What decisions could the UK actually take to avoid managed decline?

[HSTEd]

Which, funnily enough, was exactly what the predominant national narrative was in the years immediately before Mrs. Thatcher came to power. By the end of her 10 years in office, that talk was almost completely gone: The prevailing culture was much more of an expectation of economic growth, and now 32 years later we're back to talking about national decline.

And yet average aggregate economic growth actually decreased during her time in government.
Interesting how the perception in the minds of parts of the population disagrees with the statistics isn't it?

So, because the UK economy has gone nowhere in a period starting around 2007, you're blaming a Government that had already left office 17 years previously?!?!?!?

A long term project has long term consequences, I don't think you can really have it both ways!

For what it's worth, my own thesis would be that the main reason the UK economy has gone nowhere recently (aside from the short-term shocks of Brexit/Covid/Ukraine) is that we have largely forgotten the lessons of Thatcherism, and instead increasingly moved towards big-state-trying-to-do-everything, high-regulation, dependency-culture: All the things that the Thatcher Government correctly recognised as harmful to a prosperous society. The ultimate irony is that that has largely happened under Tory-lead Governments.

I'd argue that the "dependency culture" is the inevitable consequence of my view of Thatcherite strategy.
If you view her policies through the lens of chosing a demographic and diverting a greater and greater share of societal resources to them to improve their lived experience, thus buying their loyalty, it makes perfect sense.

First she sold off everything she could find for quick cash to pay for artificially low taxes and turned over all the council housing to a demographic at a small fraction of its real value. Then her immediate successors in the 90s choked off housing supply, causing a huge housing boom and transferring vast amounts of wealth to the demographics in possession of the houses. Meanwhile, university tuition was cut off for the generation below. And finally, as that demographic reaches pension age, ever greater resources are poured into pension-age benefits to ensure that the last drops of wealth are squeezed out of the British orange.

Perhaps I'm cynical to the point of being a conspiracy theorist but it does seem to fit remarkably well for a series of totally unrelated policies....

EDIT:

This is the generation that has such a huge demographic advantage over everyone else that a party gaining their support automatically wins elections - see the post 2010 Conservative electoral strategy.

 

[najaB]

Do you have any links to back that up?

This has been the conclusion of several different research papers. For example, this paper shows a strong correlation between tax take and human development index.

Of course, correlation doesn't prove causation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This has been the conclusion of several different research papers. For example, this paper shows a strong correlation between tax take and human development index.

Ummm, thanks, but that's not a paper... it's a blog! And, sorry to have to prick the link, but I don't regard Richard Murphy as a reputable source. I have far too many memories of having to debunk stuff where he's cherry-picked or obviously misinterpreted statistics, or left out key information that changes the picture. If - as in this blog - he says something like, 'Paper X shows Y', that gives me precisely zero confidence that paper X does actually show Y. And I note on a quick scan of this blog that he claims an academic paper shows a correlation to tax, but he doesn't - as far as I can see - provide any obvious link to that paper. To my mind, that is immediately suspicious.

Of course if you could provide a link to the original paper and it does turn out to provide compelling evidence...

Of course, correlation doesn't prove causation.

That is true. And of course, particularly relevant here, since I'm sure we can both think of reasons to suspect that a high human development index might plausibly lead to people being willing to be taxed more

 

[brad465]

For what it's worth, my own thesis would be that the main reason the UK economy has gone nowhere recently (aside from the short-term shocks of Brexit/Covid/Ukraine) is that we have largely forgotten the lessons of Thatcherism, and instead increasingly moved towards big-state-trying-to-do-everything, high-regulation, dependency-culture: All the things that the Thatcher Government correctly recognised as harmful to a prosperous society. The ultimate irony is that that has largely happened under Tory-lead Governments.

Regulation is necessary in places though, such as for environmental protections, rights and restrictions on dubious/reckless activity. The 2008 crash was a result of insufficient regulation for starters, and I certainly don't see how water companies dumping sewage into rivers and bathing waters is a good thing, to name a couple.

