A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Which standards for goods have changed since we officially left?

So you have no clue about UKCA?

All products used to be manufactured to CE standards, the UK has pulled out of this and is in the process of applying UKCA standards, instead of being a simple paperwork exercise, swapping CE for UKCA the standards for many products have changed, which mean products need to be tested and re-approved. So now manufacturers have two standards to work with CE which has a market of 700m people and is accepted around the word and UKCA which is the standard for a market of 68m and is not accepted throughout the world. Expect to see price increases or products no longer available as manufacturers decide it's not worth applying for UKCA.

The UK has also pulled out of the Marine Equipment Directive which set the standard for equipment used on ships, many countries outside of the EU also accept MED certification. The UK now has it's own new standard MER, this standard is also not a paperwork exercise it will require testing and won't be accepted by anyone else.

A101 wrote:

You are aware that the UK is no longer in the EU don't you?

I sure am I've been laughing at Brexiters since they won.

A101 wrote:

UKCA marking show that it complies with UK standards. Any goods that require the CE markings is up to the exporter to comply with upon entry to the EU. Just because the markings have changed does not mean the product is inferior or standards have actually changed.

As to the MED/MER majority would be international standards IMO with some national requirements. The MED just organized for its member nations just like every other nation has its own independent body for maritime laws. it's not a big deal like you make it out to be instead of the EU doing for the UK its now set up its own statutory body.

The reality is the UK doesn't need to set up it's on regulatory body, the UK shipbuilding industry is tiny, the EU's much larger, MED certification is also accepted all over the world, just like CE. All the major European classification societies are members DNV, BV, RINA. LR used to be a member.

A101 wrote:

1.1 International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions require ships to carry safety and counter pollution equipment (collectively ‘marine equipment’) that has been approved by the ship’s Flag Administration. This means that Flag Administrations are required to ensure that marine equipment carried on board ships flying their flag comply with international design, construction, performance and testing standards, and to ensure that such equipment is approved as meeting those standards.

1.2 After the United Kingdom left the European Union, the UK implemented regulations to establish UK conformity assessment procedures to ensure that the UK can continue to comply with its international obligations by applying international standards to marine equipment that is to be placed on board UK ships.

1.3 ‘The Regulations’ shall mean the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, as amended.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -equipment

No different from Australia

https://www.amsa.gov.au/about/regulatio ... pseArea262

No different to the EU

https://www.emsa.europa.eu/med-directive-mared.html[/quote]

Norway is not a member of the EU yet all vessels built in Norway comply to the MED regulations.

Australia is an interesting one almost all vessels built in Australia's two primary commercial yards are built to MED regulations.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why would the EU do it and had they ever made any attempt to do so?

The UK with these unfavorable FTA's has self inflicted damage on it's farmers, nobody else has done this.

Meat products exported to the UK are chilled or frozen, the season doesn't matter.

And the quota has been dropped for dairy so you will be getting real NZ butter, not the rebranded crap pretending to be Anchor butter.

You have not answered the question how has the trade deal done a "number" on UK farmers?

NZ (and maybe Australian farmers) are incredibly efficient, with NZ lamb and dairy we can produce a product which is superior to what British producers can produce at a lower price point, with no import tariffs how will British farmers compete?

https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-i ... rade-deal/

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/are- ... 32.article

NZ and Australia are the 2nd and 1st largest exporters of lamb, they are the 7th and 3rd largest exports of beef, and NZ is the largest exporter of dairy.

The upside for the British public is better products at a better price and with British farmers going out of business re-wilding the countryside can occur

Another win for Brexit!

Just as you pointed out earlier that why would the EU do it, it is the same logic as to AU/NZ, the only nations that should be worried are other countries also exporting to the UK from the EU which would be the ROI to grab some of its share

Like all countries export is demand orientated. if AU increased its current exports by 100% tomorrow it still would not create a big impact of the market .

The uk imports approximately around 314,000 tonnes of beef per annum of which AU exports a measly 1,500 tonnes on average.

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

You have not answered the question how has the trade deal done a "number" on UK farmers?

NZ (and maybe Australian farmers) are incredibly efficient, with NZ lamb and dairy we can produce a product which is superior to what British producers can produce at a lower price point, with no import tariffs how will British farmers compete?

https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-i ... rade-deal/

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/are- ... 32.article

NZ and Australia are the 2nd and 1st largest exporters of lamb, they are the 7th and 3rd largest exports of beef, and NZ is the largest exporter of dairy.

The upside for the British public is better products at a better price and with British farmers going out of business re-wilding the countryside can occur

Another win for Brexit!

