Gisela Stuart and Change Britain have published an interesting Q&A on what “regulatory alignment” means under the definition used in existing EU trade agreements – and it doesn’t look good. They say alignment would make Britain a rule-taker, where we have to follow EU rules but have no say, a worst of all worlds option.
‘Regulatory alignment’ is used by the EU in trade agreements to force other countries to accept EU law. The Ukraine-EU agreement, for example, makes clear that regulatory alignment means ‘Ukraine shall… incorporate the relevant EU acquis into its legislation’
The referendum result was a vote for the UK to take back control of its laws. If we have to accept an agreement where our laws continue to be written in Brussels – without elected British representatives having any say over them – this would clearly be incompatible with that result.
Gisela says accepting regulatory alignment would be “completely unacceptable”:
“The referendum result was a vote for real change, a vote to do things differently, and most importantly a vote to take back control. It would therefore be completely unacceptable if we were forced to agree a deal where regulatory alignment saw the UK continue to be subject to rules designed and imposed by Brussels. It would be Single Market membership in all but name.”
Boris, Gove and Brexiteer Tory MPs will agree with Gisela…