The warning sirens are getting louder as they get closer to home. Last year we had a bunch of British trade bodies calling for close regulatory alignment and no cliff edge, more recently Nick de Bois a Brexiteer Conservative MP close to Raab broke ranks and called for an extension. Last week the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU publicly came out in favour of closer alignment, also warning that a cliff edge must be avoided, now we get Conservative funder Alexander Temerko saying Johnson must extend the transition for another year.
The government is starting to look increasingly isolated and beleaguered. You would need to be stone deaf not to hear these calls in Downing Street and in any sane world the government would never be set on a course for disaster anyway.
Unfortunately, we left sane behind four years ago when the whole Brexit Pandora's box was opened.
The problem will come in the next few weeks when a decision must be made on the question of an extension. It is our last chance to avoid a cliff edge, if it isn't taken and the government doesn't get its act together on the NI border infrastructure it is not impossible the EU will simply begin preparing for the UK leaving on WTO terms.
I wouldn't underestimate the impact this will have. Contracts are often agreed months in advance and if there is the prospect of huge delays at Dover after December, many contracts will either not be placed or not renewed in the second half of the year. If this does happen there won't be a simple remedy available. The government will be left with a choice of accepting all the EU conditions or letting companies go to the wall as they try to find new customers and new suppliers.
Some will move production or change suppliers. For others this may not even be a possibility and they will struggle to survive.
This is all because of political dogma.
The American Chambers of Commerce -EU lobby's paper (HERE) is interesting because it offers an American take on Brexit, which it openly acknowledges it opposed. AmCam say their, "initial preference would have been the UK’s continued membership of the Single Market
and the Customs Union". The paper struggles to find any positives in Brexit - suggesting the UK and EU should "continue to work together to set new standards and promote free trade as a key driver of global growth". But that is precisely what we were doing in the EU!
I think the paper reflects what we reamainers have been saying for a very long time. The EU is the greatest global driver of standards. EU standards become global standards, They regulate where other countries cannot or do not. The EU is very good at it, as the paper admits:
"Regulatory alignment/cooperation
The EU and the UK currently share a common set of rules and standards which apply to a range of different
sectors. Whereas we can expect some level of friction to arise, divergence should be limited to the greatest
extent possible. Significant divergence would result in substantial additional compliance costs and red tape
strongly affecting businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones (SMEs). In addition to this, current EU
rules are often de facto global standards that we have adapted to and understand. EU rules also reflect
international efforts to align rules and standards to reduce regulatory burden and red tape for businesses across
the globe. Such efforts towards convergence at global level should therefore be maintained and strengthened
moving forward."
Outside the EU it is very difficult to see how much influence we will have on global standards. Losing our seat in the EU will render us voiceless at the top standards creating body. All we can do is shout from outside.
