Questions have been raised about access to a parliamentary call for evidence examining the UK Government’s proposed “reset” of relations with the European Union, after guidance on submissions appeared to limit who can contribute through an online form.
The inquiry, launched by the House of Lords European Affairs Committee, is examining the concept of “dynamic alignment” — a mechanism under which the UK could align with certain areas of European Union law as part of future agreements.
However, some observers have pointed to a message on the submission portal stating: “This submission form is not currently public. Please only use this form if invited to do so by the committee, otherwise your submission might not be considered.” Critics argue this wording could create confusion about who is eligible to submit evidence.
SUBMIT YOUR EVIDENCE HERE: https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/3876/
Inquiry into post-Brexit arrangements
The committee’s inquiry focuses on planned agreements between the United Kingdom and the EU, including:
- A sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement to ease trade in food and agricultural products
- Linking emissions trading schemes (ETS)
- UK participation in the EU’s internal electricity market
Negotiations on the SPS and ETS agreements formally began in November 2025, with both sides aiming to reach conclusions ahead of a UK–EU summit expected later in 2026.
The Government has also indicated it may consider further agreements involving closer integration with the EU Single Market where deemed to be in the national interest. A proposed “reset Bill” is expected to provide the legal framework for implementing such arrangements, including mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny.
Scope of the call for evidence
According to the committee, the inquiry is intended to inform parliamentary debate rather than advocate for specific policy outcomes. It is examining issues such as:
- How dynamic alignment operates in other non-EU countries
- The extent of influence the UK could have over EU rule-making
- The economic impact of proposed agreements
- Implications for UK trade policy and devolved administrations
The committee states it “encourages anyone with expertise in or experience of the matters under consideration” to submit written evidence. Submissions were invited by a deadline of 20 April 2026, with public evidence sessions scheduled from March.
Debate over accessibility
Despite this stated openness, the restriction notice on the submission form has prompted debate about whether the process is fully accessible to the public or primarily directed at invited contributors such as academics, industry bodies and policy specialists.
Parliamentary committees often seek evidence from a combination of invited experts and voluntary submissions. In some cases, submission portals may initially be configured for invited witnesses before being opened more widely, or alternative submission routes may be available.
The committee has not publicly indicated that submissions are limited to specific viewpoints, and standard parliamentary practice requires committees to consider a range of perspectives when scrutinising policy.
Transparency and participation
The inquiry comes at a time of continued political debate over the UK’s relationship with the EU following Brexit. Proposals involving regulatory alignment, financial contributions, and market participation remain contentious across different political and public audiences.
All accepted evidence submitted to the committee is typically published online and may be cited in its final report, which is expected to inform parliamentary consideration of forthcoming legislation.
The committee has stated that it aims to ensure “a wide range of different perspectives” are considered as part of its work.
SUBMIT YOUR EVIDENCE HERE: https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/3876/
SEE BELOW FOR EVIDENCE CLAIRE BULLIVANT, CEO of the Great British PAC submitted:
Submission to the House of Lords European Affairs Committee Inquiry on Dynamic Alignment
I am submitting this evidence as a UK citizen with a strong interest in constitutional governance, democratic accountability, and the long-term economic and political independence of the United Kingdom. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry into the proposed system of “dynamic alignment” as part of the Government’s evolving relationship with the European Union.
Summary of Position
I oppose the introduction of dynamic alignment between the United Kingdom and the European Union. While cooperation with international partners is valuable, dynamic alignment risks undermining democratic accountability, constraining regulatory autonomy, and creating ongoing legal and financial obligations without equivalent decision-making authority.
1.What is dynamic alignment?
Dynamic alignment refers to an arrangement under which a non-EU country commits to keeping its domestic laws aligned with relevant areas of European Union law as those rules evolve over time. This typically involves an obligation to update domestic legislation to reflect changes agreed within EU institutions.
In contrast to traditional international agreements, which fix obligations at a point in time, dynamic alignment creates a continuing process of legal adjustment driven externally. Crucially, this occurs without full participation in EU legislative institutions.
2. Lessons from other countries (EEA/EFTA and Switzerland; Northern Ireland)
Experience from other European countries suggests that dynamic alignment entails significant limitations:
- EEA/EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein): These countries adopt a substantial proportion of EU Single Market legislation. While they are consulted during policy development, they do not have voting rights in EU decision-making bodies. Academic and institutional analyses consistently describe them as “rule-takers” in practice.
- Switzerland: Its sectoral agreements have required alignment in specific areas, and the EU has sought stronger mechanisms for dynamic alignment precisely because static arrangements have proven difficult to maintain.
- Northern Ireland (Windsor Framework): This provides a closer example within the UK. EU law applies in specified areas, and while consultation mechanisms exist, ultimate authority rests with EU institutions. The arrangements have generated ongoing political and administrative complexity.
