Repealed EU laws are 'trivial and outdated', says senior Brexiteer

' Photo: Amanda Rose/Alami

A senior Brexiteer Tory called the 600 EU laws that Rishi Sunak is due to repeal «trivial» because they were found to include restrictions on anchovy fishing and wheat bran imports.

Sir William Cash, Chairman of the European Control Committee of the House of Commons, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, criticizing the government's decision to lighten its «bonfire» of rules after Brexit.

Ministers promised to complete the repeal of 4,000 EU rules still in the law book UK, by the end of the year.

But they reneged on that commitment, angering the Brexiteers by reducing the list to 600.

Sir William told Mr. Sunak that «almost without exception» the laws currently subject to repeal dealt with «matters that are trivial, outdated and of no legal and/or political significance.»

Therefore he said the government's revised plans «cannot be interpreted as easing the regulatory burden on businesses or stimulating economic growth.»

Sir William singled out «trivial» landfill laws, including bureaucratic red tape to catch anchovies in the Bay of Biscay in the 2011-2012 season.

He also pointed to plans to scrap «quota rules on imports of 8,000 tons of wheat bran originating in ACP states to the French overseas territory of Réunion.”

Examples of revocation of EU legislation

Elsewhere, Sir William stated that the ministers had decided to repeal the laws on the distribution of fishing opportunities for the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, the working hours of drivers during the 2001 FMD outbreak and allowing EU member states to ratify the law. Maritime Labor Convention 2006

The government insists its new approach to repeal EU laws is «pragmatic and balanced».

But in its letter to the Prime Minister , copied from Kemi Badenoch, Business Secretary, Sir William wrote: “Our initial assessment shows that, almost without exception, the REUL (Retained EU Bill) detailed in the appendix deals with matters that are trivial, outdated and not legally and/or politically important.

«Removing this REUL cannot be interpreted as easing the regulatory burden on businesses or stimulating economic growth.

«This is a disturbing mischaracterization and begs the question as to what the real goal is timeline.»

He urged the government to «reframe its plans for substantial REUL reform» and requested a «full update» on the status of its work with Brexit opportunities. .