Yesterday the government published its white paper on the UK internal market. The 104 page document is a hymn to the importance of having a single market with "common frameworks" that allow "frictionless trade" because "without an up-to-date, coherent market structure, economic barriers could block or inhibit trade in goods across the UK, and services could be significantly and detrimentally impacted." Reading it you cannot help but be struck by sheer hypocrisy.
On Monday we got a 206 page document with "guidance" on how the government will erect barriers to trade with the EU single market. The irony, according to Peter Foster at the FT, is enough "to make your eyes bleed."
Today the UK govt publishes a UK internal market White Paper that extols the virtues of 'frictionless trade' and free movement: boosting wages, productivity, investment, business certainty and lowering prices.Irony so bitter it makes your eyes bleed. https://t.co/u7bS5csKJm pic.twitter.com/1yW3JGQi3q
— Peter Foster (@pmdfoster) July 16, 2020
A single market with common rules agreed between the member nations and mutual recognition of standards where there are differences is fine and a wonderful and necessary thing for prosperity. Except when that single market has Brussels and not London at its centre.
I think we may look back and see yesterday as marking the beginning of our return to the EU. The whole thing is an argument for membership of the EU and shows, in my opinion, that Brexit was based on Europhobia and racism and not much else. None of the economic or sovereignty arguments used in the 2016 campaign actually make any sense at all when you flick through the pages of this latest white paper.
The sovereignty issue is particularly weak when you consider the position of Scotland. It has seats in Westminster, occupied almost exclusively be the SNP who are regularly and invariably outvoted by the government. Scottish independence, opposed by the government, seems a natural progression from Brexit with far more convincing reasoning if sovereignty was the measure of necessity. England in the UK is huge compared to the other three nations and will obviously dominate.
But this is precisely what the Tory party want isn't it? Cooperation is anathema to them. Proportional representation, working with other political parties or other nations goes against the grain of conservative thinking which is one of the reasons we find ourselves in the pickle.
If sovereignty for Scotland is rejected as unreasonable, you might be persuaded the economic case for remaining in the UK was strong and it is - but no stronger than that of the UK remaining in the EU.
This is paragraph 17 of the WP:
"Without an up-to-date, coherent market structure, economic barriers could block or inhibit trade in goods across the UK, and services could be significantly and detrimentally impacted. Complexities in key sectors such as construction could arise, were differences in regulations to emerge over time. If England and Scotland diverged on their approach to building regulations or processes for obtaining construction permits, it would become significantly more difficult for construction firms to design and plan projects effectively across the UK.
"Moreover, different approaches to the regulation of construction professionals, such as differing qualifications for plumbers and technicians, could limit access to skilled construction workers, and make it harder for Scottish construction companies to bid for contracts in England."
It is as if the government has undergone a collective epiphany.
Another reason for thinking its publication might be a milestone is that the SNP are presenting it as a "power grab" cutting across the devolved administration's right to introduce different rules. It is a gift to Scottish nationalism and can only move us closer to Indyref2 and the break up of the UK.
