Thread by @hhesterm

An excellent illustration of what I meant by distortion of our procedures - let me explain (thread)

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1491747630522802177

Review of existing rules and stakeholder engagement in that regard should be a constant feature of the system. People in government working in a specialised area are thus informed by citizens / industry subject to the regulation that e.g. form 425/a makes no sense.

They can then review WHY that form is there and whether it should be maintained.

The source of the obligation - whether it comes from an SI, parliament, international obligations - is irrelevant in that regard. It comes in when we discuss how to reform.

The current write in exercise (besides the obvious weaknesses) shows the problems of our current approach:

First of all it‘s only about EU rules. How many people know the source of a legal rule?

Secondly, it involves non-stakeholders (I heard about a rule on bananas, not sure it exists) writing to civil servants not experts in the field (form 425/a sounds superfluous. How do I find out why we have that?). The risk of mistakes is large. The waste of time is guaranteed.

Thirdly, the lines of authority are complex. What if the people working in the area like form 425a, but the Brexit opportunity people don‘t?

So, my hope, once again, is that this is the last effort of the kind and JRM‘s name assures some finality in that regard. Because every future effort along these lines is an implicit criticism of past efforts.