'Ambitious managed divergence', some green thoughts...
It's easy to see how government has landed here, as it is the only way to keep the warring tribes quiet (for now) and stop anyone storming out of cabinet in a huff.
You can also, just about, see how it might work. Govt tells EU 'don't worry, we won't change anything that matters' and tells Hard Brexiteers 'don't worry, we could change anything we want whenever we like'.
You could even argue it is a recipe for a degree of stability as Hard Brexiteers a long way from having a parliamentary majority to deliver meaningful post-Brexit regulatory change.
But even if you assume EU accepts it and doesn't simply reply 'no cherry picking, go away and try again'. And even if you assume Rees-Mogg and co don't kick off, it is still massively challenging.
On every single regulatory issue UK will be left either as EU rule taker with no influence+much higher costs than currently or conducting complex+sensitive negotiations with Brussels over the degree of divergence it'll accept before it starts talking of sanctions and penalties.
The examples are endless. Take air quality, which is in the news currently. UK presumably would want to keep EU standards given stated commitment to 'Green Brexit'. But what happens if UK keeps missing targets and EU wants to pursue fines?
UK would never accept Brussels fines post-Brexit, but would Brussels accept new UK watchdog is robust enough. Govt would attempt managed divergence, but EU could easily argue we are not accepting tariff-free imports from a neighbour with different/lower standards.
Precisely same dynamic will play out for renewables, landfill, recycling, energy efficiency targets, product standards, etc, etc.
Govt will face intense pressure to diverge - just imagine what Sun is going to say about having to keep EU hairdryer standards - but EU will have no incentive to allow such divergence and will hold all the leverage.
Even where UK could arguably push for higher standards it will be challenging. Take Gove's CAP reforms. They sound great, but French farmers are going to be all over them looking for anything that looks like unfair support. If they find anything cue a major row about divergence.
The UK and Brussels may be able to fudge deals on all of these issues and many, many more - that's the 'managed' part of the new vision. But for businesses it is a recipe for constant instability and political and policy flux.
Which is one of the main reasons the EU has always said 'no cherry-picking'. They think, not unreasonably, a relatively stable but flawed system is generally better than an inherently unstable one in pursuit of a utopian dream of regulatory perfection.
Managed divergence might satisfy Brexiteers that principle of sovereignty is honoured, but it's a recipe for
a) largely keeping things the same, just with less UK influence+higher costs
b) a row with Brussels + a debate about true nature of Brexit that literally never ends
a) largely keeping things the same, just with less UK influence+higher costs
b) a row with Brussels + a debate about true nature of Brexit that literally never ends
All because David Cameron wanted to settle things for a generation we are now facing a system of managed divergence that absolutely guarantees that rows with Brussels and using the EU as a scape goat for the UK's failings dominates British politics for countless more decades.
Yes, you could say it was ever thus. But under managed divergence it is a much higher stakes game than what was previously a debate confined to the fringes of the Conservative Party. It will impact investment decisions, long term planning, basically everything.
In short, it is time to get used to the past two years of partisanship and instability, because there is absolutely no end in sight.
