Afraid I don't see much that is in any way new in the government's take on regulation - we've been doing this better regulation stuff for 25 years in the UK under different governments. Evidence of results is sketchy at best, and perhaps it is time for a proper rethink.
Obviously when thinking seriously about regulation you first have to acknowledge Grenfell as the single biggest UK regulatory failure of recent years, costing lives and huge sums in remediation. That has absolutely nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
More broadly, I think the costs and benefits approach to regulations probably takes us too much into an inaccurate numbers game when we'd be better off moving towards a broad assessment of all factors - whether alternatives, trade, enforcement, timing.
One for the series of 'who could possibly forecast' about Brexit - that the French might not wave all UK trucks into the country once they didn't have to do so (a big part of Thatcher's reasoning for the single market) theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
The consistent failure to admit over five and a half years that there is a choice between regulatory independence and interaction with other countries. North Korea might have the greatest regulatory autonomy of any country, in the name of sovereignty. Not much of a model though.
Brexit can't deliver while Ministers and the ultras deny there are any drawbacks or choices, because you can't fix a problem you deny. So instead we get the waffle about imperial measurements and being the greatest at absolutely everything for ever and ever.
A picture of containers, it must be a report on trade. Actually it is yet another bizarre document from this government where on virtually every page you find a mix of actions and plans, some Brexit related, some not, none prioritised, many simple wishful thinking.
Random page, regulation. Lots of warm words about regulating in a good way. As we have been doing for many years. There are of course new areas of competence, but nothing here is new. And it is questionable what actually will change.
Random page, borders. Not sure why any of this is relevant to Brexit except as all of our trade is now subject to bureaucracy at the border we might want to get better.
Wherein lies one major problem, ignoring anything inconvenient even when central to the story.
With UK government levelling up plans due later this week I wrote about them in terms of both some local areas, and the international trade trends that frame many issues. Overall, the plans look like a lazy reheat of previous initiatives. yorkshirebylines.co.uk/business/the-t…
Start in Morecambe, a town with some of the best views in the country over the bay. But don't look back... struggling for 40 years. Yet, there should be potential. A tech hub with views perhaps.
Local political party - wants independence from Lancaster, not regional mayors.
Neighbouring Lancaster is doing better, the legacy in large part of those who brought a university there in the 1960s. But you'd not necessarily know it from the town centre, featuring increasing numbers of empty properties among the history (a castle not yet a tourist draw)
Important thread (and quoted tweets). UK government is using the notion of needing to reform old EU regulations to give itself even more power to bypass Parliament. Taking back control from Brussels does not mean in practice more democracy.
Making and changing regulations is now the most regular job of government, is crucial for people's lives, our domestic economy, and international trade, and we have no good way to do this, and a government that talks simplistically of deregulation as 'good'.
We really need a far greater political understanding in this country of 'regulations' - their power and how they are made. Starting with the acceptance that they are a global norm not some Brussels aberration. And that you can't just sweep them all away.
If the tweet is that the UK is leading the world in support for Ukraine then that's more about domestic messaging than concern for a country under threat.
The stronger international message is we are working with others for the best international response.
In particular, if your first thought on writing about Ukraine is to blame the EU or countries within it then congratulations for helping Putin divide the west.
And it doesn't help us look like serious players because obviously we can't defeat Russia on our own.
Want the UK to be seen as a serious international player? Then welcome what we're doing on Ukraine, and the way we're working with other countries.
As serious politicians in all parties are doing. The others are really quite easy to spot.