Britain could be required to adopt a new European Union regulation every 12 hours under Andy Burnham’s proposed Brexit reset, according to a major parliamentary study.
The report cautions that the Prime Minister’s plan to align the UK with EU rules covering food and agriculture could unleash a steady stream of legislation from Brussels.
A deal expected to be signed by Mr Burnham next week could oblige Britain to incorporate “at least 780 pieces of EU law” annually, the committee said.
That amounts to approximately two new regulations every day.
The report also warns that Britain would have only limited influence over the rules it was required to implement.
According to the committee, optimistic Treasury forecasts have not fully considered the expense businesses could face as they seek to comply with a large volume of new requirements.
A separate proposal to reconnect Britain with the EU electricity market, also expected to be agreed next week, could push up household energy costs, the report says.
Former Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay told Our News Outlet that Mr Burnham’s plans would conflict with his promise to return control to the public and move away from the political consensus of the past four decades.
Andy Burnham’s proposed Brexit reset could require Britain to adopt a new EU regulation every 12 hours, according to a major study
Following talks with EU leaders in Dublin on Thursday, Mr Burnham said he believed a “win-win” agreement was possible—one that could resemble the Brexit voters thought they were choosing in 2016
He said: “From a democratic point of view, Burnham’s reset would introduce a vast number of rules over which Parliament and the public would have no control.
“The Government appears not to understand the detail or the consequences of its approach. As a result, many of its claims about economic growth simply do not withstand scrutiny.”
Mark Francois, who chairs the European Research Group of Conservative MPs, said the committee’s conclusions exposed the potential price of the proposed Brexit reset.
The former minister said: “Dynamic alignment would mean automatically accepting future EU regulations in this field indefinitely, regardless of Parliament’s wishes—and despite the country having voted to leave the EU.
“Put simply, we would once again become a ‘rule-taker’, all because Labour is fixated on moving closer to the EU.”
Mr Burnham is due to travel to Brussels next week to formally agree the new EU reset arrangement, which was initially negotiated by Keir Starmer.
The agreement would reduce the post-Brexit checks introduced by Brussels, measures that have made it harder for British food producers to sell goods in the bloc.
In exchange, the Prime Minister would commit Britain to permanently matching EU rules on food and agriculture.
Former Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay said Mr Burnham’s proposal would undermine his promise to return control to the public and reject the political consensus of the past 40 years
FIND OUT MORE: Suspects Held in Killing of California Surfer in Costa Rica
Known as dynamic alignment, the arrangement would require the UK to adopt new EU rules in these areas shortly after they are approved in Brussels.
Mr Burnham is also expected to present several possible paths for Britain’s future relationship with the EU, including re-entering the single market or seeking to rejoin the bloc itself.
Downing Street said on Thursday that Mr Burnham considered the existing Brexit agreement “not good enough” and believed it was “holding Britain back”.
However, the proposal has reportedly divided his Cabinet. Senior ministers including Chancellor John Healey, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy are said to have concerns.
After meeting EU leaders in Dublin on Thursday, Mr Burnham said he was confident that Britain and Europe could reach an agreement benefiting both sides—one that might be “more like the Brexit that people thought they were voting for in 2016”.
He said: “The requests are coming from the European side, but we are putting our own requests on the table as well.
“I believe there is a strong deal to be reached that would benefit both Britain and Europe. It could ultimately look more like the Brexit people believed they were voting for in 2016.”
The House of Lords European Affairs Committee said the proposed reset would represent a “fundamental change in the UK-EU relationship”, with Britain again accepting EU laws on a broad scale for the first time since leaving in 2020.
Committee chairman Lord Stirrup said the agreement would involve “significant volumes of EU legislation”. Evidence presented to the committee suggested that farming rules alone could produce “at least 780 pieces of in-scope EU law a year”.
He said: “This may appear to be a technical matter, but these rules could influence everyday issues, including food standards, prices for consumers, business expenses and household finances.”
Shanker Singham, a former government trade adviser, described the expected stream of EU legislation as “relentless”.
He warned that some measures could impose substantial costs on companies, including businesses that do not export to the EU but would still be required to meet the rules.
The Mail reported last week that the agreement would include a commitment to implement planned EU rules banning the sale and promotion of vegetarian products using meat-related names, such as smoky bacon crisps.
Sir Keir previously said the food and farming agreement could add £5.1 billion to GDP over a decade.
Mr Burnham claimed last week that confidential Treasury figures indicated the potential boost could be as high as £12 billion.
But the new report says government analysis did not account for “compliance costs falling on firms that do not trade with the EU” or assess the economic opportunities Britain might lose by aligning with Brussels.
The committee called on ministers to provide greater clarity over the financial burden for taxpayers.
Former Conservative minister Esther McVey said: “Burnham’s Brexit betrayal would force the vast majority of small businesses that do not export to the EU to comply with unnecessary bureaucracy—all to disguise the fact that he has no clear plan for growing the economy and is instead handing responsibility elsewhere.
“I suggest Burnham listens to his constituents in Makerfield rather than treating them as a convenient platform for his own political ambitions.”