Just as you pointed out earlier that why would the EU do it, it is the same logic as to AU/NZ, the only nations that should be worried are other countries also exporting to the UK from the EU which would be the ROI to grab some of its share

Like all countries export is demand orientated. if AU increased its current exports by 100% tomorrow it still would not create a big impact of the market .

The uk imports approximately around 314,000 tonnes of beef per annum of which AU exports a measly 1,500 tonnes on average.

Expect to see imports of Australian beef ramp up.

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway is not a member of the EU yet all vessels built in Norway comply to the MED regulations.

Australia is an interesting one almost all vessels built in Australia's two primary commercial yards are built to MED regulations.

Off course because they are predominantly international based standards just like the EU regulations

The objective of this Directive is to enhance safety at sea and to prevent marine pollution through the uniform application of the relevant international instruments relating to marine equipment to be placed on board EU ships, and to ensure the free movement of such equipment within the Union.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 0-20210811

Australia's maritime safety and protection of the sea laws implement international and national standards. These relate to ship construction, equipment, crew and vessel safety and seafarer employment.

https://www.amsa.gov.au/about/regulatio ... pseArea262

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ (and maybe Australian farmers) are incredibly efficient, with NZ lamb and dairy we can produce a product which is superior to what British producers can produce at a lower price point, with no import tariffs how will British farmers compete?

https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-i ... rade-deal/

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/are- ... 32.article

NZ and Australia are the 2nd and 1st largest exporters of lamb, they are the 7th and 3rd largest exports of beef, and NZ is the largest exporter of dairy.

The upside for the British public is better products at a better price and with British farmers going out of business re-wilding the countryside can occur

Another win for Brexit!

Just as you pointed out earlier that why would the EU do it, it is the same logic as to AU/NZ, the only nations that should be worried are other countries also exporting to the UK from the EU which would be the ROI to grab some of its share

Like all countries export is demand orientated. if AU increased its current exports by 100% tomorrow it still would not create a big impact of the market .

The uk imports approximately around 314,000 tonnes of beef per annum of which AU exports a measly 1,500 tonnes on average.

Expect to see imports of Australian beef ramp up.

And you will most likely find it is at the expense of ROI imports.

“Apart from the extra checks that will apply following the trade agreement reached last December, the threat to our markets is the biggest fallout for Irish farmers from the vote nearly five years ago,” he said.

“It’s precisely the dangerous scenario that we have signalled following the Brexit vote in June, 2016. Trade deals between the UK and 3rd countries have the potential to undermine what is a very important market for our beef exports,” he said.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/uk ... %20said%3A

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

So how is the AU/NZ deal going to do a "number" on UK farmers that the EU can't do right now if they wanted to?

Being a Kiwi, you would be aware that the seasons are different for veal and lamb products.

Why would the EU do it and had they ever made any attempt to do so?

The UK with these unfavorable FTA's has self inflicted damage on it's farmers, nobody else has done this.

Meat products exported to the UK are chilled or frozen, the season doesn't matter.

And the quota has been dropped for dairy so you will be getting real NZ butter, not the rebranded crap pretending to be Anchor butter.

You have not answered the question how has the trade deal done a "number" on UK farmers?

An example of what happened with farmers -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26DKLmC0pI

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Just as you pointed out earlier that why would the EU do it, it is the same logic as to AU/NZ, the only nations that should be worried are other countries also exporting to the UK from the EU which would be the ROI to grab some of its share

Like all countries export is demand orientated. if AU increased its current exports by 100% tomorrow it still would not create a big impact of the market .

The uk imports approximately around 314,000 tonnes of beef per annum of which AU exports a measly 1,500 tonnes on average.

Expect to see imports of Australian beef ramp up.

And you will most likely find it is at the expense of ROI imports.

“Apart from the extra checks that will apply following the trade agreement reached last December, the threat to our markets is the biggest fallout for Irish farmers from the vote nearly five years ago,” he said.

“It’s precisely the dangerous scenario that we have signalled following the Brexit vote in June, 2016. Trade deals between the UK and 3rd countries have the potential to undermine what is a very important market for our beef exports,” he said.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/uk ... %20said%3A

You're deflecting. Why should you be concerned about Irish farmers?

Unpopular opinion: GDP growth rates, as such, don’t matter much.

Instead, what matters is the living standard of the median British voter. It is very possible that GDP growth soars, but 51% of British voters actually see a clear decrease to their living standard. In that case, they vote for Brexit. And that is what happened 3 years ago. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. What makes life better for millionaires/billionaires is a separate discussion.

