Hi Squaredy
I did indeed see the first post with the screenshot by Martin Howe KC, barrister specializing in law and litigation, and sometime Spectator contributor, yet that does not make that the definitive, or final, word upon the subject. Other interpretations are just as valid, and maybe more nuanced. Many experts in their field write upon this subject, not just the one you have quoted. I read others, just as qualified as Martin Howe, if not more so, and come to different conclusions, hence why i replied to it in a more positive light, but hey, this is a discussion. It would be boring if we all agreed with each other. Am i saying i am right? No, just offering a different opinion, a different perspective.
Where i agree with Martin Howe is that no actual legal texts have been prepared. Discussions are ongoing. So nothing of course would be signed. Barely the revelation of the century. That he sees this as a road leading back to the Single Market, and that we may be subject to a whole array of 'foreign laws' is a mental leap of gymnastic proportions.
Where i gather you are unhappy is in the oversight of the ECJ in this 'reset'. As Howe puts it, this would be 'dynamically' applied, rather than 'directly' applied. In practice, this means ECJ jurisdiction would be kept at arms length, but that yes, if the dispute was not settled through independent arbitration, the ECJ remains the ultimate authority. At this point, i would remind you that we already have 'direct' ECJ jurisdiction, as negotiated by the last Conservative government, in the Windsor Framework (that partially replaced the Northern Ireland Protocol) as NI remains within the single Market for goods. Why the sudden outrage now? We already have it, as last time i looked Northern Ireland was part of the UK.
We are having to follow 'their' rules anyway for UK firms to export into our largest and nearest market, but where is the outrage that we have still not reciprocated full customs controls on EU imports, rather, just wave them through? The current system favors EU importers and disadvantages UK exporters. I find it amazing that so few people comment upon how our exporters are drowning in red tape yet EU importers have none of it. This reset would balance the scales a bit and help UK exports.
Because of this, most big business in the UK broadly welcomes this alignment to SPS standards. Regulatory alignment, as that is all it is, is better for business, our economy, and most importantly in this case, our food security. Dodgy horse meat from the EU waved through customs because we are still not enforcing full customs checks, so everyone knows this is the place to send it? No thanks.
I get it, we left the EU so we could make our own regulations, but the bigger markets regulatory standards will always be the benchmark business aligns with as it is more profitable. Look at the hullabaloo around tethered bottle caps. UK bottled drinks manufacturers had a choice. Align to the standards of the larger market, the EU, or have two production lines, one for the EU, and one for the UK market, so we would not have to align with their standards. The manufacturers willingly chose to produce to the standards of the larger market. The EU. Can you blame them?
Or look at the UKCA mark on so much of the equipment we all use in our day to day jobs. A separate, UK conformity testing process, no different to the CE conformity testing process, that was going to be phased into legislation so manufacturers had no choice. Many smaller businesses could not afford to do two testing processes, but obviously the big boys could afford it, and started to test kit against the two standards. Do you think that Stihl or Husqvarna, for example, absorbed the cost for this dual testing process for both CE (their larger market) and for UKCA ( a smaller market)? Or do you think this added cost was passed on to those customers in the country asking for this second testing process? We all paid for it.
Divergence from EU standards is merely window dressing. No wonder the last Conservative government quietly buried the UKCA mark.
Look, i doubt we will agree, (though i respect that when you do so with others it is with clarity and politeness) but at some point, as illustrated by tethered bottle caps and the UKCA mark, gravity matters, and business is largely welcoming alignment. This is in no way being back in the EU. If you had titled your thread 'Welcome to Switzerland', i feel that would have been more accurate. Another country not in the EU, constantly disagreeing with the EU, but constantly having to negotiate for access to their markets. That is all this is in my view.
