I am not sure that the government understands the single market idea of the EU. The leave campaign and most Brexiteers made great play about all of the petty rules and regulations that we are "forced" to embed in UK law and then comply with, and suggesting we would somehow be able to free ourselves from all this burdensome stuff.
But now the continuity of trade position paper says, "Citizens across the EU also benefit from this close relationship and the integrated regulatory systems, which enable the supply of safe products across the EU and the UK, as well as reduced costs, increased variety, flexibility for supply chains, benefits for patients, and higher quality and innovative products."
We want to exit the single market, but say, "it makes sense to recognise our common regulatory systems and the UK’s ambition for cooperation in the future" suggesting we want to retain all the benefits and continue to buy and sell goods across borders, free of all tariffs and barriers, exactly as we did before, keeping all of the burdensome standards the EU imposes. But these "common" and "integrated" systems only work if they have the force of law behind them. We have been able to influence these common standards but this will all cease in March 2019 when we leave. The EU will not allow us to participate in the single market in the way we want ( recognising each other's standards and so on) without some agreement in international law that commits us to complying at all times and in all ways. In other words, something pretty well identical to what we have now.
If the UK government, post Brexit allows domestic rules and standards to be relaxed, the EU will demand customs checks and inspections to ensure that sub standard or non complying goods do not enter the EU market as they would be bound to do as companies seek to gain an advantage.
The UK in a Changing Europe website explains (HERE) that the single market is simply an advanced free trade area:
A single, or common, market goes a lot further: as well as tariffs and quotas, it seeks to remove various other barriers to trade. For example, member countries agree to harmonise product standards – on the strength of alcoholic drinks, for instance, or fuel efficiency levels in cars – across their markets; otherwise, these could be used by countries to restrict trade.
The approach also extends to other areas. Again, to prevent one member under-cutting the rest, a common external tariff policy is needed. Next, private barriers to trade could be established by monopolies or cartels, and so a common competition policy has to be agreed in the interests of businesses in all the member countries.
Finally, members may be able to target favourable policies – such as tax breaks, subsidies, or laxer environmental or labour laws – towards their own firms to make production cheaper. Since this has the effect of distorting competition across the single market, policies governing these areas also have to be harmonised.
All these features are present in the European Union’s single market, which is based on four freedoms of movement – of goods, services, labour and capital. As part of belonging to this system, member states get access to – and the ability to influence – the procedures by which its laws are made. They each contribute a member of the European Commission, their MEPs sit in the European Parliament, and their governments are represented on the European Council.
All of this costs money and it is inconceivable that the EU will allow us a free trade deal that offers us "the exact same benefits" (to use David Davis' phrase) as we have now without contributing to the upkeep and development of the single market. We may be consulted but we won't have a vote on any future changes.
