How ministers rejected Sturgeon Brexit plan


The UK sway rejected Nicola Sturgeon’s paper of Brexit proposals saying it could producer “significant disruption” to trade within the UK.

A letter from Brexit Secretary David Davis repudiating the proposals has been published for the first time.

He said there were “pure barriers” to the idea of Scotland staying in the single market via the EEA or EFTA.

Scottish Brexit member attend to Mike Russell replied underlining the “fundamental importance” of the single market-place.

He said there was “every reason to suggest that with the certain political will and commitment” the issues raised in the letter could possess been addressed.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon published the layouts in December 2016, arguing it was possible for Scotland to remain in the European singular market even after the rest of the UK left.

Her ‘Scotland’s Place in Europe’ dissertation said a “flexible” approach could see Scotland maintain its place in the fasten on market through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Budgetary Area (EEA).

The SNP leader insisted this option did not prioritise the European furnish over continued free trade across the UK, but said it would “keep both”.

Mr Davis replied to the proposal on 29 March, the day Prime Help Theresa May formally triggered Article 50 starting the process of the UK’s make ones departure from the EU.

In the letter, Mr Davis said the London and Edinburgh governments “deal many of the same objectives”, noting that “a substantive programme of labour” had gone into examining Ms Sturgeon’s proposals.

He said he was “disappointed that the Scottish oversight has called for another referendum on independence before we were able to consult on the outcomes of this good work, that was entered into in meet faith”.

On the specific matter of the singe market, he said there were “pellucid barriers” to making the Scottish government proposal a reality.

He wrote: “Scotland’s accession to EFTA, and then the EEA, desire not be deliverable and, importantly, would require the consent of all EFTA and EU member states.

“Any divergence between EU and UK law – as a consequence, perhaps, of new EU regulation – could lead to the creation of new barriers to trade within our coherence, which could take the form of additional controls and checks on career within the United Kingdom.

“Given that trade with the shut-eye of the UK is worth four times trade with the EU, I do not believe that such informative disruption to the internal UK market is in Scotland’s – or the UK’s – best interests. And Scotland’s subjects could face a confusing mix of regulatory regimes.”

In response, Mr Russell famous “frustration” at the way talks between the governments had gone.

He wrote: “It is important to re-state the rudimentary importance the Scottish government places on membership of the European single superstore as distinct from the UK government’s ambition of having access – or partial access – to this bazaar.

“Scotland’s Place in Europe clearly sets out this distinction and the damage to Scotland’s restraint and society that will occur if Scotland’s single market membership is jeopardised.

“In bearing to the specific points you raise regarding the proposals, there is every urge to suggest that with the necessary political will and commitment these controversies could have been addressed. Indeed there were no insurmountable originates raised in the engagement between officials that took place on the other side of the last two months.

“While we welcome your commitment to ‘close job with the Scottish government and other devolved administrations’ we must iterate our view that these should be meaningful, based on trust, openness and a veritable sharing of options and policy positions as well as data, and must dish real opportunities to influence the process.”

There also was a row over the newspaper of the document after Scottish Secretary David Mundell claimed that the Scottish control had asked for it not to be released, something a spokesman for Mr Russell denied.

The letters were later on published in correspondence to Holyrood’s Europe committee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *