Of all the dangerous, anti-democratic pieces of legislation brought forward by our government since Brexit, one of the most controversial is the retained EU law (revocation and reform bill (REUL). Better known as the Brexit freedoms bill, the supposed freedoms the bill claims to proffer seem as elusive as any so-called Brexit benefit.

Brexit freedoms bill

The bill was introduced by former prime minister Liz Truss, during her brief stint in Number 10. It is sponsored by staunch Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), and is currently making its way through the House of Commons.

So much at stake

The aim of the REUL bill is to replace almost 4,000 EU laws currently on the British statute books. These laws provide protection for a wide range of hard-won protections including workers’ rights, food safety standards, animal welfare, environmental protections and many more.

Although the government has pledged not to lower standards in the process of revoking and reforming EU law, it’s increasingly hard to find anyone who takes that promise at face value. Especially when so many Brexit promises have already proven worthless.

According to the REUL public dashboard, 570 of the EU laws relate to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 424 to Transport; 374 to the Treasury; 318 to BEIS; 228 to Revenue and Customs and 208 to Work and Pensions. That’s assuming, of course, that these government figures are reliable.

Up until the beginning of November, only 2,400 EU laws had been identified. A further 1,400 laws were recently discovered by government researchers. Although according to Rees-Mogg the additional laws were “ones departments do not use and were dredged up” and, he added, “removing them is simple”.

In his own BEIS department, 77 full-time staff are said to be working on the 318 laws relating to that department alone. Whether the wider government has enough civil servants to handle so many EU laws is another unanswered question.

We need to organise to stop the insanely dangerous Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

That this govt would open up this country to such dangers should see them chased out of office! https://t.co/8YQTtPsezY

— Liz Webster (@LizWebsterLD) December 5, 2022

Businesses already struggling

In a recent survey of company directors by the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) there was little understanding of the government’s proposals. Half of those surveyed said deregulation was either a low or non-existent priority, and just 4% claimed to comprehensively understand the bill and its impact on their business.

According to William Bain, head of trade policy at BCC, businesses “are not clamouring for a bonfire of regulations for the sake of it”. He warned that divergence from EU regulations “would add to company costs” at a time when businesses were “already struggling with soaring inflation and other barriers to trade with the EU”.

The fact that businesses are largely critical of the bill is being ignored by government. The party that used to claim to be the defenders of business and the economy, no longer seem to be claiming to protect either. The Tory party are no longer listening. Except to themselves.

World-leading idiocy:

“As part of the Retained EU Law Bill, the UK government is risking scrapping over a thousand laws that protect the environment, including those which protect wild places and wildlife, and ensure minimum standards for water quality and pollution.”

— The Purple Pimpernel (@Eyeswideopen69) December 1, 2022

So much for health and safety

The latest strong criticism came from the British Safety Council. Chief executive Mike Robinson recently wrote that the government seemed “hell-bent” on destroying the UK’s record on health and safety.

While acknowledging there are areas where legislation could be improved, Robinson said there were “big risks involved” with the government’s approach. He drew particular attention to high-risk industries, like construction and chemicals. He expressed concern over the potential replacement of existing protections and with responsibilities being imposed on “duty-holders”. He asked, “are we really going to leave it up to individual businesses to decide for themselves?” I guess that’s one way to interpret “taking back control”.

Robinson stated that the bill must be “changed or scrapped on the basis that it would be too damaging and risky to go ahead”

Not fit for purpose

The bill also gives the government the power to simply ‘switch off’ EU laws at the end of 2023 without consultation with parliament or the public. The so-called ‘sunset clause’ means that any EU legislation still on the books at the end of next year will simply expire. Along with all the protections, rights and standards that any such laws sought to safeguard.

The government’s own independent assessor described government proposals as “not fit for purpose”. With regard to the sunset clause in particular, the watchdog said the government had not provided sufficient grounds for the decision.

The battle isn’t over

Although the REUL bill may have already passed the second reading in the House of Commons, its further passage is not expected to go smoothly. Many amendments are in the pipeline and there is likely to be fierce debate in the House of Lords.

But the battle won’t just take place in the halls of parliament. Opposition is widespread with so many industries and sectors affected. From legal experts to unions, from environmentalists to farmers, from business leaders to economists, from human rights activists to health professionals – the opposition is as far-reaching as the rights that the EU laws protect.

Whether your personal passion is for one affected area – nature, animal welfare, food safety, human rights – or for all of them, this bill is damaging and dangerous. And completely unnecessary. The rights we have to work fewer hours, to eat safe food, to treat animals and the environment with respect and care etc., took many years to agree and to protect by law. We cannot allow this irresponsible government, driven solely by ideology, to undo all that work in one fell swoop.

