Wilfred Aspinall is a member of the Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.

The Labour government is looking for a better relationship with the EU but they haven’t set out what they mean. So far, what we have seen is the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary cosying up to the President of the EU Commission. At the moment, it is all smiles and attempts to indicate that all is well.

During the Mansion House speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England they both indicated the need to have a closer relationship with the EU, but not going back into the Single Market or the Customs Union. What is the plan? What will the Government cave in to?

In the House of Lords, an amendment has been put down to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill for the UK default position on product standards to be aligned to EU legislation. No doubt this isn’t just a coincidence. This is supported by 150 Labour MPs in the Labour Movement for Europe.

This amendment would mean that any agreement with the EU would be encased in EU law and come under the authority of the European Court of Justice. It would be very difficult for us to retain our own product standards regime in UK legislation if we had a default clause imposed. In, particular we might find it difficult to enter into any trade agreement with the United States.

Be under no illusion whatever comes out of these talks the main objective of the EU Commission will be to take us back under their control and ensure they retrieve their lost funds.

The Labour government under the leadership of Keir Starmer has a reputation for caving in during negotiations. Just look at the pay rises they agreed on.

Imagine ministers (and civil servants) who never supported leaving the EU in charge of trying to get better relations with the EU. Who will be put in charge, and what will be their mandate?

During the Leave negotiations, sovereignty, was an issue as was the demand that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings were not to be applied in the U.K. It is vitally essential that the U.K. does not fall under EU control and is influenced by European law.

Do you trust Keir Starmer and David Lammy to honour the legal sovereignty and integrity of the U.K. under our common law? I don’t.

EU legislative policy initiatives can only be created by the EU Commission. Individual directorates’ secretariat can investigate and propose a legislative proposal at any time. They must get the support of their EU Commissioner. If refused the proposal goes into the pending file to await a new Commissioner.

The proposal for a directive under European law is then scrutinised by the European Parliament, and the European Economic and Social Committee, and examined by working groups (of member state civil servants), before finally being adopted by the Council of Minsters (member state ministers).

There is a process of negotiation between the European Parliament and the Council. The EU Commission can at any time amend or withdraw the proposal. The U.K. is not now involved in this process. It is complex and difficult to stop EU legislation.

Starmer is a polished technocratic lawyer who led the charge against leaving the EU. He supported the call for a second referendum knowing only too well – as a lawyer – that there is a major difference in the way law is practiced and implemented in Europe from the UK. What is his objective during his chummy chats with the EU?

In the House of Commons, the European Affairs Scrutiny Select Committee has been abolished by the government. No direct scrutiny is taking place. Statements might be made but what discussions and briefings are taking place at the Ministerial / EU Commissioner level and U.K. civil service / EU Commission directorate level?

The Conservatives should demand the government spell out more information. Our MPs need to study the game of the last 50 years. To bring the government to account we need:

• A Green Paper setting out the Government’s objectives (for open consultation with interested bodies)
• White Paper giving a specific and clear policy pathway to be taken that sets out red lines that must not be crossed.

We have to be mindful that when the EU published its ‘White Paper establishing the EU Internal Market in 1985’ (the single market) the Commission were convinced that trading standards introduced by Directives under the competence of the EU Commission and enforced by the European Court of Justice would be recognised throughout the world. The CE mark was introduced that verified all products could be safely marketed in the EU – and as they thought throughout the world. This was fantasy land.

It was the same EU Commission secretariat that took the view that the single currency – the Euro – would become the reserve currency for all financial trade in the world. That too was a fantasy. Every EU Agreement and Treaty is composed under European law and ECJ interpretation and control.

Today the U.K. has the UKCA (United Kingdom Conformity Assessment) mark to verify that the product is safe to be marketed. This replaces the CE mark for products placed on the market.

Sovereignty must not be taken away by stealth.  The EU Commission will have a long-term objective. If the HoL amendment goes through or informal talks develop, Directives will be enforced by the EU Commission under ECJ control to enable new Directives or amendments concerning EU trading standards legislation to be implemented in the U.K.  Once we start to go along that path we will be required to agree to changes in our laws and practices that will be difficult to appeal against.

We need transparency and democratic Parliamentary scrutiny taking place at all levels of government during these discussions.

Subjects on the agenda appear to include joining military exercises with an EU army (which does not exist), and undertaking foreign policy and diplomatic actions under the authority of the EEAS “European External Action Service”.

Other issues yet to be fully disclosed include recent discussions with Interpol and the National Crime Agency and the exchange of information on national security. Will all this put into question the ‘5 Eyes Intelligence Alliance (FVEY)’ between the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. and deter any free trade deal with the USA?

Any subjects being considered in these discussions with the EU will be carefully crafted by an agreement composed by the EU Commission under European law and exercised under the authority of the ECJ. This practice must be rejected.

Could we see a potential erosion of U.K. sovereignty that will slowly bring about a move for the U.K. to rejoin the EU? We must insist these chummy informal discussions are transparent and the Government accountable not just to Parliament, but also to the British electorate. There must be no policy for stealth.

Publications during Exit from the EU

Wilfred Aspinall written evidence December 2015 – Treaty Changes

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/2735/uk-governments-renegotiation-of-eu-membership-parliamentary-sovereignty-and-scrutiny-inquiry/publications/

Wilfred Aspinall Written Evidence to HoL Scrutiny Committee

Click to access 50.pdf

Pathway to Exiting the EU – Analysis

https://eustrategy.wordpress.com/blog/

Northern Island Protocol – Analysis by Wilfred Aspinall

https://brexitstrategy.wordpress.com/