On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:21:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:45:12 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.

All exports have to comply with the standards in the customer's country. For example you wouldn't
be able to sell domestic electrical appliance in the USA which require the UK voltage.

One of the main points about the single market is that if it's legal in
the UK it's legal all over the EU. Splitting that harmony will cost us
money.

But UK exports more by value to non-EU countries than to the EU.

What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?


Do you really expect the rest of the world to bring their laws into
line with the EU?

You are missing the point. If your business is mainly domestic, selling
things which pass the UK regs, then at the moment you can expand your
market to the whole EU without a second thought (or any redesign,
re-testing etc).

A red herring - manufacturers in China, Japan, S Korea don't have any problems in reaching standards
in EU, USA etc. already.

EU rules tend not to protect consumers but protect producers from completion e.g. tariffs on food
imports, food supplements having to be tested like drugs, standards for hoists in care homes which
only some manufacturers can produce, banning barometers containing mercury but not lightbulbs,
limits on power usage of vacuum cleaners and kettles. Consumers will be better off without many of
them.

In message , at 10:02:18 on
Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.

All exports have to comply with the standards in the customer's
country. For example you wouldn't
be able to sell domestic electrical appliance in the USA which
require the UK voltage.

One of the main points about the single market is that if it's legal in
the UK it's legal all over the EU. Splitting that harmony will cost us
money.

But UK exports more by value to non-EU countries than to the EU.

What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Because they are not designed around consumer-protection rules.

Do you really expect the rest of the world to bring their laws into
line with the EU?

You are missing the point. If your business is mainly domestic, selling
things which pass the UK regs, then at the moment you can expand your
market to the whole EU without a second thought (or any redesign,
re-testing etc).

A red herring - manufacturers in China, Japan, S Korea don't have any
problems in reaching standards in EU, USA etc. already.

They are the multi-billion manufacturers. A lot of trade is from much
smaller companies.

EU rules tend not to protect consumers but protect producers from
completion e.g. tariffs on food imports, food supplements having to be
tested like drugs, standards for hoists in care homes which only some
manufacturers can produce, banning barometers containing mercury but
not lightbulbs, limits on power usage of vacuum cleaners and kettles.
Consumers will be better off without many of them.

Whether that's true or not (and I detect a significant tinfoil-hat aroma
in your posting) if the rules in question (bee they good or bad) are not
adhered to, you can't export to the EU.
--
Roland Perry

On 13/11/2016 10:02, Optimist wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:21:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:


What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Aren't aircraft engines always a problem in these discussions, because
they undermine the belief that the UK doesn't make anything, doesn't
export anything and has no engineering capabilities, which is all the
fault of [Brussels/capitalists/socialists/Thatcher/yoof/immigrant single
mothers/etc]. It is easier to ignore them, and/or think the company
makes niche luxury cars instead.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:


There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Isn't the argument that the EU would need to give bad deal simply for
its own self-preservation? If it give a good deal, various other
countries might start getting ideas too.

The British europhile idea that Continental politics is like some kind
of giant LibDem conference (with a couple of dodgy French and Dutch
people being ignored on the sidelines) may not be entirely realistic.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 12/11/2016 08:02, Graeme Wall wrote:

The Victorians beleived in the workers working long hours for even less
pay than Sports Direct and sending small children up chimneys as they
were cheaper than brushes.

It was regulated before Victorian times, and banned by Victorians,
albeit with enforcement problems at first.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , at
11:27:47 on Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Aren't aircraft engines always a problem in these discussions, because
they undermine the belief that the UK doesn't make anything, doesn't
export anything and has no engineering capabilities, which is all the
fault of [Brussels/capitalists/socialists/Thatcher/yoof/immigrant
single mothers/etc]. It is easier to ignore them, and/or think the
company makes niche luxury cars instead.

It's all to do with the war (don't mention that to the Germans).

The government wanted a supplier for the new-fangled jet engines and
approached their preferred supplier at the time, which was Rover. Who
blinked, and a deal was done for Rolls Royce to take the lead in aero
engines and Rover (later spun off as Land rover) in ground transport.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:55:36 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:02:18 on
Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.

All exports have to comply with the standards in the customer's
country. For example you wouldn't
be able to sell domestic electrical appliance in the USA which
require the UK voltage.

One of the main points about the single market is that if it's legal in
the UK it's legal all over the EU. Splitting that harmony will cost us
money.

But UK exports more by value to non-EU countries than to the EU.

What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Because they are not designed around consumer-protection rules.

So you don't mind if planes fall out of the sky?


Do you really expect the rest of the world to bring their laws into
line with the EU?

You are missing the point. If your business is mainly domestic, selling
things which pass the UK regs, then at the moment you can expand your
market to the whole EU without a second thought (or any redesign,
re-testing etc).

A red herring - manufacturers in China, Japan, S Korea don't have any
problems in reaching standards in EU, USA etc. already.

