Don't tell me Brexit failed – tell me why ministers won't make it work

I didn't lead the south-west Ipswich campaign for Brexit, only for Andy Burnham to come along and completely disrespect the referendum result, with cries from those who cannot accept it bringing up the argument once more.

I thought he said the arguments and division were in the past. I don't think so. He has made it worse, and we need to move on.

Anyone who has been divorced knows that a return to the same bad partner is always regretted, and often worse than the first time round. We left for a reason, and it wasn't because we didn't know what we were doing. I researched the EU for seven years, even before a referendum was announced, and once I'd made up my mind I knew I was going to fight for it.

And please can we all remember that we are in Europe and always will be. We are talking about a trading bloc here, not a ship tied to a larger fleet.

I still don't know one person who voted for Brexit and now wants to rejoin, because they know we will not enjoy the few benefits we did have again. Once people see any new deal – which surely they must – I think most will feel the same way. Leaving was painful, and the EU will make returning just as painful. And why? They are hardly doing well.

Non, nein, no.

Instead, the government must make Brexit work better, rather than ignoring it just so that they can claim it was all a bad idea. That is such a lie.

What we supporters say Brexit delivers

Sovereignty and democratic accountability

Our central argument was that laws affecting British citizens should be made by a Parliament and courts that the electorate can hold to account. We say leaving the EU ended the supremacy of EU law and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, so UK institutions now decide everything from agriculture to state aid. We must now leave the European Convention on Human Rights, in my opinion.

Independent trade policy

Outside the customs union, the UK can negotiate its own agreements. We point to deals with Australia and New Zealand, accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and agreements with other partners as evidence that Britain can pursue trade relationships tailored to its economy, especially in services, where it is strong. Yes, there is more to do, but it is a huge opportunity.

Regulatory flexibility

We argue that the UK can now regulate faster and more proportionately than a 27-member bloc. Examples often cited include the speed of the vaccine approval process in 2020, a more adaptable approach to gene editing in agriculture, and the freedom to design its own rules for financial services, artificial intelligence and life sciences.

Control over immigration policy

Ending free movement let the UK adopt a points-based system that applies the same rules to applicants from every country, rather than privileging EU citizens. We say this gives governments direct control over who enters and for what purpose. It needs to be excellent, not abandoned.

Fiscal independence

The UK no longer pays annual membership contributions to the EU budget, and we argue that money can be redirected to domestic priorities. We also point to the freedom to design our own subsidy, procurement, state aid and tax policies, including freeports and tax incentives for investment.

What governments should do to capture more benefits

Even we supporters generally agree that the benefits are not automatic. They have to be built through deliberate policy.

Use regulatory freedom, not just claim it

Divergence only creates value if it is actually used. Governments should identify sectors where EU rules are demonstrably burdensome, such as biotech and data, and replace them with clear, innovation-friendly frameworks. Regulators should be funded and empowered to move quickly, with a fixed review cycle so rules don't simply accumulate.

Prioritise high-value trade agreements

Rather than chasing deal counts, negotiators should focus on markets where growth is fastest and where services and digital trade can be liberalised. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications and digital trade provisions are worth more to a services economy than tariff cuts on goods.

Reduce friction with the EU where it makes sense

Supporters of sovereignty can still agree to pragmatic cooperation. Targeted agreements on veterinary standards, energy markets or professional recognition can cut border costs without reversing the fundamental choice to leave. Sovereignty includes the freedom to choose cooperation.

Invest the savings and flexibility in competitiveness

Governments should tie the freedom on subsidies and tax to long-term goals: skills training, infrastructure, research and development, and regional growth. Freeports and investment zones need to deliver genuinely new activity rather than relabelling existing activity. Freeport East is an exciting opportunity to attract real investment into our area.

The bottom line

Any referendum will have to be truthful about what the EU would be willing to give us, and what they expect in return. There will be no cherry-picking, and we would once again be under their rules and alignment.

Once that is spelt out, I suspect we would absolutely reject the idea of returning.

And besides, as I have found out several times in my own life, freedom is never wrong.

Don't forget: If you enjoy our content, please add Ipswich.co.uk as a "preferred source" on Google so you can easily find more of the content you value.

Local journalism is expensive to produce

It's free for you to read thanks to the generous support of our partners. Please support us by supporting them.