The impact statement

Subject: The impact statement

The impact of having a representative body which try's to reflect the impulses of 27, very different cultural nations can only be envisioned if one evolves some sort of dictatorship where nations are told what is good for them as a collective and not as individual nation states.
The EU has at its heart The Commission which is a bit like a Civil Service in that it is not elected by the people but, unlike the Civil Service, not only does it prepare the legislation for MPs to vote on but formulates and pursues policy which under national parliamentary government is the responsibility of the Government.
This separation of policy, from the mechanics for making the policy work is the crucial difference between the national of a collective, such as the EU.  It was understood by its founding fathers that getting unanimity from 27 nations would be well neigh impossible and therefore the nations must accept governance, with only the option of veto if what is being proposed is unacceptable.
This disconnect from the normal rules of democratic responsibility has been one of the main reasons the UK has been at odds with the concept of not being able to over-rule, be it from the Commission or the Legal supremacy of the European Court.
So much for the background to the political infighting, as we seek to extricate ourselves from the EU. One of the main sticking points is the influence the ECJ will have over EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit. Their rights enshrined in EU law will be different to the rights of UK citizens and clearly this is a bone of contention especially if the EU rights are likely to be more beneficial.
It could be argued that human rights, workers rights, contract law, health and safety should be the same and could continue to mirror the EU since it is in the interests of the people to have the same protection. This protection is based on regulations which are embedded in law.
Unfortunately we have been brainwashed into believing that "regulations" are bad and like our American cousins under Donald Trump we should have a bonfire of those regulations which we are told 'inhibit Business'. Rather let the freedom of 'unfettered capitalism' be the arbiter on our lives so that business prospers irrespective of what happens to the people.
One can see how appealing this is to a Conservative government who are the first to rail against commitments placed on business organisations regarding minimum wage, hours of work and the procedure a business has to go through to fire their workers.
So therefore it's not only a matter of 'losing market share' for the goods we produce but it will effect the very working conditions under which we produce those goods. There will be a temptation to further emasculate the workforce as we strive to become regulation free.
Londons financial market has historically been privy to turning a blind eye to the source of the money which has flowed into its banks, the danger is that it will be encouraged to do more and become a casino for every dodgy deal around the world.
Our sense of doing the right thing has always been muddied by the financial opportunity and we are in danger of considering any sort of partnership as being acceptable, so long as there is a 'buck in it' for them.