As for economic stagnation, I think this is in part due to the previously unheard of monetary policy behaviour of the Bank of England and its Western equivalents: they put interest rates down to unheard of levels (the ECB even decided to go negative, along with the Swiss CB), and turned on the money printers like it was going out of fashion. This helped inflate the value of assets, including housing, markets, commodities, and encouraged more money to be put into unproductive areas where they could earn loads by just sitting there, rather than being invested in something meaningful. This economic behaviour also made inequality worse and I believe is one of the contributing causes to more extreme political views today.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Unfortunately our problems have been largely caused by a lack of regulation:

Lack of regulation of financial markets - leading to the 2008 crisis from which we've not yet recovered

The 2008 crisis was an international crisis that originated in the USA, and then spread across the World. It didn't start in the UK.

Lack of regulation of the housing market, enabling speculators to buy up a valuable commodity and price working people out

While this kind of speculation undoubtedly happens in a few geographical areas (such as central London) the impact on housing is almost certainly negligible in comparison to the basic shortage of housing across the UK. And one of the prime causes of the shortage of housing is almost certainly the planning system: In other words, the regulations.

Lack of regulation of the takeover market enabling Britain to be denuded of its companies

Companies taking over other companies isn't necessarily a bad thing. Nor is foreign ownership of companies.

Lack of regulation of energy production, leading to a loss of control of natural resources and their pricing on the open market

Yet, only about 16 months ago, quite a few smaller energy companies went bust as a direct result of (over-)regulation of prices. The result is of course that now there is less competition which is likely in the long run to lead to higher prices - the very thing that the regulations were supposed to prevent!

Lack of regulation of most train fares, meaning higher walk on fares than most of Europe.

I think you'd struggle to make a case there. Many common fares are very tightly regulated, which is obviously going to have knock on effects on the other fares. Maybe I'm mistaken, but my own understanding is that quite a few absurdities of the fare system (such as singles costing practically the same as returns) are the result of Government (over-)regulation. Add to this the general consensus that one of the many problems the rail industry faces is constant meddling and micro-management by the DfT (which isn't quite the same thing as over-regulation, but is pretty close)

 

[The Ham]

Germany is like a mini-Japan with an ageing population and very low birth rate but has had a fair bit of refugee immigration in the last few years which should help to an extent.

Yet the UK is also seeing an aging population (almost all the recent growth in population has been from those aged over 65 with 0-18 and 18-65 being broadly flat).

But in the UK's case it was spread across 10 times as many people.

Indeed, however it wasn't used in the same way. Norway had a very different policy with oil than every other country, which has enabled them to benefit much more than other countries. It's worth looking at what they did, as effectively they say the tax of the profits of oil companies high (allows investment by including that in the costs) with the view that if the oil companies do well then so should society benefit from that.

 

[najaB]

The 2008 crisis was an international crisis that originated in the USA, and then spread across the World. It didn't start in the UK.

The fact that it was a card over there that was removed doesn't make it any less of a house of cards.

Had our banks been better capitalised then they would have been able to weather the storms.

 

[yorksrob]

The 2008 crisis was an international crisis that originated in the USA, and then spread across the World. It didn't start in the UK.

And all Western countries ended up putting in regulations to prevent such a situation happening again. It was recognition that the precariousness of the financial system worldwide was as a result of lax regulation.

While this kind of speculation undoubtedly happens in a few geographical areas (such as central London) the impact on housing is almost certainly negligible in comparison to the basic shortage of housing across the UK. And one of the prime causes of the shortage of housing is almost certainly the planning system: In other words, the regulations.

We need those regulations if we don't want the country to be built over.

Companies taking over other companies isn't necessarily a bad thing. Nor is foreign ownership of companies.

I'm sure we all remember the Cadbury's debacle, where the chief couldn't even be bothered attend a parliamentary committee. Or P&O sacking all of its crew.

Yet, only about 16 months ago, quite a few smaller energy companies went bust as a direct result of (over-)regulation of prices. The result is of course that now there is less competition which is likely in the long run to lead to higher prices - the very thing that the regulations were supposed to prevent!

I'm talking about the extraction of energy, not its retail sale.

I think you'd struggle to make a case there. Many common fares are very tightly regulated, which is obviously going to have knock on effects on the other fares. Maybe I'm mistaken, but my own understanding is that quite a few absurdities of the fare system (such as singles costing practically the same as returns) are the result of Government (over-)regulation. Add to this the general consensus that one of the many problems the rail industry faces is constant meddling and micro-management by the DfT (which isn't quite the same thing as over-regulation, but is pretty close)

I don't think so, what with the ticketing initiatives taking place in Germany and Austria, to name but two. They make our outfit look like a fleecing operation.

