Labour should move Britain closer to the EU by granting ministers the power to copy EU rules, Tony Blair’s think tank has said.
The institute set up by the former prime minister said the UK must mirror Brussels standards to rebuild trade ties with the continent.
Tory MPs warned the plan would be a betrayal of Brexit and see the country effectively taken back into the single market by stealth.
Under the proposals, Britain would dynamically align with EU rules covering swathes of the economy, most notably food production.
**‘Keeping pace’ powers**
Ministers would be given “keeping pace” powers to update the UK statute books and take account of new laws made in Brussels.
Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them.
In return, the bloc would be expected to grant smoother access for goods in those sectors, reducing red tape and checks at ports.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been taking advice from Sir Tony on how to run the country if he wins the keys to No 10 at the general election.
His institute said the next government should legislate to match EU standards on labour rights and green rules.
Such a policy would open the floodgates for industries that have previously demanded alignment to protect trade with the continent.
They include automotive, aviation, chemical, construction, energy, medicines, manufacturing and telecoms.
The think tank argued that negotiating a deal on food standards in particular would help solve the Northern Ireland row.
**‘Brexit isn’t working’**
“Most of the British public recognise that Brexit in its current form isn’t working for anyone,” said Anton Spisak, the report’s author.
“With the country facing recession and the steepest decline in living standards on record, the current government should take a pragmatic approach to fixing Brexit.
“Failing that, it will be incumbent on the next government to pick up the pieces and deliver tangible solutions to the problems arising from Brexit.”
Tory MP David Jones, a former Brexit minister, said that aligning with EU rules would defeat the point of having voted to leave the bloc.
“It’s no surprise that the Tony Blair Institute should come up with such a suggestion. It has never really understood Brexit,” he said.
“The British people voted to leave the European Union precisely to be rid of dynamic alignment, and to enable the UK to strike its own course in the world.
“This proposal would leave the UK as a vassal state of the EU, absorbing laws without any democratic input. It is a preposterous suggestion and should be instantly dismissed.”
**‘Stronger trading relationship’**
On Sunday, Sir Keir Starmer ruled out any kind of relationship with the EU that would require Britain to accept freedom of movement again.
But he has also pledged to build “a stronger trading relationship” with the bloc that will “reduce red tape for British businesses”.
It would have been easier to have just stayed in the EU then if we’re gonna follow their laws anyway.
I hate that term: “red tape”. It’s usually double-speak for protective legislation that stifles exploiting workers.
Unless I am mistaken, this is dead in the water.
> Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them. In return, the bloc would be expected to grant smoother access for goods in those sectors, reducing red tape and checks at ports.
This is essentially a worse replication of the Swiss deal, which the EU member states already said they don’t want to do again. They won’t see the point of letting the UK pick and choose which rules to apply, especially as this creates incentives to not do so in order to attempt to undercut EU manufacturers and producers. The EU is fairly legalistic at the best of times. To expect it to give more access to the single market on the pretense of alignment without a legal commitment and (given the lack of trust) robust channels of enforcement is simply foolish. If there is no legal obligation to align, enshrined into a treaty, then there is no alignment. That is the legalistic view the EU will adopt.
There is also no mention of any legal recourse through the ECJ, putting all the risks as well as the bother of policing the agreement on the EU. And for what? What does the EU get in return? Unfettered access to the UK market? It already mostly has that as the UK seems unwilling or rather unable to perform regulatory checks on EU imports. It already has a zero tariff trade deal on goods with strict country of origin requirements.
There is precisely zero chance that the EU will agree to this. It might agree to single market membership for the UK, with all the obligations and benefits of that, because that would defuse the Northern Irish border issue, but it won’t agree to what it will see as yet another “cakeist” proposal. Whether this proposal gains traction within the UK its parliament or any one of its political parties means nothing, as it has no political reality outside it. if adopted, it would simply make the UK waste time negotiating with itself only to come up with a proposal that is a priori unacceptable to the EU, losing any political capital spent for no practical gain. This happened several times during the Brexit negotiations (all those meaningful votes), with much the same results.
There was a great article in the FT a while back arguing that Brexit is no longer a leave-remain argument, it’s a fanatics vs realists divide. And having spent a bit of time in European cities this year, anyone arguing that the UK is somehow better than EU countries is utterly fucking deluded.
No. We don’t need any more Henry VIII powers. We need more democracy, not more power grabs.
There is a clear case for following EU legislation, but I don’t want ministers to be in charge of it.
I love howthink tanks are called just that yet call out tony blair in this one.
Obvious agenda
I agree with him but I wonder what his ulterior motive is. JPM don’t try and cover up payments and give money away for free.
Makes a lot of sense. Doesn’t really matter too much what 99% of regulations are as long as there are regulations. Does it matter if bananas are in a particular class if they have 80% space utilisation in a packing crate rather than 75%? Of course not. What matters is the whole industry has the same understanding of what the classifications are.
EU is such an inefficient, over-regulating, self-protecting body that violates pretty much everything a free market should be. Of all the things they can copy they want to copy from such an organisation?
