Show the Working

Scrap EU regulations

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Scrap EU regulations” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Prosperity & living standards — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Scrapping over 6,700 laws at once would likely create significant legal uncertainty and deter business investment, while projected gains from deregulation are disputed by independent analysts. The net effect on living standards looks negative in the near-to-medium term, though the long-run picture depends heavily on what replaces removed rules.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether targeted replacement regulations would be enacted quickly enough to prevent legal chaos and maintain investor confidence — and whether any productivity gains from genuine deregulation would offset job losses in clean energy and disruption costs.

Our reading: O13 asks whether living standards, productivity, business investment, and economic opportunity improve. The policy's stated mechanism is deregulatory — removing inherited EU rules to unlock flexibility. However, the evidence weighs against a net improvement on O13 indicators, particularly in the near-to-medium term. First, the legal-certainty channel damages investment. The previous government tried a smaller-scale version of this approach and abandoned it because the Regulatory Policy Committee found it unfit for purpose and business groups warned of disruption. If firms cannot rely on a stable legal environment, investment decisions are deferred — directly harming the productivity and investment indicators O13 tracks. Second, the Net Zero component is the largest measurable sub-claim. The OBR projects fossil-fuel reliance through 2050 would cost double the decarbonisation path. The Institute for Government disputes the £45bn savings figure, identifying it as private investment that would be deterred rather than released. The New Economics Foundation quantifies £67–£92bn in lost GVA and 60,000+ clean-energy jobs from halting renewable projects. These are advocacy-adjacent sources and should be treated with moderate rather than high confidence — but they point consistently in one direction, and no independent source in the evidence set supports a net growth gain from this component. Third, on State Aid, the Northern Ireland Protocol constraint means the UK cannot simply abolish the EU regime unilaterally without breaching treaty obligations, creating further legal and investor uncertainty rather than flexibility. The counterfactual — absent the policy — is a regulatory environment that, while imperfect, provides stability and supports inward investment in clean industries. The policy's 'immediate effect' framing removes the possibility of managed transition, maximising disruption costs. The direction is worsens. Magnitude is moderate rather than major because genuine deregulatory gains in some sectors are conceivable, some evidence units are from advocacy sources (Greenpeace, NEF, Transition Economics) that must be down-weighted, and the full 6,700-law repeal may not pass as stated. Confidence is moderate for the same reasons.

Inequality & fair shares — Hurts

moderate · low confidence

Scrapping employment protections and net-zero rules would most likely widen the gap between rich and poor, because lower-income workers depend most on regulatory floors that would be removed. The evidence is heavily projected, so the exact scale is uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether any replacement domestic framework is introduced that preserves distributional protections for lower-income workers and households — the policy is silent on this.

Our reading: O14 turns on who gains and who loses from a policy's distributional effects. This policy operates on three channels that all point in the same direction for inequality. First, employment deregulation. The EU-derived rules earmarked for removal — working time limits, rest breaks, paid leave — function as a wage and conditions floor. Concerns cited in the evidence specifically flag risks of accidents at work and overworked staff from losing these protections. Workers with least bargaining power are most exposed when regulatory floors fall; higher-income and professional workers are more able to negotiate equivalent terms individually. Removing these protections therefore tends to widen the gap at the bottom. Second, energy costs. The evidence projects that scrapping net zero would make energy 'significantly more expensive' through greater fossil-fuel dependence. Higher energy costs represent a larger burden relative to income for those further down the income distribution, meaning the projected price increases from this channel widen real income gaps. Third, economic disruption. Business leaders warned the move would 'threaten economic growth' and undermine certainty for workers and businesses. The uncertainty cost of mass deregulation tends to fall harder on those with fewest buffers — lower-income workers with less savings, job security, or ability to absorb shocks. No evidence unit supports a countervailing distributional gain — for instance, that deregulation of state aid or competition law would produce earnings or wealth gains for lower-income groups that offset these losses. Confidence is low because virtually all magnitude estimates are projected rather than measurable — the policy has not been implemented — and the exact replacement framework is unknown. But the direction of effect on the gap is consistent across all cited evidence channels: worsens.

Cost of living — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Scrapping thousands of EU-derived laws at once is likely to push up energy bills and create economic disruption that squeezes household budgets — the main uncertainty is how quickly any harm would show up. The policy's claimed savings don't hold up to independent scrutiny.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether any deregulatory gains in specific sectors could offset energy cost increases and the economic disruption from mass legal uncertainty — no credible independent analysis in the evidence supports this outcome.

