Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

Important question here: what is happening to Frost’s review of retained EU law now that its promoter has abandoned the battlefield?

https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1472839423561773058

“Binning it” isn’t actually a bad idea - and that is so even if you believe that it’s likely that substantial improvement in regulation is possible be replacing carried-over EU law with new U.K. drafted rules.

The review had two strands. One was to go through all areas of retained EU law to suggest replacements.

But given the diversity of areas regulated by EU law it is entirely unclear what a centralised review could bring to the party (as opposed to each departmental minister simply looking at potential legislative improvements in their area and suggesting changes).

And if a centralised review is a good idea, why confine it to retained EU law and not home-grown regulation (often far more red tape than anything coming from the EU)?

The other strand was to fiddle around with the way in which surviving retained EU law operates. That fiddling around was a bad idea in principle, and would sensibly be abandoned, whatever your views on regulatory reform: see

https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1469276692027953155

NB from that thread the other obvious danger from Frost’s process of reviewing retained EU law - that it would lead to yet more powers to Ministers to legislate by flick of a pen, under the excuse of clearing out EU law from the statute book.

A danger which should deeply concern MPs concerned by the sidelining of Parliament from so much of our law-making - such as @SteveBakerHW.