10 comments
Labour should move Britain closer to the EU by granting ministers the power to copy EU rules, Tony Blair’s think tank has said.
The institute set up by the former prime minister said the UK must mirror Brussels standards to rebuild trade ties with the continent.
Tory MPs warned the plan would be a betrayal of Brexit and see the country effectively taken back into the single market by stealth.
Under the proposals, Britain would dynamically align with EU rules covering swathes of the economy, most notably food production.
**‘Keeping pace’ powers**
Ministers would be given “keeping pace” powers to update the UK statute books and take account of new laws made in Brussels.
Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them.
In return, the bloc would be expected to grant smoother access for goods in those sectors, reducing red tape and checks at ports.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been taking advice from Sir Tony on how to run the country if he wins the keys to No 10 at the general election.
His institute said the next government should legislate to match EU standards on labour rights and green rules.
Such a policy would open the floodgates for industries that have previously demanded alignment to protect trade with the continent.
They include automotive, aviation, chemical, construction, energy, medicines, manufacturing and telecoms.
The think tank argued that negotiating a deal on food standards in particular would help solve the Northern Ireland row.
**‘Brexit isn’t working’**
“Most of the British public recognise that Brexit in its current form isn’t working for anyone,” said Anton Spisak, the report’s author.
“With the country facing recession and the steepest decline in living standards on record, the current government should take a pragmatic approach to fixing Brexit.
“Failing that, it will be incumbent on the next government to pick up the pieces and deliver tangible solutions to the problems arising from Brexit.”
Tory MP David Jones, a former Brexit minister, said that aligning with EU rules would defeat the point of having voted to leave the bloc.
“It’s no surprise that the Tony Blair Institute should come up with such a suggestion. It has never really understood Brexit,” he said.
“The British people voted to leave the European Union precisely to be rid of dynamic alignment, and to enable the UK to strike its own course in the world.
“This proposal would leave the UK as a vassal state of the EU, absorbing laws without any democratic input. It is a preposterous suggestion and should be instantly dismissed.”
**‘Stronger trading relationship’**
On Sunday, Sir Keir Starmer ruled out any kind of relationship with the EU that would require Britain to accept freedom of movement again.
But he has also pledged to build “a stronger trading relationship” with the bloc that will “reduce red tape for British businesses”.
It would have been easier to have just stayed in the EU then if we’re gonna follow their laws anyway.
I hate that term: “red tape”. It’s usually double-speak for protective legislation that stifles exploiting workers.
Unless I am mistaken, this is dead in the water.
> Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them. In return, the bloc would be expected to grant smoother access for goods in those sectors, reducing red tape and checks at ports.
This is essentially a worse replication of the Swiss deal, which the EU member states already said they don’t want to do again. They won’t see the point of letting the UK pick and choose which rules to apply, especially as this creates incentives to not do so in order to attempt to undercut EU manufacturers and producers. The EU is fairly legalistic at the best of times. To expect it to give more access to the single market on the pretense of alignment without a legal commitment and (given the lack of trust) robust channels of enforcement is simply foolish. If there is no legal obligation to align, enshrined into a treaty, then there is no alignment. That is the legalistic view the EU will adopt.
There is also no mention of any legal recourse through the ECJ, putting all the risks as well as the bother of policing the agreement on the EU. And for what? What does the EU get in return? Unfettered access to the UK market? It already mostly has that as the UK seems unwilling or rather unable to perform regulatory checks on EU imports. It already has a zero tariff trade deal on goods with strict country of origin requirements.
There is precisely zero chance that the EU will agree to this. It might agree to single market membership for the UK, with all the obligations and benefits of that, because that would defuse the Northern Irish border issue, but it won’t agree to what it will see as yet another “cakeist” proposal. Whether this proposal gains traction within the UK its parliament or any one of its political parties means nothing, as it has no political reality outside it. if adopted, it would simply make the UK waste time negotiating with itself only to come up with a proposal that is a priori unacceptable to the EU, losing any political capital spent for no practical gain. This happened several times during the Brexit negotiations (all those meaningful votes), with much the same results.
There was a great article in the FT a while back arguing that Brexit is no longer a leave-remain argument, it’s a fanatics vs realists divide. And having spent a bit of time in European cities this year, anyone arguing that the UK is somehow better than EU countries is utterly fucking deluded.
No. We don’t need any more Henry VIII powers. We need more democracy, not more power grabs.
There is a clear case for following EU legislation, but I don’t want ministers to be in charge of it.
I love howthink tanks are called just that yet call out tony blair in this one.
Obvious agenda
I agree with him but I wonder what his ulterior motive is. JPM don’t try and cover up payments and give money away for free.
Makes a lot of sense. Doesn’t really matter too much what 99% of regulations are as long as there are regulations. Does it matter if bananas are in a particular class if they have 80% space utilisation in a packing crate rather than 75%? Of course not. What matters is the whole industry has the same understanding of what the classifications are.
EU is such an inefficient, over-regulating, self-protecting body that violates pretty much everything a free market should be. Of all the things they can copy they want to copy from such an organisation?