Former environment secretary Theresa Villiers, who backed Brexit in 2016, told the Observer the proposals would require huge public service time and would involve scrapping legislation that, in many cases, was widely popular and beneficial to the country. Other senior Tories worry that the EU retention bill, which was championed by Jacob Rees-Mogg before Rishi Sunak sacked him to become prime minister, risks becoming an ideological millstone. During his leadership campaign against Liz Truss, Sunak backed plans to remove as much EU law as possible from the UK statute book in what looked like a bidding war for right-wing votes among Tory MPs who support Brexit. But since he became prime minister, there have been suggestions he could weaken the plans by extending the “sunset clause” to scrap the accounts by three years until the end of 2026. But the Tories fear that would spark a backlash from right-wing. by Rees-Mogg. Villiers – a former MEP – made it clear, however, that the Rees-Mogg proposals seemed unrealistic and raised particular concerns about the impact of scrapping EU rules on the environment. “We don’t even know exactly how many environmental laws there are that will be affected by the bill, but the groups have counted up to 570 that need to be considered in a relatively short period of time,” Villiers said. he said. “It’s a huge amount of work that needs to be done and my fear is that the project may not be completed by the 2023 or 2026 deadline.” Legislation such as the deposit return scheme – which was designed to encourage the recycling of items such as plastic bottles and was widely popular with both the public and the drinks sector – took years to get into statute but is now under threat, Villiers said. “This was pledged in 2018, so it’s been four years and it still hasn’t been implemented. This shows that even relatively politically simple change is not so easy. All 18 months are demanding. We need to make sure the bill works.” Some senior Conservatives believe the bill should, at the very least, be extensively amended to make it less prescriptive, so it only focuses on legislation that is clearly unnecessary and easy to remove from the statute book, and that should not be replaced with a copy of its legislation United Kingdom. Former cabinet minister Damian Green, who opposed Brexit, said there were real questions about what would replace the repealed legislation and how quickly it could be done. “My fear is practical. These regulations will have to be replaced in a very short time, otherwise there will be laws with big holes in them,” he said. “I hope someone in government has thought about the practicalities of this.” Another Tory MP who opposed Brexit, Richard Graham, said: “The question for the government is whether the sheer volume of laws that need to be changed is a practical and desirable goal before the next general election. The alternative is to focus on a smaller number, where conversion leads directly to change – highlighting opportunities to leave the EU by amending our own laws. For many of us, this is both more practical and has more political benefit for those who voted to get Brexit done.” Opposition to the bill is also mounting from business groups, legal experts and unions, who say it creates unnecessary uncertainty about which laws will be implemented in just over a year. Jonathan Jones, who headed the government’s legal service from 2014 to 2020 and dealt with the complex legal challenges of Brexit, said: “I think it is entirely ideological and symbolic rather than real policy.” A government spokesman denied there would be any major change to the bill, although Whitehall sources confirmed there were signs a review was underway. The spokesman said: “The Government is committed to reaping the full benefits of Brexit, which is why we are moving forward with the EU Retained Bill, which will end the special legal status of all retained EU law and make it easier to do so. modified, removed or replaced. “This will allow us to ensure that our laws and regulations better meet the needs of the country by removing unnecessary red tape to support jobs while maintaining important protections and safeguards.”