If the government is successful, we will all pay a terrible price. And it’s one that neither the public, nor the country can afford. EU law is not bad for our health and safety. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our government.

Dear Prime Minister,

Firstly, my apologies for not writing to you before to congratulate you on your new job. I just thought I’d better hang on for a few weeks to make sure your premiership had a longer shelf-life than your predecessor’s. So, having waited a month, big congrats! Even if you don’t last past the next election, as least you’ll have beaten Dizzy Lizzie’s short spell in office.

I appreciate you must have a great deal on your plate (what multi-millionaire doesn’t?) and that the job is probably a lot more difficult and demanding than you anticipated. Despite that, I hope you think it was worth any sacrifices you may have made. At least your wife hasn’t had to make any, and can always keep you in the style you’ve become accustomed to, no matter what happens in your political career.

With so much going wrong in the country it must be tough to choose where to focus or prioritise your attention and our money. Especially when you have those to the left of you, those to the right of you, and (if there are any) those to the far right of you telling what you absolutely must do, and right now!

Just this week alone I note that you have described relations with China as the end of a “golden era”. Relations with the USA also seem strained, though I’m pleased to see that you and Ursula von der Leyen are making positive noises. Do you know what would really, really improve relations with the EU? Getting rid of that nasty piece of legislation, the Protocol Bill. Though I do appreciate, that with so many nasty pieces of legislation to choose from, it must be difficult to know which bill to ditch first. With so many of them liable to remove rights from the public but likely to give more powers to yourself. I imagine there will be many sleepless nights ahead while the Tory Party gremlins mess with your head.

As a former Chancellor, I had rather expected that you’d have a better understanding of how the UK economy works, or should work. I have to admit, I’m not a fan of ‘Austerity 2.0’, but then I wasn’t a fan of ‘Austerity 1.0’ either. I would be much more inclined to give it a chance if the government hadn’t wasted so much taxpayers’ money on failed PPE contracts, a failed Test & Trace system, a so-called Festival of Brexit, on MPs pay rises and expenses and goodness only knows what else. The very fact that you are now planning to use my/our money to pay for your Christmas parties is just adding insult to grievous injury. Couldn’t your wife treat you all? After all, I assume she’ll be present.

I would like to offer, though, credit where’s it’s due and say thank you for avoiding the annoying habit your two predecessors were so fond of. That of governing by slogan. I am not aware of any Sunak-specific soundbites. I assume that means that there aren’t any. The alternative – that they are so bad as to have gone unnoticed – is hardly preferable.

With regards to how I might be of assistance to you, I understand you are still looking (though perhaps not very hard) for an Ethics Advisor. Despite the downgrading of any powers for the title holder, I’m sure I could offer some interesting, even radical, ideas on the way forward, and frankly, I could use the money! My paltry pension, even with the triple lock retained (thank you kindly) does not stretch far when everything has gotten so much more expensive. Yes, I know, it’s Covid, it’s Ukraine. But, it’s also the dreaded Brexit. Now when even the BBC are discussing widespread Brexit damage, surely it’s time politicians, especially those at the top, did likewise.

The main opposition leader is seemingly trying to be more Brexity than your lot, believing it will win him the next election. With so many Remainer MPs now converts to the Brexit cult, wouldn’t it be novel if a few Brexiter MPs changed their minds too? Not sure I should be pointing this out to you but you could turn public opinion in your favour if you changed tack by promising a return to the Single Market, the Customs Union or, heaven forfend, the EU itself. Of course, you would have the tall order of convincing the country that Tory promises are worth the manifesto they are written on, but I honestly think it’s worth a shot. Beat the opposition to it and get that growing number of Remainers on your side for a change.

I will leave you to ponder how to turn around the fate of your party. I would just like to hope that in the process, you, your cabinet and your government give some thought to turning around the fate of the country. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but SS Britannia is sinking fast and there’s a distinct lack of friendly neighbours willing to rush to our aid. I wish you every success in turning the ship around, and in your goal of returning the Conservative Party to power at some distant decade in the future.

