Let’s get on with Brexit

There has been a concerted effort to discredit and denigrate the 17m people across our United Kingdom who voted to leave the European Union. But, rather than a desire to hark back to the past or turn their backs to the outside world, I believe that the overriding motivation for "Leave" voters was the wish to take back control of our laws, so that once again we will become an independent self-governing democracy. Ending the supremacy of EU Law and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is essential if we are to obey the instruction given on the 23^rd June.

So far, the apocalyptic predictions of the "Remain" side have not come to pass. Employment is at a record high. The deficit is down. And thanks to difficult decisions that the government has made over the last six years, we are in a strong position to deal with the inevitable uncertainty caused by what is probably the biggest decision this country has made for over 40 years.

There has already been a bounce back with positive figures for consumer spending and the biggest month-on-month increase in the Markit/CIPS purchasing managers’ index for manufacturing in history. Companies like AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline have announced major investment in their UK operations.

Now we need to press ahead with shaping a new relationship with the EU. Unqualified acceptance of Single Market legislation should not be part of the deal. There may be areas where we should continue to have the same or very similar regulation to the EU. But it is important that we regain the flexibility to tailor regulation. Even in cases where the UK and the EU have identical aims, the ability to respond more quickly to changing circumstances and pilot new ways to deliver outcomes will be key to improving our competitiveness. That is likely to require withdrawal from the customs union.

Financial services is one area where maintaining a degree of co-ordination and consistency between UK and EU regulation is worth considering. I spent six years as an MEP grappling with regulation of European capital markets and I appreciate the importance of securing the right deal for the City.

We will not be without allies in the negotiation. The majority of EU member states have no significant financial centre for wholesale markets and no realistic chance of establishing one. They will continue to depend on London for the capital that their businesses need and attempts to close off access to the City would damage their economies.

Whatever the outcome of our exit negotiations, financial markets in the UK and the rest of the EU will still be heavily interconnected. So decisions made in the UK on how to regulate the City will have a significant impact on financial markets serving the whole of Europe. If the EU wants to maximise its influence over regulation of the City, it will have to reach a sensible deal with the UK.

There is considerable focus on whether the right to passport services into the Single Market can be retained, but there are other options worth considering which fall short of full passporting rights. For example, EU law already provides for a degree of access from jurisdictions which have “equivalent” regulatory regimes.

Getting a good trade deal for both goods and services should not be impossible to reconcile with restored control over immigration. It is just as much in the EU’s interest as ours to have a flourishing trading relationship. They sell much more to us than we do to them.

Free movement should be brought to an end in its current form, to be replaced by a system which enables the government to control the overall number of EU citizens allowed to live and work in the UK.

This need not involve the abandonment of the Common Travel Area that we have had with Ireland for a hundred years. History teaches us that land border checks are easily circumvented. Enforcement of rules is a much better way to deal with illegal immigration: EU citizens here without the relevant legal permissions would not be allowed to work, rent property or open a bank account. This will discourage non-Irish EU citizens from accessing the UK by crossing into Northern Ireland.

Nor would leaving the customs union necessarily require a “hard” border. Technology has moved on dramatically since the years before the EU, when customs queues used to occur at border roads. For example, the US and Canada do not share a customs union and yet thousands of trucks cross the border every hour without even slowing down. Alternatively, customs checks could be carried out on the external border of the Common Travel Area—that is, when goods leave either the UK or Ireland and are sent on to other European countries.

With a degree of pragmatism on both sides, we can keep the border as open and free-flowing as it is today. This goal is deliverable in practical and legal terms and both the UK and Irish governments are clear that they want this to happen. In those circumstances, it makes no sense for the EU to inflict unnecessary new division in the island of Ireland and punish one of its continuing member states in the process.