Jacob Rees Mogg is still banging on about deregulation and his Retained EU Law Bill which is making its way through the Commons at the moment. The recently sacked cabinet minister has penned an article in The Sun. He seems to specialise in down-market newspapers presumably because the readers are too dim to see through his arguments. His article is headlined: Axing EU energy laws now will save Brits billions of pounds – it’s too good an opportunity to miss. Sounds good, doesn't it? It will simply perpetuate the myth that there is some golden future ahead of us where everything is much cheaper without EU regulations.
He Tweeted a link to his own article:
The ripe fruit of Brexit is ready to be harvested. https://t.co/myotnZ5ywZ
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) November 26, 2022
What the headline is talking about is scrapping VAT on domestic heating although he admits in the text it isn't very much (5%) and we are already paying far higher costs because we are out of the EU energy market and must 'bid' for imported energy on a daily basis making it more expensive.
But leave that aside because the main thrust of his piece is about cutting as much EU Retained law as possible. He writes:
"This proposal, which is currently before the House of Commons, will lead to the expiry of every EU law that came in through directives and regulations, unless the Government actively wants to keep it.
"The seal of democratic approval will have to be put on any of those rules from Brussels that we used to mock if we want to keep them."
I honestly think when he refers to the rules “that we used to mock” he genuinely believed all that straight banana, bent cucumber, and recycled tea bag stuff that the right-wing press carried for years, none of which were actually true. It must be obvious after six years of looking that there are no Retained EU laws that can be cut which would make the slightest positive difference to our economic growth.
Divergence can only harm our trade with the EU bloc as business groups warned only last week and hence reduce growth. The FT reported on Wednesday:
"More than a dozen organisations including the Institute of Directors, Trades Union Congress and Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development warned the move [the REUL Bill] would 'cause significant confusion and disruption' for businesses, workers, consumers and conservationists."
In a letter sent to business secretary Grant Shapps, the groups warned that dumping EU laws would "plunge business into fresh uncertainty at a time when they are battling soaring energy bills and inflation."
The letter, says the FT, is the latest sign that business is taking a more robust approach to the continued disruption from Brexit. CBI boss Tony Danker this week urged ministers to put aside political motives to seek improvements to the UK’s existing trade deal with the EU.
He gives a couple of examples of EU laws that MUST GO. He says:
"Rules that are a cost on business but have limited benefit should also be abolished.
"There are hundreds of them, and what is the point of the “Footwear (indication of composition) Labelling Regulations 1995” or the costly “Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018” which applies unnecessarily to domestic travel?
"Repealing laws of this kind would save businesses costs with no risk to consumers."
The footwear rule is useful in my opinion. When buying shoes online or even in-store, it’s nice to know what they’re made from, personally it's important to me and perhaps to most people. I happen to have a relative in the shoe business and the truth is Britain makes very few shoes. They’re mostly imported nowadays. What we do make tends to be high-quality leather brogues, that kind of thing with prices starting at £200, the sort JRM would buy.
I imagine those upmarket manufacturers welcome rules which make clear on the label that cheaper shoes are made of composite or synthetic materials. Without that, their job would be more difficult.
Does it really add a burden to tell your customers what your shoes are made of? I don't think it does and if that's the best example he can come up with, maybe some Sun readers are beginning to see what a pointless (and expensive) exercise Brexit is.
He goes on:
"None of them had any scrutiny before becoming law, they were decided upon behind closed doors in the EU and then had to be made domestic law. Some of them were even opposed when they were introduced but the opposition was overruled."
Is that really true? I am sure the rule on shoes, and every other EU law is voted on in Brussels or Strasbourg, and is scrutinised by MEPs far more than it would have been in Westminster.
And in one of those delicious coincidences that seem to crop up ever more frequently, the privatised water companies, in newly uncovered letters to the environment secretary, complain about regulations. But this isn’t about excessive regulation, they’re more concerned with under regulation. Fancy that!
In the letters, the water companies criticise the lack of action from the government on the sewage scandal. They complained that the government had failed to bring in new laws as a reason for sewage discharges.
In particular, they point to two pieces of legislation: regulations for drainage systems on new developments passed in 2010 but not yet enforced in England (Wales enforced the measure in 2018), and a ban on wet wipes which are not biodegradable proposed in a private member’s bill by the Labour MP Fleur Anderson but ignored by the Tory government.
Peter Simpson, the CEO of Anglian Water, complained the government had not acted to make sure homes were built sustainably, with the sewage system taken into account. “If water companies were made statutory consultees on planning developments, not just local plans, and if schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act were enacted, then our role in ensuring sustainable growth would be greatly enhanced.”
Another CEO, Sarah Bentley of Thames Water, said: “The biggest single driver of discharge of untreated sewage into the environment is excess rainfall coming through our sewage treatment works, overwhelming them. By choosing to enact schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 government can significantly reduce the rate of surface water discharging to our network, meaning more available capacity for new connections for new development and a lower risk of spills from combined sewer overflows.”
So, we learn that business lobby groups do not actually want a bonfire of EU laws, that water utilities are asking for MORE regulations not less to help stop sewage discharges, and lastly that the 'landmark' free trade deal with Japan signed by Liz Truss in October 2020 has been a failure after new figures showed exports had actually fallen since it came into force. You couldn't make this stuff up, it's farcical.
Truss claimed at the time it would boost trade by billions of pounds and help the UK recover from the pandemic but figures published by the Department for International Trade show exports to Japan fell from £12.3bn to £11.9bn in the year to June 2022. Exports in goods fell 4.9% to £6.1bn and services fell 2% to £5.8bn.
Within a year or two I would be surprised if anyone in this country believed that Brexit was a good thing, The Tories are doomed for a decade at least, whatever happens but hopes of a return to the EU now rest with Labour and Kier Starmer.
I think he will come to office with the intent of trying to 'make Brexit work' but sooner or later he will have to admit defeat and take us back in.
