The Kings Speech at the formal State Opening of Parliament on 13 May – as was expected – introduced legislation to reset the relations with the EU.

As Keir Starmer stated last in his recent Monday speech it is his wish to have a closer and active relationship implying that by doing so all the UK’s economic and social problems will fade away. It might appear that both Wess Streeting and Andy Burnham have the same view.

They (Labour MP’s as a whole) are in cuckoo land and by making this statement gives the EU elite an open goal to make demands that will unpick the decision of the 2016 Referendum. Not only that but they are admitting that this Labour government have not got a clue what to do about the UK economy and the social problems currently confronting us here in the U.K. 

The Labour government only received 33% of those that voted in the 2024 GE yet they obtained a landslide number of MP.’s. Roughly 9.7m out of a 49m registered to vote which as a percentage

 of the electorate is about 20%. The turnout was 59.7%

Not really a democratic signal that allows them to think they can do anything without a decision being made by the public when it comes to alignment with EU legislation. 

In the 2016 Referendum there was turnout of 72.2% of the electorate of 46.5 million. Roughly 37.4% voted to leave; 34.7% voted to remain; 27.8% didn’t vote

What is even worse is the procedure to be used to enact this transfer of sovereignty to the EU. Any changes will be created not through direct legislation as we know it but by the use of Statutory Instruments controlled by the Labour government using its vast majority. These SI’s are “bagged” in the pouch behind the Speakers Chair (put on a published list) and unless there is an objection automatically adopted. No parliamentary scrutiny.

What have we come to – some might say a minority electoral dictatorship. This sort of manipulation of legislation is not what we deserve nor want to see. Even the HoC EU Scrutiny Select Committee was abolished

Instead the government should produce a Green Paper setting out what they are – undemocratically – intending to do in their  EU reset programme. Allow consultation which would require them to explain the process how EU legislation is created under European Law (the Napoleonic Code) and subject to the ruling of the European Court of Justice. Of course they will not do that. All part of the socialistic ideology to control the majority.

The Labour government does not have a mandate and instead will introduce procedure to enable new rules on standards for goods and services to be introduced to align with the EU. This action by clever stealth but will not create growth for the U.K.

This strategy will be voted through and the government will have their way. Out of the woodwork will emerge those besotted by the EU objectives of control through more EU regulation which is not going to bring about prosperity. Not growth nor aspiration. 

The EU objective is to control by a centralised state of order under European Law (the Napoleonic Code) where in effect unelected bureaucrats govern with politicians not needing to make decisions. Actually that sounds very socialistic.

The time has come when other political and public opinion should declare their position on whether alignment with EU standards together a wish to rejoin the EU can be tolerated.

What the U.K. needs to do is deregulate rules on a massive scale, get away from the EU principle of everything needs to be regulated – under legislative European Law – which is subject to interpretation and after thought.

We should deregulate for growth – a BIG BANG; become an open competitive economy. That would be breaking the past with the future. A momentum and vision towards growth

If we aspire to see growth in our economy we have to move away from the current regulatory culture and bring about a regime that allows business and our citizens to prosper without having to spend time and money fiddling around bureaucratic structures. I am not saying get rid of health and safety in both the production and consumer sales but use common sense and cut out that which is unnecessary. 

In turn abolish the Quango regime.

Outside the EU we can do this. Inside we cannot 

To give you a very simple example – do we need an EU Directive controlling “SOIL”. (Even one under UK legislation). This product is different all over the U.K. (and also in the EU). By having legislation, monitoring and control mechanisms, having farmers to fill in loads of bureaucratic reports does that represent a pathway to growth. In my view it does not. That applies to all sorts of practices where regulation stifles growth.

European Decisions, Directives and Regulations are composed by the European Commission ( the professional staff under Directorates) adopted by the College of Commissioners, scrutinised by the European Parliament (and other EU Institutions like the European Economic and Social Committee with one reading). The Council of Ministers working groups of civil servants from each member state. Finally by the Council of Ministers sitting in full session adopting the legislation by Qualified Majority. (This step does not scrutinise the legislation in detail but in principle agrees the final draft with amendments in conjunction with the European Parliament).