And maybe Brexit has caused 51% of people’s living standards to decline even more. That is possible. But they wanted a change in direction. It’s their country… they own it. What other people think is kind of irrelevant. End of unpopular opinion.

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway is not a member of the EU yet all vessels built in Norway comply to the MED regulations.

Australia is an interesting one almost all vessels built in Australia's two primary commercial yards are built to MED regulations.

Off course because they are predominantly international based standards just like the EU regulations

The objective of this Directive is to enhance safety at sea and to prevent marine pollution through the uniform application of the relevant international instruments relating to marine equipment to be placed on board EU ships, and to ensure the free movement of such equipment within the Union.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 0-20210811

Australia's maritime safety and protection of the sea laws implement international and national standards. These relate to ship construction, equipment, crew and vessel safety and seafarer employment.

https://www.amsa.gov.au/about/regulatio ... pseArea262

The irony is there are very few producers of marine equipment in the UK, most of it is imported from the EU, Norway or China. It's already expensive enough certifying to MED rules, why carry out the extra expense of complying to MER regulation when the market it tiny?? The market is so small there is very little incentive for UK companies to invest in making MER certified equipment.

From what I've been told the far far larger problem is UKCA for medical equipment.

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I'll ask again the question that never seems to get answered - can you name one benefit from Brexit that the average Brit on the street is enjoying today?

Why thought that would be self-explanatory, we are no longer in the EU

How does that "benefit" manifest itself for the average Brit? The average Brit is economically worse off and has lost rights they had as an EU citizen.

So the real answer to the question is, no you can't.

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ (and maybe Australian farmers) are incredibly efficient, with NZ lamb and dairy we can produce a product which is superior to what British producers can produce at a lower price point, with no import tariffs how will British farmers compete?

The upside for the British public is better products at a better price and with British farmers going out of business re-wilding the countryside can occur

Another win for Brexit!

I'd take Welsh lamb over NZ lamb (that you can buy in shops in the UK) any day of the week. It tastes better, and I'd pay the extra to make sure it continues - many won't. British beef (especially Scottish Angus but also Hereford) is easily in my top 5 beef in the world.

But the point is made, it is a prime example of why protectionism in some cases is needed, and when you do a deal like this you only hurt your home producers which we were all told would never happen with Brexit - it was suposed to do the opposite.

What have Brexiteers and Communists have in common?
Well they both are in denial about the failure of their creed, just as the old Commies used to say 'ah, but the USSR, or China, or East Germany, or Ethiopia, all of them, just did not do it right, or 'enough'.
Or Trotsky should have had a chance, etc.
Well.....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... estminster

When will the UK be able to reapply to reenter the EU?

I am positive a vote for it would succeed in the UK. The real question is would the EU accept a reapplication and what guarantees would they want to avoid this same mess from happening again in ten or twenty years?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

When will the UK be able to reapply to reenter the EU?

I am positive a vote for it would succeed in the UK. The real question is would the EU accept a reapplication and what guarantees would they want to avoid this same mess from happening again in ten or twenty years?

Tugg

From an outsider perspective, if I were in EU I would never entertain them for the simple reason that the way things have been it has been poisonous. Any acceptance would make the notion of British exceptionalism and make things more extreme. It is only when the far right has been fully routed both economically and politically then they could think think or should otherwise. The gap between EU and UK would sadly increase on everything. This is something that the UK on its own. Let them suffer the consequences.

Tugger wrote:

When will the UK be able to reapply to reenter the EU?

I am positive a vote for it would succeed in the UK. The real question is would the EU accept a reapplication and what guarantees would they want to avoid this same mess from happening again in ten or twenty years?

Tugg

I expect it would be many years before it could be considered and I suspect a few in the EU would be invoking the ghost of Charles de Gaulle!

We would, of course, be joining as a new member and would not get back the opt-outs and refunds that had previously been negotiated. Just another benefit cost of Brexit.

Reinhardt wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ (and maybe Australian farmers) are incredibly efficient, with NZ lamb and dairy we can produce a product which is superior to what British producers can produce at a lower price point, with no import tariffs how will British farmers compete?

The upside for the British public is better products at a better price and with British farmers going out of business re-wilding the countryside can occur

Another win for Brexit!

I'd take Welsh lamb over NZ lamb (that you can buy in shops in the UK) any day of the week. It tastes better, and I'd pay the extra to make sure it continues - many won't. British beef (especially Scottish Angus but also Hereford) is easily in my top 5 beef in the world.

