Read on Twitter
With various Brexit supporting types talking about the great opportunities ahead from cutting regulations I am considering the need to discuss why this doesn't work, business don't want it, and in any case we already signed up to the opposite.
For a start anything to do with climate change or labour - we signed a treaty to say we wouldn't regress. I reckon removing the working time directive falls foul of that. You can make a case on REACH as well. Perhaps first check commitments?
Actually two treaties. Because under the Withdrawal Agreement anything to do with goods regulations isn't changing in Northern Ireland. Deregulate in GB and risk higher internal trade barriers of the type we're not supposed to have in the first place.
Deregulate data protection or financial services? That might just reduce our chances of getting equivalence decisions from the EU. Similarly if we deregulated anything to do with qualifications.
What about lowering food standards, let's say a friendly country needed this as part of a trade deal? Well, that's going to mean less chance of an agreement to reduce food inspections, so higher cost, and again Northern Ireland won't be covered.
This is even assuming that there is political demand for lower regulation. There usually is in theory. But rarely in practice. The Daily Mail regularly calls for more regulation when something goes wrong. And of course Grenfell tower, a tragic case of under regulation.
Then the businesses that trade, they want to match the regulations of the largest markets. In the US, known as the California Effect. Globally we have the Brussels Effect. Similar theory. And these tend to be the larger, more productive business. With higher lobbying costs.
So, anyway, a long and unrealistic debate about deregulation, just what we don't need after a long and unrealistic debate about trade and the EU.
