WHILE the Brexit debates raged in Parliament, it dawned on me that the most ardent supporters of leaving the EU had given little or no thought to the impact on the UK constitution, writes Jonathan Edwards.
The no-dealers were completely negligent in their approach to the debate. Their argument had no substance; they just kept on repeating that the UK should leave with no agreement and trade on World Treaty Organisation Terms. The pro-European MPs did most of the thinking on the impact of specific Brexit decisions, especially when Theresa May outlined her red lines.
The decision to leave the Single Market meant that a new internal market would have to be created for the UK. However, the new regime only applied to Great Britain. Boris Johnson’s deal effectively left Northern Ireland within the European economic frameworks and set the border on the Celtic Sea.
In early discussions with ministers, I outlined two options for leaving the Single Market: re-centralise the responsibilities coming back from Brussels in Westminster or create a mini-EU for the UK, whereby each constituent part (Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland) would pool sovereignty on the returning powers with shared competency.
Following the Scottish Referendum, unionists always talked about the UK being a “partnership of equals,” and the Brexiteers promised Wales and Scotland a bonanza of Brussels powers. When the chance came, the only Westminster party that understood how to turn the rhetoric into reality was the Liberal Democrats.
Both the Conservatives and Labour had near-identical positions; power would be retained in Westminster. The only difference was that Labour argued that the Welsh and Scottish governments should be consulted on policy. As I often pointed out, joint responsibility is a different proposition from consulting.
Many of Boris Johnson’s arguments concerned opposition to the UK being subjected to “vassal status” by the EU. However, this was precisely what the centralisation of returning powers to Westminster, particularly the creation of the new Internal Market, imposed on Wales and Scotland.
It is with interest, therefore, that I read the excellent piece by Martin Shipton in Nation, which reports that the UK Government will review the workings of the Internal Market Act next year. Under current arrangements, the issue for Wales and Scotland is that regulations our national parliaments pass could potentially be legally challengeable under the Act’s market access principles.
Indeed, the Welsh government challenged the Act in the Courts. In August 2022, then-Counsel-General Mick Antoniw said in a Ministerial Statement: “The Welsh Government remains clear in its opposition to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It is an unwarranted attack on devolution and the right of the Senedd to legislate without interference in areas devolved to Wales.
“We will now consider how we can best take forward our challenge to the Act, to protect and assert the democratic right of this institution to make laws for the people of Wales.”
Due to the magnitude of the issue, it is concerning that the review was announced solely by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade in a written statement. Written statements are vague in detail; an oral statement would have enabled MPs in the House to provide more detail. The Statement promises to consult with the devolved government as part of the review.
The key part of the Statement is the following: “We will engage directly with the devolved governments as part of the review in a good faith process that seeks to balance the different policy choices that devolution affords us while protecting the integrity of the internal market to ensure we can continue to drive for economic growth, jobs and higher living standards.”
To achieve both objectives, Wales, Scotland and Westminster must share competence. I’m all for preserving the integrity of my country’s internal market via my own national government, which is accountable to my national parliament, which is responsible for how that framework works. The added benefit of such an approach would be to ensure a race to the top on standards rather than the bottom.
Considering the robust position the Welsh Government took with the previous UK Government on the Act, now that their side is in charge of the review, it becomes a major test for the Labour Party.
The Welsh Government has an opportunity to advocate for strengthening Wales’s status within the Union. If Wales is an equal partner, then surely our national government should have a seat at the table of the regulatory bodies that govern the economic union in which we reside.