But the point is made, it is a prime example of why protectionism in some cases is needed, and when you do a deal like this you only hurt your home producers which we were all told would never happen with Brexit - it was suposed to do the opposite.

Indeed, Welsh lamb is absolutely delicious.

The UK had a number of carve-outs in its EU membership, most notably keeping an independent Pound. I don't think any of that would be possible when reapplying. I think a generous trade agreement is the only thing politically available now, considering the 'red lines' both would demand.

Not directly related but this would not have happened under a government, of either main party, not run by Brexiteers and that massive Venn diagram overlap of corruption you get. After all, this was under Johnson.
The National Crime Agency have been investigating this awful woman and husband, she sits for the Tories in the Lords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmohU8A0cBw
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -avoidance

Brexit means unfettered corruption, private profit and public squalor on a vast scale, which is why it's main backers pushed it.

As well as denial, the above might not be word for word in the thread title but there is such a thing as a bigger picture and cause and effect, Brexit plays a major part here, again pre 2016, this would not have happened;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... denial-imf

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

Which standards for goods have changed since we officially left?

It doesn’t matter, that fact that they can be different means an enhanced border check requirement and additional paperwork to ensure compliance. A significant amount of non-added value work and time payed for by someone. The friction of the border is hurting and preventing trade.

One specific example I can give you is the requirement for qualified and certified vets to sign off on all shipments of animal products. That vet needs paying and it takes time., all the things business loves…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought it was a pretty straight forward question, which standards have changed have changed?

The ability to ask a question does not in and of itself make a question worthy. One may like. It to asking what the colour of jealousy is. The very fact that all or none of the regulations may or may not have changed is irrelevant to the fact that they are able to change which is what prompts the additional friction. The fact that this is lost on you clearly makes you unable to fathom why is actually occurring and as in the previous debates on this topic you fail to show Reasonable regard for the evidence. It’s ironic that it’s the same tactic identified as being used by putin on many occasions.

Fred

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Expect to see imports of Australian beef ramp up.

And you will most likely find it is at the expense of ROI imports.

“Apart from the extra checks that will apply following the trade agreement reached last December, the threat to our markets is the biggest fallout for Irish farmers from the vote nearly five years ago,” he said.

“It’s precisely the dangerous scenario that we have signalled following the Brexit vote in June, 2016. Trade deals between the UK and 3rd countries have the potential to undermine what is a very important market for our beef exports,” he said.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/uk ... %20said%3A

You're deflecting. Why should you be concerned about Irish farmers?

No deflection or concern for ROI beef imports. imports come under supply and demand. If the supply chain that imports beef products into the UK at a competive rate they will source from whoever if they have the capacity to meet the demand

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

It doesn’t matter, that fact that they can be different means an enhanced border check requirement and additional paperwork to ensure compliance. A significant amount of non-added value work and time payed for by someone. The friction of the border is hurting and preventing trade.

One specific example I can give you is the requirement for qualified and certified vets to sign off on all shipments of animal products. That vet needs paying and it takes time., all the things business loves…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought it was a pretty straight forward question, which standards have changed have changed?

The ability to ask a question does not in and of itself make a question worthy. One may like. It to asking what the colour of jealousy is. The very fact that all or none of the regulations may or may not have changed is irrelevant to the fact that they are able to change which is what prompts the additional friction. The fact that this is lost on you clearly makes you unable to fathom why is actually occurring and as in the previous debates on this topic you fail to show Reasonable regard for the evidence. It’s ironic that it’s the same tactic identified as being used by putin on many occasions.

Fred

The problem is when i replied the question was about any friction it was about aligning standards. When the standards between EU/UK have not changed what the EU does at the border is not my concern

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway is not a member of the EU yet all vessels built in Norway comply to the MED regulations.

Australia is an interesting one almost all vessels built in Australia's two primary commercial yards are built to MED regulations.

Off course because they are predominantly international based standards just like the EU regulations

The objective of this Directive is to enhance safety at sea and to prevent marine pollution through the uniform application of the relevant international instruments relating to marine equipment to be placed on board EU ships, and to ensure the free movement of such equipment within the Union.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 0-20210811

Australia's maritime safety and protection of the sea laws implement international and national standards. These relate to ship construction, equipment, crew and vessel safety and seafarer employment.

https://www.amsa.gov.au/about/regulatio ... pseArea262

The irony is there are very few producers of marine equipment in the UK, most of it is imported from the EU, Norway or China. It's already expensive enough certifying to MED rules, why carry out the extra expense of complying to MER regulation when the market it tiny?? The market is so small there is very little incentive for UK companies to invest in making MER certified equipment.

