Even Whitehall’s fiercest advocates of the need to stay as close as possible to the EU recognise that there are risks in being a rule-taker not a rule-maker.
DExEU must continue after March next year to prevent the EU from using constructive ambiguity to implement regulatory absorption.
The Prime Minister’s stance on regulatory alignment is very hard indeed to square with his vision of a freewheeling Britain. Watch this space.
Dublin is in danger of setting conditions that Westminster cannot meet. Instead, we must return to our historic willingness to navigate difficulties together.
The Cabinet must have a clearer collective idea than it does now of what it wants to gain from a deal – and, in particular, how it intends to handle regulatory divergence.
MigrationWatch has suggested that those EU migrants with skills in short supply should be able to come to the UK for a time-limited period after Brexit.
If we are also out of CAP, CFP and direct ECJ jurisdiction, able to negotiate our own trade deals and in the Single Market, it might not be such a bad outcome after all.
I have said previously that I believe the Government has been pursuing a sensible negotiating approach to date. I maintain that view.
It would be the easiest, least disruptive, and most productive way for this country to genuinely leave the EU until we have a bespoke UK-EU deal.
I believe that there will be a growing clamour for any deal to be put by referendum to the British people before the final decision is taken.
The suggestion here seems to be to keep current and future EU law – and thus the ECJ. We would accept EU laws as they developed without a say.
From speaking to civil servants, it seems that – at least until recently – the Cabinet had not properly considered either a preferred end state or indeed transition policy.
The crucial point is that consumers will be fully informed of how much something will cost before they get to the very end of the checkout process.