Thread by @mdouganlpool

As UKIM Bill makes its way to Lords, what could be done to improve it, so far as devolution is concerned?

Even accepting it’s probably going to pass, there is still considerable room for improvement. So: what changes might at least help lessen problems?

A few brief thoughts:

1) replace current proposals based on directly enforceable legal rights, with system of pre-legislative dialogue between UK authorities, ie to identify & discuss / address potential trade barriers. So: notify relevant proposals then find (preferably consensus) political solution

2) mutual recognition / non-discrimination are important principles & should provide reference point for that pre-legislative discussion – but only a reference point. They are not overriding objectives and they are should not be treated as (near) absolutes (as current Bill does)

3) instead: goal should be to strike balance between legitimate competing interests, eg frictionless trade, yes; but also respect for local democracy; discouraging (de)regulatory competition within UK; protecting devolved competences / standards despite English economic dominance

4) so, eg adopt principle of functional equivalence: provided public interest standards are basically the same, purely technical differences in regulation between territories should not be used as excuse to impose trade barriers. MR works particularly well in such situations...

5) but also introduce principle of trade benefit for genuinely higher standards: if Territory A offers higher standards of protection than Territory B for same subject-matter, then Territory B shouldn't rely on its (basically just lower) regulations so as to impose trade barriers

6) where there are *genuinely* different / higher standards, should be much wider range of public interest grounds, allowing host territory to enforce its rules against imported goods / services, e.g. public health, environment, consumers, workers, cultural policy etc

7) but in such situations, where potential trade barriers are recognised as being legitimate, there should then be a clear framework of principles to decide (as a next step) whether there is a case for adopting some form of “common framework” across the whole UK internal market

8) such “common frameworks” need not entail centralised legislation by Westminster. Could also involve, eg coordinated regulatory systems adopted by each territory in exercise of own competences. & (as many people have argued) explicit commitment to subsidiarity / proportionality

9) in any case: clear agreement that UK territories will not engage in unfair competition through deregulatory strategies / social dumping, ie lowering social standards to attract businesses, which can then use low-cost base to access UK market & drive down standards elsewhere

10) whatever consensus decisions emerge from pre-legislative dialogue should then prevail on the ground. So if trade barriers do arise, have to be accepted as legal & economic reality by businesses; cannot be challenged / overturned in courts relying on principles like MR or ND.