From what I've been told the far far larger problem is UKCA for medical equipment.

Then there is no problem then just as if people export to the EU they have to comply with its rules or any other nation

Think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

I thought it was a pretty straight forward question, which standards have changed have changed?

The ability to ask a question does not in and of itself make a question worthy. One may like. It to asking what the colour of jealousy is. The very fact that all or none of the regulations may or may not have changed is irrelevant to the fact that they are able to change which is what prompts the additional friction. The fact that this is lost on you clearly makes you unable to fathom why is actually occurring and as in the previous debates on this topic you fail to show Reasonable regard for the evidence. It’s ironic that it’s the same tactic identified as being used by putin on many occasions.

Fred

The problem is when i replied the question was about any friction it was about aligning standards. When the standards between EU/UK have not changed

Maybe, maybe not. The friction (and it’s consequences) are derived from the ability to have non aligning standards, whether they actually align or not.

Brexit is hurting British people and there are still no benefits outside of feelings 3 years in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The ability to ask a question does not in and of itself make a question worthy. One may like. It to asking what the colour of jealousy is. The very fact that all or none of the regulations may or may not have changed is irrelevant to the fact that they are able to change which is what prompts the additional friction. The fact that this is lost on you clearly makes you unable to fathom why is actually occurring and as in the previous debates on this topic you fail to show Reasonable regard for the evidence. It’s ironic that it’s the same tactic identified as being used by putin on many occasions.

Fred

The problem is when i replied the question was about any friction it was about aligning standards. When the standards between EU/UK have not changed

Maybe, maybe not. The friction (and it’s consequences) are derived from the ability to have non aligning standards, whether they actually align or not.

Brexit is hurting British people and there are still no benefits outside of feelings 3 years in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exporting is competitive as it is irrespective of remaining in the EU or not its supply and demand. if they want it they will buy it

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

The problem is when i replied the question was about any friction it was about aligning standards. When the standards between EU/UK have not changed

Maybe, maybe not. The friction (and it’s consequences) are derived from the ability to have non aligning standards, whether they actually align or not.

Brexit is hurting British people and there are still no benefits outside of feelings 3 years in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exporting is competitive as it is irrespective of remaining in the EU or not its supply and demand. if they want it they will buy it

Not necessarily, it is more simpler than that. It is what is easier. Let's say you have supplier A and supplier B. And supplier B is in UK. Before Brexit, both A and B had similar rates and were exporting to customer C. After Brexit, costs of supplier B has gone up much more than A due to extra bureaucratic work. His/her costs have gone up say by 10-15% or more. A's costs have also gone up but not as much as B. So in this scenario, A could very well have raised a bit more price, have profits while B basically is unable to sell and goes under. There are plenty of examples in the UK that tell that story, the latest being British Volt. Add to that in a complex world you need to have people, tools and processes from various geographies. The manufacturer more than anything works as an 'assembler' and a packager. Any component delayed means costs are more and profits less. You make profits by selling cheaper and turning around that capital that you have invested. This is basic economics 101.

Due to Brexit you now have an uncertainty on turnaround of things so any complex manufacturing that relies partly or wholly on components are bound to suffer. There is just no way out for them. And making similar components/supply chains is easier said than done. The whole idea of business, medium and big is to have large number of customers in various places. That's the reason now most businesses that can afford to are moving to EU. Even finance as finance follows manufacturing.

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

The problem is when i replied the question was about any friction it was about aligning standards. When the standards between EU/UK have not changed

Maybe, maybe not. The friction (and it’s consequences) are derived from the ability to have non aligning standards, whether they actually align or not.

Brexit is hurting British people and there are still no benefits outside of feelings 3 years in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exporting is competitive as it is irrespective of remaining in the EU or not its supply and demand. if they want it they will buy it

Indeed it is competitive, and like in any competition if one competitor is given a disadvantage their chances of winning that competition are reduced. In this instance the increased time and resources overcoming the friction added by brexit is one of those disadvantages.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pune wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why would the EU do it and had they ever made any attempt to do so?

The UK with these unfavorable FTA's has self inflicted damage on it's farmers, nobody else has done this.

Meat products exported to the UK are chilled or frozen, the season doesn't matter.

And the quota has been dropped for dairy so you will be getting real NZ butter, not the rebranded crap pretending to be Anchor butter.

You have not answered the question how has the trade deal done a "number" on UK farmers?

An example of what happened with farmers -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26DKLmC0pI

“We had markets in Europe, Spain, and Greece, they all wanted lightweight lambs that we supply.

