Thread by @t0nyyates

Seems to me highly unlikely that the EU hit on the optimal regulatory design. So in principle there ought to be better ones to be found in many if not all areas. But:

The right's vision of a bonfire of regulations that could significantly boost growth is a canard. There is no evidence to back it up.

Those urging this neglect that regulations are often enabling: quality and quality assurance and standardization are services buyers and sellers want.

Divergence from what may well be a mildly suboptimal EU standard will generate more frictions at the GB-NI and GB-EU border.

Generating our own, even if mildly superior regulatory solution leaves firms exporting having to produce to multiple standards if they are going to take advantage of it.

And note that we just lost our considerable influence over the EU regulatory solution, [the product of many years of past UK influence].

We are not a large enough market to attempt to innvoate to create a new global regulatory solution, in any market. Our best bet on that score was always to leverage our influence on the regulatory area we were part of that was large enough.

It would be nice if we were good at figuring out subsidies or procurement policies to boost our industries. But we are not. Going far into this will waste money that could be better spent on much needed improvements to basic public goods [health, education, etc..]

One of the benefits of the single market was greatly capping competitive and largely wasteful subsidy regimes, to provide a level market playing field, diverting member state governments into putting their resources where they can do more good.

This tweet sums up the early part of my thread well: better to have a scaled up, compromise, agreed on regulatory solution in a large market than multiple locally optimized solutions.

https://twitter.com/JornTychsen/status/1488161643880239107

So for different reasons ‘Brexit freedoms are all bad’ and ‘Brexit freedoms will bring benefits’ are both false.