Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've give and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the E anyway.
Let's come back Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can se would be outside the EU.
We currently have no say in US regulations and sell to the US.
Increasingly product specifications are set by international standard setters - where the UK is a leader, by the way, though BSI. Occasionally national governments will intervene to try an bias things in favour of their national industries, but we need to deal with that anyway.
If you think that having no input into the rules and regulations of all the markets we trade in is fine then we have no argument. The EU sets the rules of the single market, faxes those rules over to us, and we adhere to them. If that is compensation enough for all the stuff you don't like about the EU then that is inarguable.
As we have discussed before, however, I do believe we should have an input into the rules of a very important market for us.
In financial services, for example, I would not like to think that we were spectators. In 2018 there will be new rules for share trading and a whole lot besides in the financial services sphere. Many of the rules were promoted by the FCA, as I'm sure you are aware. If we were outside the EU, the FCA would get less of what it wanted. Now that's a good thing, you may argue; but I disagree.
Also that piece has a very useful table of support for Trump vs Clinton in various demographic groups - an updated (without Bloomberg) version of that could be very useful if we get a Trump/Clinton contest for state betting.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
S
A
.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets. EU approval would come with adherence to the EU rules about widgets. EU rules about widgets would be formulated by...the EU. And we would be outside the EU.
So what?
This for me is what it comes down to. Do you:
(a) Prioritise a seat at the top table in the EU and 1/28th of the say on future single market regulations, an early warning/consultation over what initiatives are afoot, and a veto over some, accepting that otherwise you have to apply 100% of the rules to 100% of your economy and concede sovereignty on trade, regional policy, justice, social, employment, commercial, agriculture and fisheries policies, or;
(b) Prioritise independence, where you get no say in the rules of the single market, but you only have to comply with them to the extent you wish to trade or do business within it, and can otherwise do as you wish domestically and internationally, just like any other country, subject to WTO rules. For influence, use bilateral ties and relationships to maintain British influence within the European polity.
For me the balance tipped in favour of (b) a long time ago and will only increase to favour it year-by-year as the EU stagnates and forms an ever smaller share of the global economy.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
Fair points.
But as the world at large grows (we must hope) more mature and approaches 1st world levels of prosperity then the market for exports widens. We must expect more competition from them as well. The growth of the Korean car industry is one example. But as Kia or other growing companies seek plants in the EU where do we want them to go? Clearly they have a wide choice but if we are not in the EU if we are not in the EEA then one place they will never come is here. Kia have in fact a plant in Slovakia. Toyota design cars in Europe as well as build them here. As well as the UK it has a plant in France - it makes minicars in the Czech republic. Renault-Nissan say they expect to save billions this year alone with synergies. They have a research and investment bill of some 8-10 billion dollars a year. The motor industry sums are vast. We are not going to export anything if we export our plants. Why stand up and thumb our noses at our share of EU inward investment?
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
Possibly. Although in my view its a moot point. But possibly. But that is not being offered by Leave.
Why not? We don't necessarily adopt US standards for our domestic market.
It will be up to manufacturers - and consumers - to decide. Some manufacturers, with big export sales to the EU, may decide to produce entirely on an EU standard. If this means they open a gap in the domestic market, other firms (domestic or foreign) may choose to fill it.
A recent example is the high-powered hair drier story. Outside the EU, we can set our own standards for the UK market which will mean continued non-EU imports or domestic production of higher power hair driers.
Any UK manufacturers wanting to export to the EU will of course need to meet EU standards. They may choose to, or they may choose to export somewhere else.
'Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets'
That's what happens with exports to the US as well. So what?
So what is that no-one seriously suggests we'd have our own, non-EU widget rules. So EU rules will continue to apply in the domestic UK market, in or out.
No. I'd suggest that, absolutely.
They are called British Standards. We have a whole suite of them in the engineering industry that we apply to design and construction of our own infrastructure (incl. things like widgets) that are often not co-terminus with European Standards.
Also that piece has a very useful table of support for Trump vs Clinton in various demographic groups - an updated (without Bloomberg) version of that could be very useful if we get a Trump/Clinton contest for state betting.
I think those are guesstimates rather than polling. But I'm sure they're in the right ballpark (and the share of electorate is useful too).
'While Remain seem to be discounting and ignoring the long standing ex governor Mervyn King because of his inconvenient views'
And Lord King happens to be genuinely British as well.
Oh dear xenophobic about our Canadian cousins now. Kinda given the game away there.
Is it Xenophobic to refer to a Canadian as not genuinely British?!
If this referendum finally clears the stuffy xenophobia which this country has wrestled with for far too long then calling it will have been one of Cameron's greatest legacies
'While Remain seem to be discounting and ignoring the long standing ex governor Mervyn King because of his inconvenient views'
And Lord King happens to be genuinely British as well.
Carney is today's Governor and his words carry authority. The BBC are saying this is a significant, maybe the most significant, intervention in the debate saying that he praised David Cameron's deal. Norman Smith went onto say its not just his analysis but it is because who he is and that he will be seen as an independent figure who does not have an agenda to follow. He went on to say that there had been a strong angry reaction by the leave campaign as they know how much influence he carries
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
S
A
.
We manag well.
Of c EU.
So what?
This for me is what it comes down to. Do you:
snipped for length
For me the balance tipped in favour of (b) a long time ago and will only increase to favour it year-by-year as the EU stagnates and forms an ever smaller share of the global economy.
I think that is a very sensible summation.
