The government is planning sweeping new legislation that could allow ministers to adopt European Union single market rules without a full parliamentary vote – a move that ministers argue will add billions to the UK economy but which critics warn amounts to “integration with the EU by stealth” through powers that bypass normal democratic scrutiny.
The new bill, expected to be introduced before the summer, will initially bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU – worth £5.1 billion a year according to the government – and provisions on emissions trading. But it will also contain much broader powers enabling the UK to align itself with evolving EU single market rules in areas where it has already made agreements, and potentially beyond, without requiring a full parliamentary vote each time.
What the bill would do
The mechanism at the heart of the legislation is so-called Henry VIII powers – named after the 1539 law that allowed the monarch to rule by decree. These powers allow ministers to implement laws through secondary legislation, meaning Parliament can either approve or reject what is proposed but cannot amend it. In practice, this means MPs are likely to “rubber-stamp” new regulatory alignments rather than debate and vote on each one individually.
A government source said any blocking votes in Parliament would be likely to cause issues with the EU and could spark retaliatory action – a formulation that suggests the ability of MPs to resist any specific alignment would be practically constrained even where it technically exists.
The bill would enable deals the government is negotiating on food and drink and emissions trading to come into force and allow it to follow future EU changes in those areas. But if passed, the Guardian understands that negotiators could also seek to adopt EU rules on everything from cars to farming using secondary legislation – significantly widening the scope of what could be aligned without a full parliamentary debate.
Ministers say any disputes about regulations would be decided by an independent tribunal rather than the EU court – a concession designed to maintain the appearance of sovereignty that critics may find unconvincing given the practical effect of the powers.
Why the government is doing this
The government’s case rests on a combination of economic necessity and geopolitical reality. The Iran war has exposed two things simultaneously: the fragility of the UK’s relationship with the United States, and the cost of the trade barriers erected by Brexit.
Earlier this month, Starmer said the UK would seek a deeper partnership on trade and defence with the EU because of the instability wreaked by Trump’s war with Iran, adding that Brexit had done “deep damage” to the UK economy. That framing – Brexit as a source of ongoing economic damage requiring active repair – represents a significant shift in how a sitting prime minister speaks about the 2016 decision.
The economic case is clear. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit will reduce long-run UK productivity by 4% and reduce exports and imports by 15% relative to remaining in the EU. The EU remains Britain’s largest trading partner, accounting for almost half of total UK trade in 2024. Every barrier at the border has a cost that is ultimately paid by British consumers and businesses.
One government source said the bill was a recognition of “the importance of the UK’s trading relationship with the EU and a tacit acknowledgment of the economic damage caused by Brexit.” They added: “We’re all paying a cost of living penalty for all the barriers at the border, so it is sensible to make deals to remove those barriers and undo the damage, without breaking the red lines on rejoining the customs union, single market, or returning to freedom of movement.”
The democratic tension
The core objection to the approach is democratic rather than economic. Professor Anand Menon, director of the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, put it plainly: “Changes to UK regulations should be debated in parliament and thrashed out by politicians. The reality of this is we are signing up to a deal with the European Union that commits us to follow their rules, whether we like it or not. The danger is you’re doing integration with the EU by stealth.”
But Menon recognised the bind the government is in. “That’s the ugly trade-off of Brexit,” he said. “You’re trading political control against economic access, without having a vote in the room.” If every regulatory alignment with EU rules required full parliamentary debate and amendment, the process would be so slow and politically volatile as to be unworkable. The EU does not negotiate with individual member states on the content of its single market rules – it sets them, and trading partners either accept them or don’t.
This is what critics of Brexit always argued would happen: that the choice was never really between “control” and “no control” but between having a formal vote on EU rules as a member state, and adopting those same rules without a vote as a trading partner. The Henry VIII powers approach resolves that tension in favour of economic access – but at the cost of the parliamentary sovereignty that was central to the Leave campaign’s appeal.
The political fight ahead
Ministers are already bracing for the political backlash. One government insider said: “We expect a fight in this area from those who were in favour of leaving the EU on the harshest terms. They will scream treason but the reality is that all international agreements involve shared rules. The boldest free traders and conservatives have always been pragmatists. But Nigel Farage is too cowardly to take it on; you can’t picture him doing any deal making with the EU at all.”
The shadow business secretary, Andrew Griffith, framed the Conservative objection in terms of democratic principle: “Parliament reduced to a spectator while Brussels sets the terms is exactly what the country rejected. Labour’s dire management of the economy has driven Starmer scurrying to Brussels to distract from his own failings. Labour are still fighting the referendum because they fundamentally cannot accept the democratic decision the British people made.”
The Liberal Democrats said they would use any bill as an opportunity to force Labour MPs to take a position on a closer relationship with Europe – treating the legislation as a potential vehicle for a broader debate about the UK’s long-term relationship with the EU.
While the bill is unlikely to be voted down in the Commons, where Labour retains its majority, it could face obstruction in the House of Lords, where the government does not have the same dominance.
What it means in practice
The legislation represents the furthest the government has been willing to go in publicly acknowledging that the Brexit settlement is being actively unwound – even as it insists the red lines on rejoining the single market, customs union or freedom of movement remain intact.
Whether the distinction between “dynamic alignment” and single market membership is meaningful in practice is a question that will intensify as the bill is debated. If the UK adopts EU rules on food and drink, then cars, then farming, then emissions – through secondary legislation that Parliament cannot amend – the functional relationship between British regulation and EU regulation may come to resemble the single market in all but name. The difference, as Menon noted, is that Britain would have no vote in the room when those rules are made.
For the 63% of Britons who now say they would vote to rejoin the EU if given the chance, that distinction may matter less than the economic benefits of closer alignment. For those who voted Leave specifically to escape what they saw as Brussels rule-making, it will matter enormously.
The government’s gamble is that by the time the bill is passed and its implications are clear, the economic evidence of its benefits will be sufficiently visible to make the political argument for it. After a war that has exposed the costs of dependence on global fossil fuel markets and an unreliable American ally, the case for a deeper and more stable relationship with the world’s largest trading bloc has never been easier to make.
You may also like: Ten years of Brexit: what we were promised, what we got, and who lied to us
Leave a Reply