Decisions, Directives and Regulations once adopted are implemented in the member states (a Regulation without any UK parliamentary scrutiny (cannot be amended)

The 2016 Referendum changed all that and we should take all advantages to grow our economy outside the EU.

The 1985 EU Internal Market White Paper (which created the – single market) – was proposed by Lord Arthur Cockfield. I remember well asking him – deliberately – why Financial Services and Energy were not included. His answer was that the U.K. under Mrs Thatcher opposed such a move. (Lord Cockfield was appointed by Mrs T but there followed some disagreement).

The following year Nigel Lawson the U.K. Chancellor introduced the “Big Bang” deregulation of financial services in the U.K. This in effect created the City of London as the central hub for financial services in Europe. The financial services market requires flexibility. This must not change.

The EU – in particular the Commission – have tried many times to regulate all financial services at EU level but failed. In one attempt it was proposed in a high level Report by Baron Lamfallusy that all EU financial services legislation should be proposed under the regime of EU Regulations – which would mean full convergence without scrutiny in the member states. This did not happen because the U.K. had a veto.

The Commission efforts to converge energy policy also fell by the wayside although the U.K. were not in principle against. Other member states were suspicious of the U.K’s intentions.

Here we now have a Labour government with its Leader (and others) up against the ropes toadying to the EU and  backbench MP’s which fulfils the EU’s objective to control everything by EU legislation. We have potential leadership candidates saying we should rejoin – yet no mandate.

This is a very dangerous strategy. Today goods and services can be traded with the EU member states but the product must comply with EU standards and verified by the CE mark. The EU Commission have always wanted legislative control to activate their objective so that EU standards will become accepted worldwide. This has wider implications 

The U.K. would have to relinquish all Trade Agreements which is a stagnant position.

 The strategy by this government would be the start where u-turns would become natural; where at a later point the Euro might become the main world reserve currency and the U.K. required to join. Our monetary policy guided by the ECB

Both financial services and energy sectors are not really EU regulated and are traded in The City of London in trillions of  US dollars every day. To do this requires a flexible market. Not a fixed regulated market.

The EU is manic that they want control and will attempt to destroy the City of London dominance over financial services.

Imagine some obscure EU legislation introduced by the EU Commission, not understood by the politicians in the European Parliament – where the U.K. will not be represented – that changes the U.K. position on financial services and by Statutory Instrument the U.K. trading dominance gone

The idea that The Labour government can without a mandate, without detailed consultation – not asking the electorate in a Referendum but initiating an EU legislative reset by stealth which would erode the ability of the U.K. to have control is quite undemocratic.

The Labour government is undermining the democratic way in which we are governed using common law. To be clear this is a typical European way to introduce regulation and control

This Labour policy to quietly align policies with EU legislation will not aid economic growth and should be resisted 

<><><><><>

Additional Information 

I found myself appointed to the European Economic and Social Committee by Mrs T with a clear mandate whispered in my ear “probe everything – make a nuisance of yourself”. My position was soon under scrutiny and I was prevented from joining a Group in the European Economic and Social Committee. As the Groups nominated speakers during Plenary I found that at the first Session that although I wished to speak I would not be called. Well I won that argument by referring to the Institutions Constitution where every member appointed was independent and voluntarily joined a Group. This was an important result otherwise I would have neutered any future contribution to any debate. I was never challenged again and in fact my profile aided. At times I would get a “heckle” from some members chanting “Thatcher Man”. A lone voice can express a view and if logical listened to. I have many instances and procedures that I could recall. The process of influence can be made by working  the system by researching the detail even if a lone voice. 

I must say that whenever I sought personal contact with EU Commissioners or Commission officials I was never denied.

Into my second 4 year mandate I was joined by Neville Beale – a former member of the GLC for Finchley (Mrs T’s parliamentary seat).  Not only did we play the system but fed back information. It was a very interesting time but required careful liaison. The third 4 year mandate continued the same.