Mogged

JRM has been made minister for Brexit Oportunities, and in an interview he suggested a major change of policy in that there should not need be checks without good reason.

The Government has since rejected this.

So, this is either the case of a poorly briefed Minister or one who talks without speaking, or maybe a combination of both.

@pmdfoster wrote:

This is a story about how No.10 quietly shot down @Jacob_Rees_Mogg the new #brexit opportunities minister…and a story that begs questions over just how low the bar for ministerial competence appears to be set.

It starts on February 14 when Rees-Mogg lauds a report by the right-wing think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs advocating that the UK unilaterally recognises other countries standards to make the most of Brexit.

Then, last Saturday, Rees-Mogg expanded on the idea in an interview with The Times in which he said there was “no point" repeating tests already conducted. "why do we need to put the cost on companies of testing it twice?"

Quite.

That would be a brilliant insight from the new minister -- and indeed one, we shall see, that is widely shared by industry -- except that the entire UK approach to standards post #Brexit is based on testing twice. Something that seems to have evaded Rees-Mogg.

To recap, the UK is introducing, from January 2023 the "UKCA" mark, which is a copycat version of the EU's "CE" quality mark (have a look on the back of your phone...you'll see one there...and everywhere.

And industry has been warning this is a massive waste of time and money.

the government did not intend require firms to submit products for new British saftey test if recognisesd by EU's CE mark...well industry was both surprised, perplexed, but even a little hopeful that the new minister was heralding a change of tack.

They were, to be honest, surpised since only last week BEIS officials were holding industry conference calls warning that (despite endless lobbying) the UK govt wasn't going to budge. The UKCA mark deadline wasn't going to shift...but perhaps Rees-Mogg had other ideas??

So we put this to No 10. Did this herald a change of policy? A shift away from the entire 'sovereignty first' policy that has informed UK approach to trade with EU since Brexit? Hence UKCA. Hence no veterinary/SPS agreement. Hence creating UK REACH chemicals copycat database

And the answer came back....er...no. It didn't. “Our position has not changed.”

The new minister was just articulating his broad ambitions for his new job rather than specific new policies on removing “non-tariff barriers” to trade.

Or put another way, the new minister clearly didn't really understand what he was saying.

Thing is, spouting right-wing free trade platitudes is fine as a backbencher. But as a minster there's a danger someone might take you seriously. Perish the thought.

Clearly Rees-Mogg is there to troll the remainers -- to wibble about the fish being free etc -- and to right to Sun readers asking for suggestions for EU regulations to cut. But at some point, if Brexiters want their project to be taken seriously, they should be serious.

What was fascinating reporting this story -- trying to ascertain if this was a big policy shift or just Rees-Mogg not reading his brief -- the general assumption in Whitehall was latter. "It'll just be Rees-Mogg not knowing what he's talking about".

Or as one exec put it: “We didn’t know if this was a change in policy, or if the minister was just freelancing, but it looked very much like this hadn’t been through the Whitehall government policymaking sausage machine."

Suffice to say, we are where we were...still about to impose a raft of duplicate testing and certification on UK companies (and their EU suppliers) that Rees-Mogg correctly identifies has "no point"...but we're going to do anyway.

o be clear "unilateral recognition" of other regimes is not without its problems -- and the EU (Barnier speech) has always been clear that the UK will not be allowed to keep its role as an EU single market "certification hub" after #Brexit

It's also the case that those 'non tariff barriers' are actually standars that are there to keep folks safe -- from food poisoning or chemical contamination -- and ensure a level playing field for firms on both side of the EU border

What industry really wants, as @William_Bain and Russell Antram of @CBItweets explain, is mutual recognition agreements that ease bureaucratic burdens of trade. Tricky, tbh, particularly with Northern Ireland situation poisoning deeper engagement.

It would be a start to have ministers that are serious about getting across the brief, rather than signalling to the base.