 

[Yew]

The 2008 crisis was an international crisis that originated in the USA, and then spread across the World. It didn't start in the UK.

Why is where it started relevant? If northern rock been under sufficient regulation, it would not have faced the fate it did.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2023 ==

While this kind of speculation undoubtedly happens in a few geographical areas (such as central London) the impact on housing is almost certainly negligible in comparison to the basic shortage of housing across the UK. And one of the prime causes of the shortage of housing is almost certainly the planning system: In other words, the regulations.

Councils were forced to sell off sigiificant proportions of their housing stocks and significant barriers put up to replacing them. In the 70's around 25% of housing in the UK was council owned, and now that is less than 10%.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2023 ==

Companies taking over other companies isn't necessarily a bad thing. Nor is foreign ownership of companies.

It often can be, we've seen plenty of British companies be bought out, then lots of jobs moved abroad. I'll have a look, but I imagine it's more likely when there is foreign ownership.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2023 ==

Yet, only about 16 months ago, quite a few smaller energy companies went bust as a direct result of (over-)regulation of prices. The result is of course that now there is less competition which is likely in the long run to lead to higher prices - the very thing that the regulations were supposed to prevent!

Perhaps it is an indication that trying to shoehorn the private sector into every area of our lives, no matter how obviously impractical the idea of competition is in large infrastructure, is a poor idea.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regulation is necessary in places though, such as for environmental protections, rights and restrictions on dubious/reckless activity.

Sure, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have any regulation. Clearly some regulation (For example, most obviously, much of the stuff to do with safety, as well as stuff to ensure businesses don't misrepresent what they are selling) is necessary. But that doesn't mean all regulation is good.

The thing with regulation is that, it's very easy to spot problems caused by under-regulation: Accident happens? You instantly look for a new regulation that could've prevented it - and that looks great! But the impacts of over-regulation are much harder to see, but still insidious. For the most part, each regulation is going to add a cost and a complication to setting up a business. That tends to put up prices and deter new small businesses from innovating. Regulations also tend to favour big established companies (which can afford compliance teams to make sure they comply with complex regulations) over smaller, newer, companies, that can't afford to do that; that harms competition. All of these things, over time, reduce everyone's standard of living. But because that connection with the regulations tends to be indirect, most people don't see it. Ultimately you have to find some way to balance the amount of regulation you have so you don't do too much harm, and right now I would say that's not happening - and that is fundamentally one of the causes of the UK's relative decline.

Ask yourself how many new regulations have been introduced over the last - say - 50 years, versus how many regulations have been removed? No, I don't know the exact answer either, but it's a very safe bet that new regulations massively outnumber removed regulations. For decades now, the UK has had a culture where, just about any time anything goes wrong and causes a public controversy, the overwhelming call is for new regulations to prevent whatever the problem was. Voices that try to point out the dangers of having too many regulations are generally not heard. It's not hard to see how in that kind of political culture, you can easily end up with far more regulations than is optimal if you want to balance strong growth with a decent society.

(For what it's worth, that was one of the arguments for leaving the EU: Many Brexiters believed - correctly IMO - that the EU has gone too far down the road to over-regulation; that that is stifling standards of living across the EU; and that EU political culture makes that problem almost impossible to reverse at EU level.)

 

[Yew]

I think you'd struggle to make a case there. Many common fares are very tightly regulated, which is obviously going to have knock on effects on the other fares. Maybe I'm mistaken, but my own understanding is that quite a few absurdities of the fare system (such as singles costing practically the same as returns) are the result of Government (over-)regulation. Add to this the general consensus that one of the many problems the rail industry faces is constant meddling and micro-management by the DfT (which isn't quite the same thing as over-regulation, but is pretty close)

Of course, the reason our private sector system is much more expensive than almost every public operator in Europe is because it's not privatised and deregulated enough..

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2023 ==

Regulations also tend to favour big established companies (which can afford compliance teams to make sure they comply with complex regulations) over smaller, newer, companies, that can't afford to do that; that harms competition

So stifling that in the last 10 years the number of companies registered in the UK has almost doubled.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course, the reason our private sector system is much more expensive than almost every public operator in Europe is because it's not privatised and deregulated enough..

