The Backbencher Questions The Prime Minister On The UK Internal Market

After a blisteringly hot week and major thunderstorms we will look at how the Government proposes to secure the governance, independent advice and the monitoring of the UK Internal Market. I hope that the thunderstorms are not going to tumble into this process and cause our businesses problems.

The government states in the white paper that the need for collaboration between the different devolved administrations is important to protect businesses and customers in each region and the UK as a whole. It states that intergovernmental relations need to be strong and that there must to be a robust dispute resolution protocol in place.

The Government makes it clear that the overall construction and development of the UK Internal Market should be overseen by the UK Parliament and not just the government.

A question for the prime minister: does he see that having ministers and MP’s of all party colours in the driving seat could be contentious? It is businesses which trade and therefore does he agree that a wide section of industry and business leaders should be the in the driving seat and not in the passenger seat as described in section 155 of the white paper?

To carry this point further, the government is looking at Independent bodies such as Australia and Switzerland’s commissions. It says that these two commissions have ‘functions and governance as varied as the markets and governance arrangements that they support, albeit in federal context’.

My question to the PM: if we follow the natural trajectory of this policy, are we, as us libertarians believe we should be, moving towards more devolution and eventually a federal style of governance?

Business leaders and entrepreneurial teams should be represented on the body that oversees any commissions that are formed with ministers from each devolved regions and the UK government being in an advisory capacity on legislation that may need addressing. Leading economists must also have a say on any commissions and it must be those from both sides of the Brexit debate. We cannot get into the situation where experts have a biased view of the economic impacts of policy decided at the commissions. Now, I agree with the paper where it states that constant monitoring is needed and regular impact assessment updates can be discussed and can identify areas where divergence can be good for a region allowing the market to align with future English devolution.

Remember the philosophy of F.A Hayek when he says that the planners need to stop planning and he argued the virtue of free market is that it gives the maximum latitude for people to use information that only they have. In short the market process generates data. Without markets data are almost non-existent.

From this the government must not interfere with the market and should deregulate wherever it can to achieve maximum productivity and growth from all regions while looking to further devolve power to the regions.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here