Interesting it does not say why Spain and Greece no longer import from the UK. don't know her business model is she exporting live or slaughtered?

if live exports that was coming to a halt soon anyway as there has been a push for it for some time they tried in 2012 ban it, Why I don't really know.

I also lead to believe that there are no BCP in EU to inspect them from the UK as well
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55167473


Also talks about tariffs are there to protect farmers, but has no objections to the CTA does not have any also, no protection from the EU either and has zero quotas as well

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. The friction (and it’s consequences) are derived from the ability to have non aligning standards, whether they actually align or not.

Brexit is hurting British people and there are still no benefits outside of feelings 3 years in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exporting is competitive as it is irrespective of remaining in the EU or not its supply and demand. if they want it they will buy it

Indeed it is competitive, and like in any competition if one competitor is given a disadvantage their chances of winning that competition are reduced. In this instance the increased time and resources overcoming the friction added by brexit is one of those disadvantages.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the same as any third nation exporting to EU

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

Exporting is competitive as it is irrespective of remaining in the EU or not its supply and demand. if they want it they will buy it

Indeed it is competitive, and like in any competition if one competitor is given a disadvantage their chances of winning that competition are reduced. In this instance the increased time and resources overcoming the friction added by brexit is one of those disadvantages.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the same as any third nation exporting to EU

Indeed. Outside of the EU Britain has the same situation as a country in the same situation, I’m also wondering what colour yellow paint might be…If it makes you feel better we can reverse the description and instead of saying that the friction is a disadvantage we can say that the lack of friction when in the EU was an advantage. The result is the same either way, hence the economic figures we see corroborated the the practical realities I deal with on the ground.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Indeed it is competitive, and like in any competition if one competitor is given a disadvantage their chances of winning that competition are reduced. In this instance the increased time and resources overcoming the friction added by brexit is one of those disadvantages.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the same as any third nation exporting to EU

Indeed. Outside of the EU Britain has the same situation as a country in the same situation, I’m also wondering what colour yellow paint might be…If it makes you feel better we can reverse the description and instead of saying that the friction is a disadvantage we can say that the lack of friction when in the EU was an advantage. The result is the same either way, hence the economic figures we see corroborated the the practical realities I deal with on the ground.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not really concern about it if that's what the EU wants to do they are free to do so. People are always going to complain about change its human nature.

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

A friend and client of mine assembles or manufacturers waste disposal trucks for which he imports ball bearngs and whatnot what is required for those specialized trucks. It isn't a big operation but I have seen the hassle he has go through each time. He is in India. He never knew the luxuries you guys had. He enjoyed the fact that UK will have all the pain points that he has to deal with for well over a decade. His imports have declined over time simply because it is a pain point. He uses knock offs which result in less safety but doesn't see it practical as the consignment has to have certain numbers to make it right and the process isn't just worth it.

pune wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

A friend and client of mine assembles or manufacturers waste disposal trucks for which he imports ball bearngs and whatnot what is required for those specialized trucks. It isn't a big operation but I have seen the hassle he has go through each time. He is in India. He never knew the luxuries you guys had. He enjoyed the fact that UK will have all the pain points that he has to deal with for well over a decade. His imports have declined over time simply because it is a pain point. He uses knock offs which result in less safety but doesn't see it practical as the consignment has to have certain numbers to make it right and the process isn't just worth it.

that will then come down to do the "knock off" parts meet national standards?

If not, then it's his choice to risk his company's reputation if the parts constantly fail. that comes down to a business decision not a trade decision..

A101 wrote:

pune wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

A friend and client of mine assembles or manufacturers waste disposal trucks for which he imports ball bearngs and whatnot what is required for those specialized trucks. It isn't a big operation but I have seen the hassle he has go through each time. He is in India. He never knew the luxuries you guys had. He enjoyed the fact that UK will have all the pain points that he has to deal with for well over a decade. His imports have declined over time simply because it is a pain point. He uses knock offs which result in less safety but doesn't see it practical as the consignment has to have certain numbers to make it right and the process isn't just worth it.

that will then come down to do the "knock off" parts meet national standards?

If not, then it's his choice to risk his company's reputation if the parts constantly fail. that comes down to a business decision not a trade decision..