Our rail fares are more expensive, most likely primarily because they are less well subsidised than many European countries: For a long time, the UK Government has had a deliberate policy of reducing the level of subsidy as a proportion of fare revenue. Other likely factors are that the rail system is very fragmented in terms of who operates what, which is obviously going to increase costs. And then, as I mentioned earlier, there seems to be a consensus that there is too much bureaucracy/micro-management by the DfT rather than allowing railway professionals to get on with their jobs. Although I'm not a railway expert, I don't see any reason to believe that our high fares are to any significant extent caused by lack of regulation.

 

[brad465]

The thing with regulation is that, it's very easy to spot problems caused by under-regulation: Accident happens? You instantly look for a new regulation that could've prevented it - and that looks great! But the impacts of over-regulation are much harder to see, but still insidious. For the most part, each regulation is going to add a cost and a complication to setting up a business. That tends to put up prices and deter new small businesses from innovating. Regulations also tend to favour big established companies (which can afford compliance teams to make sure they comply with complex regulations) over smaller, newer, companies, that can't afford to do that; that harms competition.

Depends on what is regulated, could it not also be said that company size/influence is regulated to stop it getting out of control?

Ask yourself how many new regulations have been introduced over the last - say - 50 years, versus how many regulations have been removed? No, I don't know the exact answer either, but it's a very safe bet that new regulations massively outnumber removed regulations. For decades now, the UK has had a culture where, just about any time anything goes wrong and causes a public controversy, the overwhelming call is for new regulations to prevent whatever the problem was. Voices that try to point out the dangers of having too many regulations are generally not heard. It's not hard to see how in that kind of political culture, you can easily end up with far more regulations than is optimal if you want to balance strong growth with a decent society.

If the retained EU law bill goes through, next year the cumulative number of regulations removed will rocket. There probably will be stuff in there that isn't necessary, but a blanket removal of 4,000+ laws in one go is reckless to put it mildly.

 

[najaB]

If the retained EU law bill goes through, next year the cumulative number of regulations removed will rocket. There probably will be stuff in there that isn't necessary, but a blanket removal of 4,000+ laws in one go is reckless to put it mildly.

It isn't recklessness. It's quite willful and deliberate vandalism.

 

[The Ham]

Depends on what is regulated, could it not also be said that company size/influence is regulated to stop it getting out of control?

If the retained EU law bill goes through, next year the cumulative number of regulations removed will rocket. There probably will be stuff in there that isn't necessary, but a blanket removal of 4,000+ laws in one go is reckless to put it mildly.

Whatever your view on regulations just removing them because they were brought in under one set of policies doesn't mean that they are all bad.

To remove the Brixit element, imagine that the Lib Dems got into power and said that they were going to remove every regulation brought in by the Tories since 1979 because Mrs T was bad.

There would be a lot of regulations which (regardless of your political view) which would be seen as good, however given an arbitrary deadline means that some will just be lost because there isn't the time to discuss if they should be kept or not. There's likely to be a LOT of unintended consequences from doing it.

It's often said that there's a fine line between brave and foolish, this is beyond that line by quite a margin.

Brave would have been to review everything which was brought in over at least the last 10 years, or the first 20 years since joining.

For instance, whilst we could come up with a better version of it, is it wise to say "we need no flight delay compensation regulations" just because that's something which was brought in by the EU?

If I were an airline is think great, I can schedule multiple "flights" a day between Newquay and East Midlands airport, sell loads of tickets and then just delay everyone until I have one flights worth of passengers. (A slightly silly example, but you could see them doing it for London/Edinburgh with 30 "flights" a day with people picking the flight which best suited their timings and then only running enough so that every aircraft is 90% full, resulting in missed connections, missed events, frustration and upset).

PR wise it would be bad, however as long as you could be fairly sure that the delay wasn't too long (say up to three hours) then most people wouldn't be too inconvenienced and you would likely carry on getting away with it until someone came up with some regulation stopping you.

 

[Yew]

And then, as I mentioned earlier, there seems to be a consensus that there is too much bureaucracy/micro-management by the DfT rather than allowing railway professionals to get on with their jobs.