These examples suggest that dynamic alignment limits domestic legislative autonomy and creates governance challenges, even where economic benefits are present.
3. Can ‘decision-shaping’ deliver real influence?
The concept of “decision-shaping” does not provide an equivalent substitute for formal decision-making power.
While non-EU states may:
- Participate in consultations
- Provide technical input
- Engage diplomatically
They:
- Do not vote on final legislation
- Cannot block or amend proposals decisively
- Depend on informal influence rather than institutional authority
Evidence from EEA states indicates that influence is uneven and contingent. The United Kingdom, as a large economy but non-member, would still lack formal mechanisms to guarantee meaningful influence over outcomes.
4. Parliamentary scrutiny
Current arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny are not adequate for a system of dynamic alignment.
Dynamic alignment would require:
- Continuous monitoring of EU legislative developments
- Regular incorporation of external legal changes into UK law
An effective scrutiny system should therefore include:
- A formal parliamentary approval mechanism for each instance of alignment
- The ability to delay, amend, or reject proposed changes
- Dedicated committee structures with technical expertise
- Transparent reporting on legal and economic impacts
Without such measures, Parliament risks being placed in a reactive and diminished role.
5. Economic impact of proposed agreements (SPS, ETS, electricity)
The economic impact of the proposed agreements is uncertain and highly dependent on their detailed design.
Potential benefits include:
- Reduced trade frictions, particularly in agri-food sectors under an SPS agreement
- Greater efficiency in carbon markets through ETS linkage
- Improved energy market integration
However, these must be weighed against:
- Compliance costs associated with maintaining alignment
- Constraints on regulatory flexibility
- Administrative and institutional costs
Any GDP gains are therefore conditional and may be offset by longer-term structural limitations.
6. Dependence on detailed terms
The balance of benefits and drawbacks will depend heavily on:
- The scope of alignment obligations
- The availability of exemptions or safeguard mechanisms
- Governance and dispute resolution arrangements
Even small differences in these terms could significantly alter outcomes. This uncertainty reinforces the need for caution before committing to a generalised framework of dynamic alignment.
7. Financial contributions
The prospect of UK financial contributions to EU programmes or policies raises important concerns:
- Contributions would not confer voting rights over spending decisions
- The link between payments and tangible UK benefits may be unclear
- There is a risk of open-ended commitments
Any financial contribution should be strictly limited, transparent, and demonstrably linked to measurable benefits. Otherwise, such arrangements risk failing basic value-for-money tests.
8. Implications for global trade policy
Dynamic alignment may constrain the UK’s ability to pursue an independent trade policy:
- Alignment with EU rules could limit flexibility in negotiations with countries such as the United States
- It may complicate regulatory commitments under agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
- Divergence can be a strategic asset in securing trade agreements tailored to national priorities
A system that restricts this flexibility could reduce the UK’s competitiveness in global markets.
9. Devolved administrations
Dynamic alignment raises important constitutional issues within the UK:
- Many relevant policy areas (e.g. agriculture, environment, energy) involve devolved competencies
- Alignment decisions taken at the UK level could constrain devolved policymaking
- This may create tensions within the UK’s constitutional settlement
A clear framework is needed to ensure meaningful engagement with devolved administrations and legislatures.
10. Practical implementation
Implementing dynamic alignment would require substantial legal and institutional infrastructure:
- Systems to track and assess EU legislative developments
- Processes to transpose changes into UK law efficiently
- Administrative capacity across multiple departments
- Mechanisms for dispute resolution and enforcement
This would be a complex and resource-intensive process, likely taking several years to operate effectively. It also introduces ongoing obligations rather than a one-time adjustment.
Conclusion
Dynamic alignment represents a significant shift in the United Kingdom’s legal, economic, and constitutional framework. While cooperation with the European Union is both necessary and beneficial in many areas, it should not come at the expense of democratic accountability, regulatory autonomy, or fiscal discipline.
The evidence from comparable arrangements suggests that dynamic alignment:
- Limits domestic control over lawmaking
- Provides only limited influence over external rule-making
- Creates ongoing legal and financial obligations
- Introduces constitutional and administrative complexity
Any future UK–EU arrangements should prioritise:
- Clear democratic oversight
- Defined limits on alignment obligations
- Preservation of regulatory flexibility
- Transparent and accountable financial arrangements
For these reasons, I do not consider dynamic alignment to be in the United Kingdom’s national interest and would urge that it is not pursued.
I urge the Committee to consider these risks carefully when evaluating the case for dynamic alignment.
Claire Bullivant,
CEO, Great British PAC
Claire.Bullivant@GreatBritishPAC.com