In India, who do you think is gonna check national standards. Not the municipalities for sure. More the breakdown, more the repair bill and that's how money gets spent. And frankly put, nobody looks. The ones who suffer have to talk to the same authorities. And people care more to see how many orders your company had rather than how good or bad the vehicle is. Even our testing standards for vehicles are low, unlike say the EU, poles apart so what you are thinking just doesn't happen

pune wrote:

A101 wrote:

pune wrote:

A friend and client of mine assembles or manufacturers waste disposal trucks for which he imports ball bearngs and whatnot what is required for those specialized trucks. It isn't a big operation but I have seen the hassle he has go through each time. He is in India. He never knew the luxuries you guys had. He enjoyed the fact that UK will have all the pain points that he has to deal with for well over a decade. His imports have declined over time simply because it is a pain point. He uses knock offs which result in less safety but doesn't see it practical as the consignment has to have certain numbers to make it right and the process isn't just worth it.

that will then come down to do the "knock off" parts meet national standards?

If not, then it's his choice to risk his company's reputation if the parts constantly fail. that comes down to a business decision not a trade decision..

In India, who do you think is gonna check national standards. Not the municipalities for sure. More the breakdown, more the repair bill and that's how money gets spent. And frankly put, nobody looks. The ones who suffer have to talk to the same authorities. And people care more to see how many orders your company had rather than how good or bad the vehicle is. Even our testing standards for vehicles are low, unlike say the EU, poles apart so what you are thinking just doesn't happen

As I said it's a business decision.

Eventually someone sees that the equipment breaks down a lot then then does a cost v production analysis, then most likely starts looking at the competition.

A101 wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

You still fail to grasp the concept that Brexit has imposed impediments to trade with the UK's nearest and largest export markets. This is economic insanity. Your average business in the UK that sold domestically and into the European Union did not have to deal at all with the complexities and additional costs of shipping outside of the single market. I know from experience that many small to middle sized businesses, when faced with these obstacles, will just walk away from the potential business. You have still failed to cite an example of a benefit that has accrued to the UK to being out of the European Union .Although, I guess you can say that saying "screw you to Europe" must make some people feel good. If that's what you call a benefit, I can't argue with you.

victrola wrote:

A101 wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

You still fail to grasp the concept that Brexit has imposed impediments to trade with the UK's nearest and largest export markets. This is economic insanity. Your average business in the UK that sold domestically and into the European Union did not have to deal at all with the complexities and additional costs of shipping outside of the single market. I know from experience that many small to middle sized businesses, when faced with these obstacles, will just walk away from the potential business. You have still failed to cite an example of a benefit that has accrued to the UK to being out of the European Union .Although, I guess you can say that saying "screw you to Europe" must make some people feel good. If that's what you call a benefit, I can't argue with you.

Like all remain/rejoin your only argument is economic. More to leave than that.

A101 wrote:

pune wrote:

A101 wrote:

that will then come down to do the "knock off" parts meet national standards?

If not, then it's his choice to risk his company's reputation if the parts constantly fail. that comes down to a business decision not a trade decision..

In India, who do you think is gonna check national standards. Not the municipalities for sure. More the breakdown, more the repair bill and that's how money gets spent. And frankly put, nobody looks. The ones who suffer have to talk to the same authorities. And people care more to see how many orders your company had rather than how good or bad the vehicle is. Even our testing standards for vehicles are low, unlike say the EU, poles apart so what you are thinking just doesn't happen

As I said it's a business decision.

Eventually someone sees that the equipment breaks down a lot then then does a cost v production analysis, then most likely starts looking at the competition.

But what if the competition is also doing the same thing. Once you have no standards, then it doesn't really matter.

pune wrote:

A101 wrote:

pune wrote:

In India, who do you think is gonna check national standards. Not the municipalities for sure. More the breakdown, more the repair bill and that's how money gets spent. And frankly put, nobody looks. The ones who suffer have to talk to the same authorities. And people care more to see how many orders your company had rather than how good or bad the vehicle is. Even our testing standards for vehicles are low, unlike say the EU, poles apart so what you are thinking just doesn't happen

As I said it's a business decision.

Eventually someone sees that the equipment breaks down a lot then then does a cost v production analysis, then most likely starts looking at the competition.

But what if the competition is also doing the same thing. Once you have no standards, then it doesn't really matter.

Thats true but it's not about whichever nation having no standards, it is about the business you alluded to knowingly committing fraud by using non-compliant parts.

Many businesses do this if they can get away with it or their quality assurance systems have let them down. I remember watching Air Crash Investigation and one of the episodes were talking about counterfeit parts and even some ended up on Air Force One

A101 wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

The harder you make it to sell something the less interested companies are in buying from you, that is what brexit has done for British companies, it's made them less competitive.

With the downfall of the British economy and there lack of relevance on the world stage it must also be time to consider removing the UK from the security council, they could be replaced by India.

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

I thought it was a pretty straight forward question, which standards have changed have changed?