The thing is, that in a lot of rail companies it's not railway professionals making decisions, it's accountants and mannagers put in from outside the industry to ensure that as much profit is made for whatever large corporation is running the TOC. Having multiple operators with separate HR and management capabilities, that spend a fortune on lawyers to undertake delay attribution, is the very definition of wasteful bureaucracy.

How many times are private operators going to have to fail on the ECML, and then be taken over by the state and work successfully for you to come round to the idea that shoehorning a competitive market into natural monopolies, is clearly less effective; and that's before we consdider the pound of flesh cut out of the budget for shareholder dividends.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2023 ==

Although I'm not a railway expert, I don't see any reason to believe that our high fares are to any significant extent caused by lack of regulation.

I notice that you avoid to topic of public ownership there.

 

[yorksrob]

Our rail fares are more expensive, most likely primarily because they are less well subsidised than many European countries: For a long time, the UK Government has had a deliberate policy of reducing the level of subsidy as a proportion of fare revenue. Other likely factors are that the rail system is very fragmented in terms of who operates what, which is obviously going to increase costs. And then, as I mentioned earlier, there seems to be a consensus that there is too much bureaucracy/micro-management by the DfT rather than allowing railway professionals to get on with their jobs. Although I'm not a railway expert, I don't see any reason to believe that our high fares are to any significant extent caused by lack of regulation.

And what a stupid policy that has turned out to be. What is more, whoever we vote in, we never seem to be given the choice to be rid of it. It hangs around like a dead rat under the floorboards, stinking out the country.

I'd be interested to know what level of subsidy we actually pay, in comparison to other countries in Europe. My suspicion is that we probably don't pay that much less in subsidy, but we just don't get the affordable public transport.

Affordable, sensibly priced public transport would be a real tool for arresting National decline, but persisting with the private sector fantasy is seen as more important by the Establishment.

 

[JamesT]

The thing is, that in a lot of rail companies it's not railway professionals making decisions, it's accountants and mannagers put in from outside the industry to ensure that as much profit is made for whatever large corporation is running the TOC. Having multiple operators with separate HR and management capabilities, that spend a fortune on lawyers to undertake delay attribution, is the very definition of wasteful bureaucracy.

When are lawyers involved in delay attribution? It’s a normal management function that dates back to BR days.

How many times are private operators going to have to fail on the ECML, and then be taken over by the state and work successfully for you to come round to the idea that shoehorning a competitive market into natural monopolies, is clearly less effective; and that's before we consdider the pound of flesh cut out of the budget for shareholder dividends.

The private operators fail because the government demands excessive premium payments which lead to making a loss. When it reverts to OLR they don’t have to make the same payments.

 

[chorleyjeff]

I can think of one - rejoin the EU, and be actually committed to it this time. As part of the EU we can grow, on our own we're really too small.

The EU is in the same downward spiral.

 

[najaB]

The EU is in the same downward spiral.

That very much depends on which countries you consider and what you define as a 'downward spiral', but I don't see the same lack of business investment, poor economic forecasts nor social unrest in the majority of EU member states.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The EU is in the same downward spiral.

Do you have evidence of that, please? For reference, an article in any right wing newspaper or website does not consititute evidence, unless that indicates its sources.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2023 ==

That very much depends on which countries you consider and what you define as a 'downward spiral', but I don't see the same lack of business investment, poor economic forecasts nor social unrest in the majority of EU member states.

Nor I. There are some issues that are global, e.g. high inflation due to fuel prices and related wage demands, but not a "downward spiral" at all.

 

[Parjon]

The EU is in the same downward spiral.

Tied up in knots with their own rules, and this is one thing the UK excelled in. I think the EU members that will remain so the longest are those that have the most lax and convenient attitude to implementation.

I wonder what percentage of GDP is tied up simply in keeping the system going. Compliance monitoring, compliance enforcing, compliance challenging, rules challenging in court, changes to rules challenging in court, policies written, amended, challenged, interpretations challenging and so on.

A lot of people are well paid to do nothing of value, and many are well paid to actively prevent any of this from being unpicked. Most politicians and civil servants are not in active service, but simply on a form of extravagant welfare at everyone else's expense.

We need a root and branch rebuilding of services (cleaning, lighting and other civils. Medical. Emergency. Transport. Energy) from the ground up. What equipment is needed in what quantity. What labour is required in what quantity. What logistical support do they need and in what quantity.

