1/ Complaints against EU regulations generally come in one of three flavors.
a) They go too far, at the cost of business competitiveness.
b) They're insufficiently flexible for local needs.
c) Their administration is too painful.
a) They go too far, at the cost of business competitiveness.
b) They're insufficiently flexible for local needs.
c) Their administration is too painful.
2/ An FTA is exceedingly unlikely to meaningfully impact the ability of the UK to manage how its regulations are fine-tuned locally, or how they are administered...
... unless that fine-tuning or administration is used as a smoke-screen to render them toothless.
... unless that fine-tuning or administration is used as a smoke-screen to render them toothless.
3/ Even in State Aid, where the EU is seeking the UK continue to apply its own rules, the UK would retain a lot of freedom to distribute its subsidies between regions and to manage much of their administration.
4/ What an FTA is likely to restrict somewhat, is the blue sphere at the top.
The ability of the UK to substantially move the existing balance of regulations away from environmental protection, labor rights, and climate action and toward business competitiveness.
The ability of the UK to substantially move the existing balance of regulations away from environmental protection, labor rights, and climate action and toward business competitiveness.
5/ This is unquestionably a restriction on UK sovereignty, but one that seems to fully align with the Johnson Government's stated plans for where it sees the UK's regulatory future.
6/ P.S The fact that callers into @mrjamesob's show are often unable to cite a specific example of EU regulations fitting into any of those three spheres doesn't mean there aren't any.
There obviously are. It's not a perfect system.
There obviously are. It's not a perfect system.
