominey demonstrates that Labour’s Brexit strategy remains open to challenge, particularly when ministers use economic growth figures alongside arguments about the costs of leaving the bloc.
The two claims are not inherently contradictory, but explaining their relationship requires evidence, context and a clear account of what might have happened under a different economic arrangement.
As Burnham prepares to outline the government’s options, the debate is likely to intensify.
Whether Labour can secure closer European cooperation while maintaining public confidence in its economic arguments may become one of the defining tests of its approach to Britain’s post-Brexit future.