The last one is the civil service layer, including any accountants, managers and administrators. They decide the other two. Conflict of interest much?

 

[najaB]

So… no actual evidence then. Thanks.

 

[Parjon]

The UK in its present state, and unable to sort itself out, is pretty compelling evidence for the current mess of rules, regulations and modes of operation being junk.

The UK only left the EU 5 minutes ago and so our situation is reflective of theirs. I'd argue all the democracies are suffering with this right now.

I suppose one unique extra challenge we have are people who behave more like cult members when it comes to facing up to inadequacies of a particular system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The UK in its present state, and unable to sort itself out, is pretty compelling evidence for the current mess of rules, regulations and modes of operation being junk.

The UK only left the EU 5 minutes ago and so our situation is reflective of theirs. I'd argue all the democracies are suffering with this right now.

I suppose one unique extra challenge we have are people who behave more like cult members when it comes to facing up to inadequacies of a particular system.

Looking at the whole world, as pretty much all possible systems are in evidence, which do you think would work better, using that country as an example?

 

[Broucek]

You note that the German economy is larger and it's stock market is smaller. It's also worth noting that the German economy usually does better than ours in comparisons such as the IMF one published recently. Could it be that the German model of privately owned mittel-strand businesses does better for their wider economy than our fast buck City for our own !

You realise that "privately owned" means "owned by rich insiders", right?

Companies listed on public stock markets can be invested in by anyone. There are flaws in the model but the openness to ordinary people is one of its core strengths

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Depends on what is regulated, could it not also be said that company size/influence is regulated to stop it getting out of control?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that you think there should be regulations to stop a company getting too large? (And if so, wouldn't that arguably just be another example of adding yet more regulations?)

If the retained EU law bill goes through, next year the cumulative number of regulations removed will rocket. There probably will be stuff in there that isn't necessary, but a blanket removal of 4,000+ laws in one go is reckless to put it mildly.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree here. Much as I believe in seeking to deregulate where possible, that needs to be done by looking at individual regulations and assessing whether each one on balance does more good or more harm.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2023 ==

How many times are private operators going to have to fail on the ECML, and then be taken over by the state and work successfully for you to come round to the idea that shoehorning a competitive market into natural monopolies, is clearly less effective; and that's before we consdider the pound of flesh cut out of the budget for shareholder dividends.

Umm, I haven't actually said anything one way or the other in this thread about my views on the current structure of the railways (Other than a side-comment that the fragmentation likely adds to costs). I'm making a general point about the dangers of over-regulation (And in connection with the railways, also saying that I don't believe more regulation is the way to solve the problem of high fares/silly fare structures)

I notice that you avoid to topic of public ownership there.

I'm not deliberately avoiding the topic. It's just that, as far as I'm aware - this sub-discussion is about regulation vs. deregulation, not about nationalization! If you want to morph this into a discussion about how the UK's decline/growth relates to public ownership, then... if you're unlucky, I might join in

 

[yorksrob]

You realise that "privately owned" means "owned by rich insiders", right?

Companies listed on public stock markets can be invested in by anyone. There are flaws in the model but the openness to ordinary people is one of its core strengths

Rich insiders here is better than rich insiders elsewhere. It least the profits are more likely to stay. Also the mittel-strand companies have shown their worth to the German economy, afterall, what's the alternative - more imports ?

The openness of the stock market to ordinary people is only a strength if the company doesn't get taken over.

 

[E27007]

A short piece in one of the pro-EU British newspapers this morning.
Our dear friend Barnier is reminding the EU that Brexit was a failure of the EU itself, a wise and valid point said with the benefit of hindsight.
Barnier is advising the UK to not tear up EU legislation from the UK statutes, as we may regret it.
Is this Barnier seeking to heal the rift with the British people??

 

[yorksrob]

A short piece in one of the pro-EU British newspapers this morning.
Our dear friend Barnier is reminding the EU that Brexit was a failure of the EU itself, a wise and valid point said with the benefit of hindsight.
Barnier is advising the UK to not tear up EU legislation from the UK statutes, as we may regret it.
Is this Barnier seeking to heal the rift with the British people??

It's fairly obvious that summarily ditching a vast chunk of legislation without scrutiny will be a bad idea, not that that would put off this "government".