That makes sense however there are advantages and disadvantages because isn't our say in that regulation then divided? This is like arguing to run a business by outsourcing the management of it to others who then take a decision which includes canvassing our competitors.
If we wanted to change certain regulations for example to ease services regulation (given we're a services economy) then where would that demand sit in the priority list and what happens if others disputed that change? Surely such a change would never benefit us if that change was to enable better competition with EU companies because wouldn't they benefit too?
When we were in the EU we had a Tory government but how much power did the Tory government have within the EU Parliament? The answer is none because the UK had no representation within the largest political faction (EPP). The Tories sat within the ECR group, a group representing just 10% of the EU Parliament, so a minority.
The only power that we wielded in the EU generally was in the European Council where our say was again divided and diluted. Even still the way in which EU treaties work if we for example wanted to reject our part in a common currency then we couldn't just say no due to the overwhelming interests of the others. We'd have to negotiate our way out of it and we did.
Establishment of which chemicals and/or chemical levels are harmful at an agreed level over thirty countries or thirty countries deciding which chemicals and levels they will allow and leading to country A using a chemical that is banned by country B and given they share a land border leading to disputes over chemicals leaching into one territory or another.
The point of EU regulation is harmonisation and cost efficiency meaning everyone is the same level playing field and no one is trying to cut potentially harmful corners. It is also designed to reduce territorial friction and national disputes given Europe has been famous for its national fisticuffs.
Will this lead to a country bitching about a regulation they don’t like? Absolutely, welcome to the EU. And why do countries stay? Because the trade benefits outweigh a quibble over a regulation or two, and countries are able to negotiate opt outs if they feel strongly about. Rule No 2 of the EU. There is always wriggle room for member states because member states ultimately decide what the EU can and cannot do. We opted out of many rules including limiting the working week because we British enjoy the right to work ourselves to death :)
If I recall the Tories took the decision to exclude themselves from the EPP grouping. It was too pro Europe for their tastes.
Look, we can either decide between cooperation or confrontation with our nearest neighbours. We opted for confrontation and a lot of us want to keep that confrontation alive and sod the trade benefits - these will be the same folk who bang on about economic growth (lol).
Starmer’s aim is to deal with the EU and revive those trade benefits and reduce the cost of doing business. A quick and dirty deal with the US also done to mitigate the initial impact of tariffs. He also wants a deal to reduce the optics of boat crossings and (I suspect) allow easier labour flow with the EU and lessen the need for more Brexit driven immigration which tends to be less transitory (if it’s easier and cheaper to move here, it’s easier to move on).
The other thing our economy needs is stability. It has taken too many shocks and suffered from too much political instability in recent years. It needs a continuity of purpose. This does not preclude mistakes, but it does need a Government willing to govern.
Will it work? I have no idea, but I for one like the general direction even if I disagree with some of the measures taken ie welfare.