Our reading: The core cost-of-living question is whether this policy improves or worsens the affordability of essentials — food, energy, bills — for ordinary households. The evidence points consistently toward worsening, on multiple channels. First, on energy bills: the OBR, Institute for Government, and multiple analysts all project that scrapping Net Zero and returning to fossil fuel dependence raises long-run energy costs materially — the OBR's figure of double the cost of decarbonisation is particularly striking as it comes from a government fiscal watchdog. Reform UK's claimed £45bn saving is rebutted by the Institute for Government as a misrepresentation of private investment flows, not public savings. Second, on economic stability: the mass simultaneous removal of 6,700 laws creates legal uncertainty at a scale that a previous government explicitly abandoned on a far smaller scale. Business groups warn this threatens growth and economic stability — the conditions that underpin real disposable income. Third, on employment protections: removing working-time and annual leave rules derived from EU law risks worsening the quality and safety of work for lower-income workers, increasing in-work poverty risk. No cited evidence provides a credible counter-estimate of consumer-facing gains that would offset these pressures. The magnitude is 'moderate' rather than 'major' because the long-term nature of the energy cost channel means effects would not be felt immediately, and some legal disruption might be mitigated in implementation. But the direction of evidence is clear and multi-source: this policy worsens cost of living for ordinary households, particularly those most exposed to energy prices and employment risk. Confidence is moderate, not high, because the precise scale of impact depends heavily on what replacement rules, if any, are enacted.

Good work & fair pay — Hurts

major · moderate confidence

Scrapping employment regulations derived from EU law would remove protections like working time limits and paid leave, likely reducing job security and conditions for workers. Independent forecasts also project hundreds of thousands of job losses from scrapping Net Zero-related rules, though the exact scale is contested.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether Parliament would replace scrapped employment protections with equivalent domestic law, and how quickly labour market disruption from regulatory uncertainty would materialise.

Our reading: The policy directly targets employment regulations as an explicit category for immediate repeal. The evidence base is consistent: employment law experts and trade unions project a weakening of core worker protections — working time, rest breaks, paid leave — with risks of increased workplace accidents and overwork. These are not speculative harms; they are the documented purpose of the regulations being scrapped. Beyond employment law specifically, the policy also scraps Net Zero-related rules, which independent analysts (Transition Economics, New Economics Foundation) project will destroy tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs in renewable and green industries within this parliament and beyond. These forecasts come from multiple sources and point in the same direction. The one credible counter-argument — that deregulation could stimulate hiring and growth — has no cited evidence support in the provided units; in fact business leaders themselves warned against it (E8). The previous government's own attempt at a smaller version of this approach was abandoned and condemned by its own Regulatory Policy Committee (E7, E4), suggesting that even proponents found mass revocation undeliverable without severe disruption. The magnitude is major because the policy simultaneously attacks employment protections (worsening conditions for current workers) and triggers large-scale projected job destruction in growing sectors. The time horizon is immediate because the policy explicitly states 'with immediate effect,' meaning legal uncertainty and removal of protections would be felt from day one. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the job-loss projections, while consistent in direction, come partly from advocacy-adjacent sources (Transition Economics, NEF), and the final outcome depends on whether replacement domestic legislation is enacted.

Clean environment & nature — Hurts

major · moderate confidence

Scrapping thousands of retained EU laws — including environmental and Net Zero regulations — would remove most of the UK's existing nature, air, and water protections, and abandon the climate trajectory that independent bodies say is cheaper than continued fossil-fuel reliance. The main caveat is that the actual environmental damage depends on what, if anything, replaces those laws.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether any replacement environmental framework would be enacted, and how quickly — no replacement mechanism is stated in the policy.

Our reading: The policy commits to scrapping all retained EU environmental and Net Zero laws with immediate effect and provides no stated replacement mechanism. The retained EU law framework is the backbone of UK nature, air, and water protections — covering habitats, biodiversity, pollution controls, and the climate trajectory. Removing it wholesale would, on the evidence cited, strip most of these protections simultaneously. On climate specifically, the OBR finds fossil-fuel reliance through 2050 would cost double what decarbonisation costs, and independent analysts warn that abandoning net zero raises long-run climate adaptation costs (flood defences, etc.). On nature and biodiversity, conservation groups identify the Habitats and Birds Directives and water pollution controls as the structural foundation of UK environmental law; their removal would ease development restrictions and accelerate habitat loss. The previous Conservative government attempted a similar (though less sweeping) mass revocation and abandoned it in May 2023 precisely because the volume and interdependency of laws made safe repeal unmanageable — the Regulatory Policy Committee found the approach not fit for purpose. A still-larger immediate revocation carries at least the same risks and likely greater ones. The main source of uncertainty is that this is a projected effect: the actual environmental harm depends on whether replacement legislation is enacted and how quickly. The policy text states no such replacement. Given the institutional evidence that even a partial revocation was unmanageable without substitution, the immediate-effect framing makes a replacement gap highly likely in practice. Advocacy sources (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth) are cited here but only for claims corroborated by or consistent with independent institutional sources (OBR, Institute for Government, government-commissioned Corry review). The direction of worsening on O6 is well-supported across independent evidence; magnitude is major given the breadth of protections at risk and the climate trajectory implications.

Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on clean environment & nature →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home