The ability to ask a question does not in and of itself make a question worthy. One may like. It to asking what the colour of jealousy is. The very fact that all or none of the regulations may or may not have changed is irrelevant to the fact that they are able to change which is what prompts the additional friction. The fact that this is lost on you clearly makes you unable to fathom why is actually occurring and as in the previous debates on this topic you fail to show Reasonable regard for the evidence. It’s ironic that it’s the same tactic identified as being used by putin on many occasions.

Fred

The problem is when i replied the question was about any friction it was about aligning standards. When the standards between EU/UK have not changed what the EU does at the border is not my concern

Perhaps not your personal concern, but that doesn't really matter. it creates friction and thus adds cost for exporting goods from the UK to the EU, making the UK less competitive in the EU market. So it is a concern for the UK economy and that's why it performs less than other countries. It is a choice, but it is estimated that the UK lost 100 bn in economic activity because of Brexit.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

The harder you make it to sell something the less interested companies are in buying from you, that is what brexit has done for British companies, it's made them less competitive.

Comes down to supply and demand. Both sides are experiencing this as both the EU/UK are not importing/exporting at the same levels to each other pre-Brexit

A101 wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

That is a truism. Sure, no government can appease all the people 100% of the time, but it is a valid question what did it actually accomplish? What concrete benefits are there to Brexit? What positive impact has it made for ordinary citizens in their lives? We have seen tons of negative impacts, so it must have some positive impacts as well.
I am very curious to get the answer to these main questions, I haven't seen anything in the pst 3 years.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is painfully obvious here that the defenders of Brexit have no practical experience in the mechanics of international trade or the complexities and costs of product certification processes. Having spent over 30 years in international trade, I can tell you firsthand that it makes a world of difference when you can just simply ship a product, or spare part directly to a customer without having to worry about product certifications or customs entry procedures. 4 years ago, a British manufacturer could just ship a spare part to a customer in France without having to do any kind of paperwork. Now, the good has to entered through customs. And even if there is no tariff, somebody has to pay the customs broker to handle the customs clearance. There are bills of lading, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, and other documents required depending on the commodity. Goods need to be classified according to the Harmonized tariff schedule and correct duties must be determined. Customs entries must be filed and you need to await clearance. Don't even get me started on the product certification processes...

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

That is a truism. Sure, no government can appease all the people 100% of the time, but it is a valid question what did it actually accomplish? What concrete benefits are there to Brexit? What positive impact has it made for ordinary citizens in their lives? We have seen tons of negative impacts, so it must have some positive impacts as well.
I am very curious to get the answer to these main questions, I haven't seen anything in the pst 3 years.

The answers are out there you just have to look on past threads and other media

Benefits are very subjective people have different views on the matter

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

The harder you make it to sell something the less interested companies are in buying from you, that is what brexit has done for British companies, it's made them less competitive.

Comes down to supply and demand. Both sides are experiencing this as both the EU/UK are not importing/exporting at the same levels to each other pre-Brexit

Whats the incentive for EU countries to buy anything from you? If you can buy the same product from an EU supplier and not have to deal with customs cleaning, there's no incentive to buy from a UK supplier. But you got your blue passports back (which you could have always had).

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

And one would think that UK has had no experience in exporting requirements. our exports were just not going to the EU. As I said it comes down to change and people will complain.

No government can appease all the people 100% of the time.

That is a truism. Sure, no government can appease all the people 100% of the time, but it is a valid question what did it actually accomplish? What concrete benefits are there to Brexit? What positive impact has it made for ordinary citizens in their lives? We have seen tons of negative impacts, so it must have some positive impacts as well.
I am very curious to get the answer to these main questions, I haven't seen anything in the pst 3 years.

The answers are out there you just have to look on past threads and other media

Benefits are very subjective people have different views on the matter

Apart from the very Farage like answer, what have the benefits been for you personally? Name 5.

The financial benefits of Brexit were always a long time coming, but that's not the only thing that counts. Being able to decide yourself who can and who cannot come in to your country is one thing. Not needing to worry about another layer of corrupt politicians wasting your money is another.

Having said that, UK politicians are not very smart about Brexit. Why not keep accepting CE marks? Why not prioritize free trade with Europe? Having an economically successful UK is in the interest of Europe too.

AeroVega wrote:

The financial benefits of Brexit were always a long time coming, but that's not the only thing that counts. Being able to decide yourself who can and who cannot come in to your country is one thing.

Excellent! I have a list of people I don’t want in, it’s a great idea however it would be helpful if they told me who to give the list to.

That is an awesome Brecon benefit.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk