There is a long tradition in defining “Brexit benefits” of using traditional tabloid shorthand to tout the benefits of escaping the EU’s tedious regulatory track or “cutting the red tape in Brussels”.

But in fact, this notion of a “deregulation dividend” has always existed more in the imagination of Brexiters and the Conservative right than in reality.

And there are warnings.When David Cameron commissioned “Balance of Ability” A 2012 review to systematically examine the impact of EU regulations on the UK, result (contained in 32 informative reports) sank with no trace of politics.

If there’s a clear bonus, you can bet you’ve heard of your lowest euro among those who support Brexit at the time. But the report did not provide the expected ammunition.

That’s because while the EU is far from perfect, its regulatory system does underpin the EU’s single market – so the findings call for “less and better” regulation rather than a massive tearing up of the increasingly seamless pan-EU trading system.

Britain leaving the EU did not destroy the ecosystem, it just removed the British voice from its creation. Brexit has also not reduced the importance of the EU to UK trade – as recent trade data comparing the UK with the rest of the G7 shows (see chart below).

So in the wake of Brexit, the EU’s regulatory behemoths have drifted away, leaving Brexiteers on the side of the road trying to describe a unilateralism deregulation bonus That — six years after voting to leave — they still can’t get it right, let alone enacted.

Brussels’ giants have been rather slow to move, but a year after Brexit, we are starting to see regulatory gaps between the UK and Brussels begin to emerge, and questions about how to manage them.

The latest (third) edition of the UK in a changing Europe divergence tracker Two or three interesting examples of how the UK has to decide whether to align with the new EU rules – or go its own way.

The first is the EU’s update to its “pharmacovigilance” regulations – the way the industry reports drug-related adverse reactions – which means the UK and EU now have different systems.

This has immediate impact in Northern Ireland (which has to comply with EU rules), but also raises the question of whether there is any advantage for the UK not to follow, given the size and nature of the UK and EU markets using the same drugs or veterinary drugs.

The UK government has pledged to hold consultations on how to proceed, but until there is a result – ministers make a decision – tracker author Joël Reland called it “a tension between the EU and UK regulatory systems”. gap”.

Likewise, new EU car safety rules will come into force this summer, including Making cars safer for women.

Given the nature of the UK car manufacturing supply chain – EU sales and exports are crucial to the viability of UK production – the industry is well aware it wants to align with the EU but is still awaiting a formal decision from ministers.

Auto industry insiders expressed dissatisfaction. New EU rules take effect from July 6, but there is only moderate confidence that the “air gap” will be closed until then, as Whitehall struggles to find bandwidth to deal with the bloc’s vast divisions.

Of course, these examples are just the beginning – the UK industry will soon have to contend with a new EU battery regulation that will set terms for performance and recycling, as well as data management regulations (which will affect driverless cars).

Across industries, it’s the actual story of managing the consequences of Brexit’s regulatory freedom in Brussels – what Reland calls the ongoing “passive divide” that occurs when the EU moves and the UK stalls.

This has the most severe and immediate impact on Northern Ireland, which has to comply with EU rules as part of post-Brexit trade arrangements and is therefore struggling to manage a dual regulatory regime such as ‘pharmacovigilance’.

Brexiters were quick to highlight this new regulatory divide in the UK’s internal market as an argument for the Northern Ireland deal “Unstoppable” — and 29 other areas of regulation will also diverge.

But the narrow scoring of the deal is meant to obscure the broader challenge of how the UK has systematically managed the process of ongoing disagreement with the EU.

As Reland puts it: “It’s a lifetime job, a vision scan, often seeing very small practical changes that businesses have to make, and it’s always lurking behind the scenes.”

The work requires bandwidth within industry and government as Brexit tries to build regulatory capacity to make these decisions – which means installing new people and processes in industries ranging from toys to building supplies; chemicals and medical instruments.

Given the intermediate nature of UK manufacturing and the continued importance of the EU to UK trade, a positive case for positive disagreement will be much more difficult than the “cutting Brussels red tape” agenda the public believes.

Whitehall insiders confirm what the industry has known from recent experience dealing with governments – that there is currently no systematic approach to addressing these issues. No one is sitting in Whitehall with spreadsheets identifying impending EU regulatory changes and doing cost-benefit analyses of adjustments or divergences.

In fact, as one insider put it, such a systematic approach is sure to be “skeptical” by the current government, who often like to say that civil servants need to break out of the “EU regulatory capture” mentality that has emerged over the past 40 years. Deal with Brussels.

The result, Reland concludes, is that the UK’s approach to disagreement has so far been “mixed”, with little indication that anyone is actually involved in “the tedious job of monitoring and deciding how to systematically respond to EU regulations – a coherence should be sought” or Do not”.

Do you work in an industry affected by the UK’s departure from the EU single market and customs union? If so, how has this change hurt—or even benefited—you and your business?Please keep your feedback [email protected].

Brexit numbers

It won’t go deep beyond the confines of Westminster, but there is a Fun little moments of the week When Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak conceded that Brexit could be responsible for Britain’s poor trade performance relative to the rest of the G7.

It was little more than an obvious statement, but a rare acknowledgment by a behemoth in the cabinet that the trade frictions brought on by Brexit are taking their toll on Britain.

By last week’s newsletter, Boris Johnson was back in the official script later this week By declaring (when asked about the same performance) that UK exports “have no natural barriers” that “will, energy and ambition” cannot overcome.

No one should expect overnight changes, but when you look at what Sunak had to say – and the coverage surrounding the spring statement – then little by little, the top-line effects of Brexit could start to affect more. Broad political dialogue.

Finally, four unmissable Brexit stories

Nigel Farage Controversial this week Involved a Dutch carbon offset company. The ex-Brexit champion is expected to earn up to €18.5 million from his Dutch Green Business stock options if the share price rises to €20 from the current €1.

The cumulative cost of Brexit is increasing Boris Johnson, writes Philip Stephens.The damage Johnson’s premiership has done to the country’s economy, political structure and standing abroad already huge But he concluded that it will not be easy to be “normal” again.

obvious temptation A generation Alan Beattie, while bemoaning the impact of Brexit on UK-EU trade, wrote that he was gloating at the belief that Britain’s no-content Brexit would win.But he warned that EU trade policy was in Serious risk of protectionist drift.

new columnist Stephen Bush Wrote about the fascinating shift in the role of female voters in British politics. For most of the 20th century, he wrote, women were more likely than men to support right-wing parties across the democratic world. Today, however, the opposite is true.Stephen explained what is driving the switch.