In the meantime, try not to do as much damage as the last three residents of Number 10 have done, and give the nurses, postal workers, train drivers etc. a pay rise. You may think the country can’t afford to do it. In fact, it can’t afford not to.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson MBE

On Tuesday 29 November, the governor of the Bank of England (BoE), Andrew Bailey, gave evidence to the House of Lords economic affairs committee. The oral evidence session with the governor is an annual event and was expected to cover a number of topics, including quantitative easing, financial risks, inflation and the supply of labour, both historically and looking forward.

pic.twitter.com/xYlzQoSdBp

— Lords Economic Affairs Committee (@LordsEconCom) November 29, 2022

Unsurprisingly, there was little good news and lots of talk about the “scale of the external shocks that are hitting the economy”. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, the list of factors affecting the UK economy did not include Brexit. In two hours of discussion and debate, not one single mention. From anyone.

Not a budget

While many factors, such as the war in Ukraine and the pandemic were external contributors to the current economic situation, there were domestic factors too. The most significant of these – if you ignore the government’s general mishandling of the economy, and of course, Brexit – was the disastrous autumn mini-budget.

When committee members referred to the statement as a budget, they were corrected by the governor. It was, in fact, a “fiscal event”, not a budget. Had it been a budget, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) – the official fiscal watchdog – would have had to be involved. By labelling the budget a fiscal event, the OBR was left out of the loop completely. Bailey added that the “message that came across”, was that “we didn’t want the OBR involved”.

“The lack of clarity between the former Prime Minister and Chancellor about what was actually going to be in the fiscal statement illustrates the problem. It was not known and it was not clear what was going to be in this statement.”

— Lords Economic Affairs Committee (@LordsEconCom) November 29, 2022

It would appear that the BoE, to a lesser extent, was also kept in the dark. When questioned about whether the bank had been fully informed in advance of the statement, and in particular, whether the bank had received “advance warning of… £46 billion of unfunded tax cuts”, Bailey responded, “we did not know what was going to be in the statement”.

Bailey said that while it was not always necessary to know all the “detailed measures” in advance, the bank would expect to be informed on “the economic impact” of any proposed policy. Many people had described the situation to him, he added, as “flying blind”. The BoE, for example, had had “no idea” that the government had plans to abolish the top rate of tax.

Bailey said there was no doubt in his mind “that Treasury officials told the BoE and me everything they knew”. There was no question of anything “being hidden”, he said. There was, however, a “lack of clarity”, even “between the former prime minister and the chancellor about what was going to be in the fiscal statement.” Which rather, Bailey said, “illustrates the problem”.

Andrew Bailey, Governor of the @bankofengland: “The scale of the external shocks that are hitting the economy and the effect they’re having are coming through as a very big shock to the UK’s real economy…” pic.twitter.com/GmxmDgoUpE

— Lords Economic Affairs Committee (@LordsEconCom) November 29, 2022

External shocks to the system

The governor spoke of the scale of the external factors affecting the economic outlook, describing them as a “very big shock to the UK’s real economy”. In particular, Bailey highlighted the scale of the shock from the energy crisis, which was seen as a “substantial risk” and which was “larger than any single year in the 1970”.

The governor spoke of what he regarded as the three biggest risks to the UK economy. The first of these – the energy price shock coming from Russia and Ukraine – he described as “reasonably stable” in terms of size and force. The second factor, and the earliest, was the post-Covid supply chain shock, which he said was “unwinding”. The third shock, which unlike the first two was heading “the other way”, was food, affected by both domestic and external factors.

The biggest story

According to Bailey, “the biggest story is the labour market”, which is “much more constrained” in Britain than elsewhere. Where other economies – such as the US or the Eurozone – had recovered to pre-Covid levels, the UK was lagging behind. However, Bailey claims that recruitment issues many companies have been facing are now gradually starting to ease with the ratio of vacancies to unemployment stabilising, albeit at a high level.

The BoE, said Bailey, has been saying for over a year that there was “a very big real income shock” coming and that the consequences of that blow need to be dealt with. It seemed to be widely accepted that this was due to a “change in the terms of trade”. The impact of the real income shock is one being felt by the public who, apparently, are failing to understand why they can’t be paid in line with inflation. The risk, said Bailey, is coming from second-hand effects – caused by “constraint in labour supply”, “wage-bargaining” and “price-setting” – which would require the BoE to further raise inflation.

Whatever our economic future holds, it seems clear that the British economy is not in a healthy state or, perhaps, in the safest of hands. While so many in Westminster fail to acknowledge a significant cause of our present economic situation, it’s difficult to see how our finances can or will improve.

During the course of the committee meeting, the governor at one point complained that “quite a bit of the commentary” regarding the British economy “pretends that Covid never happened”. That may well be the case. Yet the bank and the government continue to pretend that Brexit never happened. Thankfully, the public, and increasingly the press, are joining the dots. It would be helpful if those in charge of running the economy effectively did likewise.