Alex Burghart is Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party and Opposition. Victoria Atkins is the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
As we set out at Policy Exchange, the Government’s negotiations with the EU are in a right old mess.
Having started badly they are now drifting, becalmed, as the EU declines to name a date for the next summit claiming it would rather chat to Canada about “associate membership” (whatever that is). This is, no doubt, positioning – hoping that Labour, having already given away so much will concede more.
Last May, ministers opened their negotiations by immediately agreeing to dynamically align British standards with those of the EU, to accept the European Court of Justice as the arbiter of whether we abide by that dynamic alignment, to pay for the privilege of taking the EU’s standards and judgments, and to give access to EU fleets to our fishing waters for 12 years.
This, they hoped, would generate enough good will to persuade the EU to allow us full access to Security for Action Europe (SAFE) – the €150b fund that offers low-cost loans to enable allies to buy defence equipment together. In November our negotiators were told ‘pas possible’. Britain had made an offer of €200-300m but was informed that the entry fee was now €6b – effectively a block. This has reduced the capability of western forces at a time when there is a war in Eastern Europe. And it has shown us the nature of European negotiations.
None of this is to excuse the poor diplomacy of the Labour government.
The idea that the UK will unilaterally accept standards and regulations from the EU without having any say in how those rules are made is a very peculiar one. No other similarly sized economy in the world would do such a thing. Indeed, it only happens in the regulatory orbit of the EU. The risks are obvious. A country that dynamically (and so automatically) aligns with the regulations of another power will, over time, discover, that those regulations are being made without consideration of its interests.
Canada has, rightly, been praised in recent weeks for refusing to accept the US’s regulatory rule book. Yet this is precisely the expectation the EU tends to have when in trade talks. It is striking that many left-wing commentators in the UK have felt able to praise Canada for retaining its independence but have willed on the UK to give up ours.
There are additional problems inherent in accepting EU standards.
Alignment with the EU will not simply be a return to the status quo ante.
Since the UK left the EU, there has been an enormous increase in European regulation. Businesses will be facing something new for which they are wholly unprepared. Moreover, dynamic alignment will affect all businesses in the sectors aligned – not just those doing business with the EU. Even domestic producers – for example, the roughly 90 per cent of farms who do not export to EU, will be obliged to follow EU standards. This huge uptick in compliance will be disproportionately felt by smaller businesses.
The EU operates hazard-based regulation.
It bans products even when evidence shows that they are safe in normal use. This blocks new technology like precision breeding where, in a short time, the UK has become a world-leader. And it will make it harder for us to maintain our trade relationships with the US and the Pacific (CPTPP) who are science-based and expect us to be likewise.
What distinguishes those powers, is their use of common law, rather than the EU’s civic law. Common law has the advantage of assessing risk on evidence, not banned by category. It offers flexibility and adaptability. Parliament sets a knowable duty and then the producer is free to choose the method. Courts test alleged breaches against foreseeable harm, actual use and available alternatives. It is a system open to innovation. And it was invented here – and we must use it here again.
Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives very much want to work and trade with the EU but we will scrap this disastrous one-sided Reset.
There is no need to fight the battles of the past.
We will build a highly competitive regulatory regime which will benefit domestic producers and attract foreign ones. Combine that with our plans for much cheaper electricity, lower tax and less red tape, and you have the foundations for very real economic growth.
Alex Burghart is Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party and Opposition. Victoria Atkins is the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
As we set out at Policy Exchange, the Government’s negotiations with the EU are in a right old mess.
Having started badly they are now drifting, becalmed, as the EU declines to name a date for the next summit claiming it would rather chat to Canada about “associate membership” (whatever that is). This is, no doubt, positioning – hoping that Labour, having already given away so much will concede more.
Last May, ministers opened their negotiations by immediately agreeing to dynamically align British standards with those of the EU, to accept the European Court of Justice as the arbiter of whether we abide by that dynamic alignment, to pay for the privilege of taking the EU’s standards and judgments, and to give access to EU fleets to our fishing waters for 12 years.
This, they hoped, would generate enough good will to persuade the EU to allow us full access to Security for Action Europe (SAFE) – the €150b fund that offers low-cost loans to enable allies to buy defence equipment together. In November our negotiators were told ‘pas possible’. Britain had made an offer of €200-300m but was informed that the entry fee was now €6b – effectively a block. This has reduced the capability of western forces at a time when there is a war in Eastern Europe. And it has shown us the nature of European negotiations.
None of this is to excuse the poor diplomacy of the Labour government.
The idea that the UK will unilaterally accept standards and regulations from the EU without having any say in how those rules are made is a very peculiar one. No other similarly sized economy in the world would do such a thing. Indeed, it only happens in the regulatory orbit of the EU. The risks are obvious. A country that dynamically (and so automatically) aligns with the regulations of another power will, over time, discover, that those regulations are being made without consideration of its interests.
Canada has, rightly, been praised in recent weeks for refusing to accept the US’s regulatory rule book. Yet this is precisely the expectation the EU tends to have when in trade talks. It is striking that many left-wing commentators in the UK have felt able to praise Canada for retaining its independence but have willed on the UK to give up ours.
There are additional problems inherent in accepting EU standards.
Alignment with the EU will not simply be a return to the status quo ante.
Since the UK left the EU, there has been an enormous increase in European regulation. Businesses will be facing something new for which they are wholly unprepared. Moreover, dynamic alignment will affect all businesses in the sectors aligned – not just those doing business with the EU. Even domestic producers – for example, the roughly 90 per cent of farms who do not export to EU, will be obliged to follow EU standards. This huge uptick in compliance will be disproportionately felt by smaller businesses.
The EU operates hazard-based regulation.
It bans products even when evidence shows that they are safe in normal use. This blocks new technology like precision breeding where, in a short time, the UK has become a world-leader. And it will make it harder for us to maintain our trade relationships with the US and the Pacific (CPTPP) who are science-based and expect us to be likewise.
What distinguishes those powers, is their use of common law, rather than the EU’s civic law. Common law has the advantage of assessing risk on evidence, not banned by category. It offers flexibility and adaptability. Parliament sets a knowable duty and then the producer is free to choose the method. Courts test alleged breaches against foreseeable harm, actual use and available alternatives. It is a system open to innovation. And it was invented here – and we must use it here again.
Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives very much want to work and trade with the EU but we will scrap this disastrous one-sided Reset.
There is no need to fight the battles of the past.
We will build a highly competitive regulatory regime which will benefit domestic producers and attract foreign ones. Combine that with our plans for much cheaper electricity, lower tax and less red tape, and you have the foundations for very real economic growth.