Debates about deepening UK-EU relations, including in the current ‘re-set’ negotiations,  often focus on what will the UK gain versus what it must concede.  Yet, what constitutes a win or a loss for the UK is complex – and if Brexit has taught us anything, it’s that people have diverse, and sometimes polarized, views. This is why an effective re-set of UK-EU relations requires thinking about an aspect of negotiations that is often overlooked, or viewed as a technical consideration: how the UK implements the re-set domestically. More specifically, the UK needs to address the democratic deficit in UK treaty-making, and establish bespoke arrangements on EU regulatory alignment, now and in the future. The surest way to future-proof a closer relationship with the EU is to create a sense that the UK public, and particularly those affected by regulation, have a say in this decision.

The importance of domestic implementation

Despite its renowned tradition of direct democracy, Switzerland aligns its regulations with the EU across numerous sectors. For example, it recently concluded an EU-Swiss Common Food Safety Area, in which it agreed to align with EU food law across a wide range of areas. At first glance, this decision may seem to contradict Swiss self-determination. But Switzerland chose not to align with EU law in a couple of areas where it had stricter regulation, on GMOs and animal welfare. Also, although Switzerland agreed in signing the treaty to continue to align with EU food law, decisions on alignment with future regulation (dynamic alignment) are not automatic. Switzerland retains the right to decide whether to adopt new EU regulations. Switzerland accepts the possibility of reduced market access to the EU as the price of maintaining this democratic control. Decisions about this trade-off rest with Swiss democratic and constitutional processes, including the possibility of direct votes by citizens.

The UK’s Opportunity

The UK faces a similar choice as it re-aligns domestic regulation with the EU. While regulatory re-alignment inevitably reduces sovereignty, the UK can decide how much democratic oversight to build into the process.

The EU-UK Common Understanding on a potential SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) Common Area acknowledges this flexibility. It specifies that the EU will respect UK constitutional and parliamentary procedures when dynamic alignment is undertaken. This gives the UK space to determine what democratic safeguards are appropriate for deciding whether to align with specific EU regulations.

The Risk of Executive Dominance

Brexit’s “taking back control” of regulation has, whether intentionally or not, concentrated power in the executive branch. The UK also has an executive-led approach to treaty negotiation. As the UK re-aligns food law with the EU, the Government could maintain this executive-led approach and allow Ministers to make decisions about current and future dynamic alignment with minimal transparency or consultation.

Alternatively, it could ensure that food law formation and EU alignment involves input from stakeholders (notably farmers, food businesses, civil society and consumer groups) and is accountable to devolved nations and Parliament.

Existing Models

The UK already has precedents for managing dynamic EU alignment, though they vary considerably in their degree of democratic accountability.

The Product Regulation and Metrology Act (2025) grants the Secretary of State broad powers to make regulations that correspond, or are similar to, EU laws on reducing environmental impacts of products. This model concentrates substantial and loosely-defined powers in central government.

The Northern Ireland Protocol also involves dynamic EU alignment (though limited to Northern Ireland) but with more checks. New EU laws do not apply automatically. Under Article 13(4), when the EU adopts new regulations, the Joint Committee can decide whether to add them to the Protocol or explore alternative approaches to maintain its functioning.

A Path Forward

While neither UK model matches Switzerland’s degree of direct democracy, they demonstrate that decisions to align with EU regulation can incorporate greater or lesser accountability and consultation, both at the treaty negotiation stage and for future dynamic alignment decision-making processes.

With respect to the treaty negotiation, the UK will need to change broad areas of UK food law to bring them back in alignment with EU law, which will require the UK government to pass primary legislation to implement its new EU treaty. These are devolved areas, and doing so without the explicit consent of devolved nations would undermine the devolution settlement. The UK government is also making important decisions about which areas of food law it should exempt from broad re-alignment with the EU. There is no publicly available consultation on this issue, leading to a lack of transparency. This contributes to the perception that decisions are being made in secret, or by Brussels and simply enacted by the UK government.

At the minimum, both negotiations and future dynamic alignment under a UK-EU SPS Common Area should include:

• A role for Parliament in ongoing monitoring and scrutiny.
• Stakeholder consultation regarding whether to align with existing and new EU regulation.
• Agreement from devolved nations on both the Common Food Safety Area and dynamic alignment decisions, noting that food law is a devolved area.

Despite increased public scepticism about the benefits of Brexit, an executive-led, non-consultative approach to EU alignment risks deepening perceptions that following Brussels can never be a democratic choice.  If the Starmer government cannot create a sense that the public has some oversight and control over decisions about rule taking, it risks perpetually re-opening Brexit debates.

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the University of Sussex or UK Trade Policy Observatory.

Republishing guidelines:
The UK Trade Policy Observatory believes in the free flow of information and encourages readers to cite our materials, providing due acknowledgement. For online use, this should be a link to the original resource on our website. We do not publish under a Creative Commons license. This means you CANNOT republish our articles online or in print for free.