First of all, apologies for yesterday's blog post. It was more of a rant because of the Hartlepool result but I've calmed down now although it was a hugely disappointing night for Labour in England. Anyway, to other matters. Chris Grey, in his latest blog post yesterday, pointed to a terrific essay by Anthony Barnett about the role played by regulations in the modern world: Why Brexit won’t work: the EU is about regulation not sovereignty. Written in 2018 it is full of insight and well worth a read.
He writes that regulation “has become a new sphere of government” as essential to modern life as executive power, legislative authority and courts of law. It is an underestimated pillars of civil society. He also suggests, like Sir Ivan Rogers once did, that the proper way to think of the EU in economic terms is as a “regulatory union.” This is I suppose rather than a single market or a customs union or even as a protection racket.
Barnett was a director of an organisation called Open Democracy and his essay for them was about who controls the regulations, among other things, but he quotes from a lecture in March 2018 by Ian Forrester, a member of the General Court of the European Union, about the EU's method of regulating:
"Independent EU agencies are responsible for regulating pharmaceuticals, food safety, security, animal feed, maritime safety, aviation and many other topics. The agencies are located in… cities across the EU. The extent of the responsibility of each agency varies but each of them is engaged in enforcement, investigation and other regulatory actions. These agencies employ experts and produce recommendations or opinions. These technical recommendations are then considered as policy and political questions by the Member States who try after debate to reach a common position… Thousands of individual problems arise on subjects such as food safety, customs, health, environment, data substances, privacy, animal welfare, private international law and the rest. These debates are resolved within the technical committees… there are scores, maybe hundreds, of technical or advisory committees staffed by national experts. The purpose of these mechanisms is to help form and implement the language of the legislation — making it work in the real world…. As technology has advanced and as technical choices have become more sophisticated, an ever wider and deeper mass of regulation has emerged."
It seems like a model system to me and one which the UK will find as hard to resist as the rest of the world does. Indeed, as he pointed out at the time, many Brexiteers, including an anonymous cabinet minister and Henry Newman, now adviser to Johnson, thought that Britain would remain with a role in these independent agencies. As we now know we couldn't convince the EU27 why that should be the case so we have as distant a relationship as Canada with zero influence.
The fact is that it is the process by which the regulations are created as much as the regulations themselves that make them world leading.
He also touches on the Brexiteer claim that we will 'deregulate' but points to a survey Open Democracy carried out showing "staggeringly high rates of popular support in the UK for European levels of regulation. They run at between 70-80% - incorporating large majorities of those who voted to Leave. While the big boys bang on about sovereignty, regular people, women somewhat more than men, prefer regulation."
There are many paradoxes in Brexit, this is one of them.
And note that Johnson's senior adviser Newman worked at Open Europe (everything's open these days) which published Striking a Balance, a report that recommended across-the-board association agreements the justification for which was, "automobiles, and chemicals – are the areas which we trade most with the EU and are growing the fastest”. The OE report said the government will apply “to stay in the European standards system for industry products and services”.
As we know that isn't going to happen under Johnson who seems alone in thinking regulations must be national not supranational. Barnett quoted:
",,,in a diatribe to fellow MPs, leaked to Buzzfeed, the man who is its Foreign Secretary attacked his own government’s negotiations in case they end up, as he knows they must, with the UK “locked in orbit around the EU…and not having freedom with our regulatory framework”. The casual suggestion that Britain can benefit from the “freedom” to regulate for itself shows Johnson’s lack of seriousness. This is confirmed by an article in the Sun on the second anniversary of the Referendum. Johnson demands, "the freedom to bust out of the corsets of EU regulation and rules - to do things our way" and not "some perpetual pushme-pullyou arrangement".
It’s a fascinating piece because it shows just how far things have shifted under Johnson. I am not even sure if Johnson understands why regulations are desirable - even essential. It runs totally against his character. This is from 2018, remember. Barnett goes on to say:
"There is not a scintilla of evidence that [Johnson] has read the letter from the Chemical Industries Association or similar ones from every sector of industry, or from Japanese and European foreign investors, with respect to regulation, or even that he absorbed what the prime minister said in her Mansion House speech when he sat in front of her. Gove at least appears to have registered the evidence. Yet Brexit is personified by Johnson more than anyone."
Gove has overseen the negotiations and must know the damage that Johnson's high-sovereignty Brexit is doing to British industry but he is now consulting on what deregulation British industry wants. We know already that industry doesn't want two sets of regulations and a huge majority of people actually are in favour of regulations anyway.
Listen to this:
"In 2013, freeing British business from “excessive regulation” was singled out by then Prime Minister David Cameron, as one of his main aims, when he announced the party’s commitment to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU and then call a referendum. The EU could not concede. As the referendum approached the Leave side was justifiably accused of seeking to strip the public of such regulations as the Working Time Directive, which limits hours of work. Then their polling and focus groups reported that such de-regulation was very unpopular. So the Leave campaign dropped its call."
Morris (a pollster from IPPR) explains,
“The root cause of this shift was simply that there was – and indeed still is – no public appetite for a deregulatory agenda. Our own polling with Opinium has found widespread public support for some of the most controversial EU-derived employment, environmental and financial legislation… Renewable energy targets – another bugbear of earlier Eurosceptics – are endorsed or considered too low by 74 per cent… more than 80 per cent of the public are opposed to lowering food safety standards. When confronted with this wall of public opinion, it is no surprise that leave campaigners adapted their position as the referendum date neared”.
As I said it is another conundrum created by Vote Leave simply focusing on how to get a majority to vote to leave rather than on how to satisfy that majority afterwards.
The point of raising this question of regulation now is that it is another highly unpalatable choice the Johnson government is going to face in the next year or so. Does it try to slash regulation as many hard-line Brexiteers suggest? Does it simply continue to follow EU rules? In which case what was the point of Brexit? Does it recreate a whole new rule book that cripples British manufacturers with a double burden complying with different UK and EU rules?
I suspect it will do things which it will claim could only be done outside the EU (like freeports) as some sort of justification for all the upheaval of Brexit without changing anything too much. In other words, prepare for something completely identical.
But one wonders how long that can last before people on both sides of the Brexit divide twig?
Finally, to return to the election results you might like to see what could be a bright spot:
Strongly Leave area that is relatively safe Tory seat swings hugely to Labour. But why? That damn lorry park, lads. The rest of Britain will probably eventually see the effects of Brexit directly outside their doors. https://t.co/cvOCpWaluj
— Sooz Kempner (@SoozUK) May 7, 2021
Interesting?
