18th January 2023
Nobody – really – is in favour of “red tape”.
It is instead the sort of thing which people are against.
In this way it is a bit like “complacency” as a thing which people are also against: nobody ever says “I think we should be more complacent”.
The very mention of “red tape” often prompts – and is intended to prompt – an adverse reaction, even jeers.
And, in turn, announcing a “crackdown” or “bonfire” or some other drastic-sounding word often prompts – and is intended to prompt – a positive reaction, and perhaps claps and cheers.
What sort pf person could possibly be against getting rid of “red tape”?
*
But the problem is that much “red tape” has a purpose, and indeed is sometimes the consequence of that equal and opposite follies of our political discourse: “something must be done!” and “there should be a law against it!”
And so, like a perpetual motion machine, we have the following cycle:
1. An unwelcome phenomenon happens.
2. “Something must be done!” and “there should be a law against it!”
3. A thing is done and/or there is a law against it.
4. That thing or law becomes “red tape”.
5. “There needs to be a bonfire of red tape!”
6. And loop to 1.
*
This is not to say that some regulations and rules are awful or redundant.
Indeed, there are many rules and regulations that any regulated person can think of without too much effort.
The problem is twofold.
First: there is no point in getting rid of a regulation without understanding its intended purpose, and also what would happen in respect of that intended purpose if that regulation was removed.
This means that repealing regulations – as with creating or modifying regulations – should be on a considered case-by-case basis,
Second: in a word, externalities.
Many areas of human activity are complex, and so removing (or adding or changing) one thing can have unexpected and unwelcome knock-on effects on other things.
This is obvious with a moment’s thought, for the very purpose of many regulations is to steer human activity in one direction rather than another.
In other words: the very intention of many regulations is to have knock-on effects.
*
And now to the matter in hand: the reckless attempt by the current governing party to remove regulations inherited from our membership of the European Union.
You can tell almost no thought has gone into this exercise because of the superficial – indeed banal – contentions made in its favour.
It needs to be done, because of Brexit.
It matters not that many of these regulations may have been made for a good reason.
It matters not that some of these regulations were promoted by United Kingdom ministers and officials in our national interest.
It does not even matter that nobody is absolutely certain about how many regulations will be affected.
But it needs to be done, because of Brexit.
*
What we have in this repeal bill is the combination of the older absurdity of “bonfire of red tapes” with the newer one of needing to have something – anything – to show for Brexit being worthwhile.
For in January 2023, most people – including those who have a close or passionate interest in Brexit – can point to little or nothing concrete as a benefit of Brexit.
It is all a bit silly and needless.
Perhaps there should be a law against it.
**
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