They are the multi-billion manufacturers. A lot of trade is from much
smaller companies.

Not true. Much of the goods we but from abroad are from small firms.


EU rules tend not to protect consumers but protect producers from
completion e.g. tariffs on food imports, food supplements having to be
tested like drugs, standards for hoists in care homes which only some
manufacturers can produce, banning barometers containing mercury but
not lightbulbs, limits on power usage of vacuum cleaners and kettles.
Consumers will be better off without many of them.

Whether that's true or not (and I detect a significant tinfoil-hat aroma
in your posting) if the rules in question (bee they good or bad) are not
adhered to, you can't export to the EU.

The examples I have given are true. But you miss the point. UK consumers will have the freedom to
buy them from producers in the UK or elsewhere, as we won't have to follow the EU in restricting
choice in order to protect producer cartels.

On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
news
On 12/11/2016 10:38, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:19:29 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
And I honestly don't what the calls for a referendum on the result
of the
negotiations is trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no"
we'll be
exiting (because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper as an
agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

Isn't it the Libdems calling for it? Its the kind of moronic thing
they'd do
but of course its coupled with the general remoaner attitude that
somehow the
votes of those who voted Brexit are worth less than their own because
they
delude themselves into thinking that Brexiters are either stupid
and/or ill
informed, didn't really know what they were doing and that only
they, The
Remainers (cue angelic choir), have the gift of True Sight. Of course
this
naive dismissive arrogance common to the liberal elite and student
activists
is why we got Brexit and Trump just won.

I particularly love one of the favourite Remaoner arguments for
remaining in
the EU - "If we'd stayed in we could have changed it". Yes, because
we've had
so much success doing that in the last 40 years haven't we.

And what's more, if we back out now, having actually voted to leave our
chances of shaping the EU along the lines that we prefer in the future
will be reduced to a big fat zero.

Wrong, it's a big fat zero by leaving.

Irrelevant

The people who voted leave are completely disinterested in changing the EU.

It's only the people who voted remain because they believed "stay in to
change it" who care

And they (appear to be) a sizable number.

They are the ones disadvantaged by up crawling back after having decided
to leave.

The EU autocrats, who have so far backed off from the most extreme of
their measures because they were worried that it might "encourage" the
Brits will leave will say to themselves "they are more scared of leaving
than we are of them doing so" so we can do whatever we like and they'll
remain members regardless.

For us, the worst of all worlds. by a mile, IMHO


More scare-mongering.

Oh come on

There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Can't you do anything but come up with childish insults?


On that basis that will damned well be fully motivated to give us the
worst deal possible when it doesn't harm them on jot. So why wouldn't
they? - I know I bloody well word, and I'm a considerate guy (often very
much to my disadvantage).


You hide it extremely well.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 09:10:00 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

snip
No, quite the reverse. UK is EU's biggest market.

The EU's biggest market post-Brexit will be the rest of the EU.
snip

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:09:31 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:55:36 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:02:18 on
Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.

All exports have to comply with the standards in the customer's
country. For example you wouldn't
be able to sell domestic electrical appliance in the USA which
require the UK voltage.

One of the main points about the single market is that if it's legal in
the UK it's legal all over the EU. Splitting that harmony will cost us
money.

But UK exports more by value to non-EU countries than to the EU.

What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Because they are not designed around consumer-protection rules.

So you don't mind if planes fall out of the sky?


Do you really expect the rest of the world to bring their laws into
line with the EU?

You are missing the point. If your business is mainly domestic, selling
things which pass the UK regs, then at the moment you can expand your
market to the whole EU without a second thought (or any redesign,
re-testing etc).

A red herring - manufacturers in China, Japan, S Korea don't have any
problems in reaching standards in EU, USA etc. already.

They are the multi-billion manufacturers. A lot of trade is from much
smaller companies.

Not true. Much of the goods we but from abroad are from small firms.


EU rules tend not to protect consumers but protect producers from
completion e.g. tariffs on food imports, food supplements having to be
tested like drugs, standards for hoists in care homes which only some
manufacturers can produce, banning barometers containing mercury but
not lightbulbs,

An easy target at first sight but a progressing matter. Incandescent
lamps involve the greatest production of mercury at the stage of
electricity production. CFLs have some mercury in them but not in the
form of "raw" mercury. CFLs will themselves be overtaken where
suitable by the use of LED lighting and other developments.

limits on power usage of vacuum cleaners and kettles.
Consumers will be better off without many of them.

You think e.g. the USA presented as a glorious example by Brexiteers
always has slacker requirements ?

Whether that's true or not (and I detect a significant tinfoil-hat aroma
in your posting) if the rules in question (bee they good or bad) are not
adhered to, you can't export to the EU.

The examples I have given are true. But you miss the point. UK consumers will have the freedom to
buy them from producers in the UK or elsewhere, as we won't have to follow the EU in restricting
choice in order to protect producer cartels.