Using secondary legislation to align with Europe is a sensible approach - Yorkshire Post Letters

The Government’s use of secondary legislation to align with European single market rules isn’t the democratic concern your front-page report suggests (MPs ‘may not get vote’ on EU rules, April 14).

It is a sensible, pragmatic solution ensuring our politicians and civil servants won’t get bogged down in minutiae as ministers seek to make it easier for British firms to trade with Europe.

Only ideologues who would rather see the UK economy damaged than enjoy prosperous relations with our European allies will object. While Brexit hardliners might attempt to exaggerate differences, the truth is we are very similar countries with similar tastes and expectations.

As Chancellor Rachel Reeves says, it is in Britain’s interests that any divergence should be “the exception, not the norm”.

Using secondary legislation means that when Brussels updates standards, it will take mere days or weeks of parliamentary time to mirror them, not months. The primary legislation route would make it far too easy for those wishing to sabotage our European “reset” for their own small-minded political ends.

Kemi Badenoch called the use of secondary legislation “the worst of both worlds” – outside the EU but still following its rules. Firstly, it is interesting that the Tory leader inadvertently concedes that being in the EU might be better than our current situation.

Secondly, it ignores the reality that we are already rule-takers. Firms exporting to Europe, or using EU suppliers, must observe its rules anyway. This is simply about removing red tape for employers; a benefit we shouldn’t needlessly delay.

Your accompanying comment piece warned the Government against “pulling the rug” from under firms that have “utilised Brexit freedoms”. But are there practical examples of these?

Due to the 'Brussels Effect', many countries outside the EU volunteer to adopt its gold standards. Even British firms exporting globally are already following EU rules because international markets demand it.

One highly touted “Brexit freedom” was making pint-sized wine bottles legal, securing endless press coverage because it was apparently Churchill’s favourite size. These have been legal for two years, yet have you ever seen one?

It doesn’t make commercial sense for suppliers to abandon global synergies and economies of scale for a niche British market. Imagine how much ministerial and civil service time was wasted on this phantom freedom.

Secondary legislation is sensible. Scrutiny for anything of serious concern will still exist, but Reeves’s “exception, not the norm” principle is a good, workable solution.