All I did (and I have been an in-, out-, and now in-waverer) is look at how being in the EU applied to one area, financial services, a not inconsiderable part of the UK economy. I discovered that for financial services, we are unambiguously better off in. We have an input into the rules and all City institutions must abide by those rules unless they want to stop trading EU shares which is of course ludicrous. Now, we don't get any say in the rules for USD-business but wouldn't it be great if we did?!
I then looked at the much-maligned negotiated text and I saw appropriate safeguards for the financial services industry, and a codified "no ECU" clause.
A recent example is the high-powered hair drier story. Outside the EU, we can set our own standards for the UK market which will mean continued non-EU imports or domestic production of higher power hair driers.
Outside the EU, we could set our own standards for the UK market, but we wouldn't. It would be absurdly expensive to set up, require special testing labs, be very unpopular with manufacturers, and be confusing. In any case, we'd have to accept goods produced to EU-standards anyway, on any plausible scenario involving access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. The idea of a whole set of product-type standards, just for the UK and in addition to accepting that EU-compliant goods can be sold here, is simply not going to happen. Even if it did, almost no manufacturers would want to use those standards, rather than standards which would give access to a market of 500 million people.
Kasich has shortened to single figure odds for the first time, with the likes of Bet365 offering him at just 15/2. to gain the GOP nomination. How is he managing to defy gravity, when less than 5 days ago I was able to back him at 100/1? Can anyone seriously see a pathway which would enable him to win? As I suggested last night, if 10/1 is a sensible price for his GOP nomination, then Hills' 40/1 against him becoming POTUS has to be a steal. DYOR
It has to involve a brokered convention, and Cruz and Trump both standing down in favour of a unity candidate i.e. him.
That's the route but it sure as hell ain't a 10/1 shot.
For reference, the latest poll (PPP, March 4-6) in Ohio has Trump three points clear of Kasich, 38-35, with Cruz at 15 and Rubio 5. He should probably be odds against to win his home state and a failure there should be terminal to his prospects (in practice, even if he doesn't withdraw immediately).
I suspect some punters have been reading tweets like this:
Then they should look at the detail. Yes, Kasich has been gaining ground but the three Michigan polls this week that put him in second still give Trump leads of 13, 22 and 18 points. Distant seconds are of little value at this stage to someone who has yet to gain a win.
Perhaps some have been reading Speedy's tip from a couple of days ago that Katich was going to win Michigan
Allowing Speedy to post on a political betting website is like giving the house keys to a teenager and telling him to invite some friends over while you go off for the weekend.
Do we really know what we are getting with Remain?
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
Your eagerness to join such rabid scaremongering does you no credit. I do not think anyone is thinking nothing will change. There is always going to be change in the future. But we do not have to join the euro and if then eurozone integrate further then its up to them. Its agreed we cannot interfere in the eurozone and it cannot interfere with us. We are not required to be part of ever closer union, despite what others might claim. Now if you want to walk away from the single market then say so - and explain it to our industry, but if you want to leave the EU but retain access to the single market then in effect things remain basically as they are now with free movement. Leave are clearly split on this and those who want an end to EU immigration at any cost need to say so. What about non EU immigration? Having lit the blue touchpaper where do the odious leavers stop?
I may be wrong but I don't recall any Leavers calling the Remainers odius or nutjobs, why do you constantly refer to people who disagree with you childish names?
Thats how I find them. The hate campaign they run disgusts me. Others put it more politely but thats how I find the likes of Farage an the way they have skewed the issue of the EU down to immigration and more than that weaved the prospect of millions of evil Syrians flooding to us. Leavers on this board have talked to each other about the best way to sneak it into the campaign.
All this means that logical arrangement which maintain access to the EU single market are verboten to Leavers. Thus has the argument degenerated. This is the sad reality and I point it out and I point out my feelings. And this is before we get to the other wing of Leave which want to use it as a surrogate to push the tory party to the thin voting grounds of the far right.
@MrHarryCole: Ladies Day is kicking off: "Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter attacks Priti Patel for comparing Leave campaigners to Suffragettes"
Do we really know what we are getting with Remain?
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
Your eagerness to join such rabid scaremongering does you no credit. I do not think anyone is thinking nothing will change. There is always going to be change in the future. But we do not have to join the euro and if then eurozone integrate further then its up to them. Its agreed we cannot interfere in the eurozone and it cannot interfere with us. We are not required to be part of ever closer union, despite what others might claim. Now if you want to walk away from the single market then say so - and explain it to our industry, but if you want to leave the EU but retain access to the single market then in effect things remain basically as they are now with free movement. Leave are clearly split on this and those who want an end to EU immigration at any cost need to say so. What about non EU immigration? Having lit the blue touchpaper where do the odious leavers stop?
I may be wrong but I don't recall any Leavers calling the Remainers odius or nutjobs, why do you constantly refer to people who disagree with you childish names?
snip
Leavers on this board have talked to each other about the best way to sneak it into the campaign.
A recent example is the high-powered hair drier story. Outside the EU, we can set our own standards for the UK market which will mean continued non-EU imports or domestic production of higher power hair driers.
Outside the EU, we could set our own standards for the UK market, but we wouldn't. It would be absurdly expensive to set up, require special testing labs, be very unpopular with manufacturers, and be confusing. In any case, we'd have to accept goods produced to EU-standards anyway, on any plausible scenario involving access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. The idea of a whole set of product-type standards, just for the UK and in addition to accepting that EU-compliant goods can be sold here, is simply not going to happen. Even if it did, almost no manufacturers would want to use those standards, rather than standards which would give access to a market of 500 million people.
Those polling numbers and follow up questions on the London Mayoralty are very depressing for anyone who wants a harmonious city... could there be any better way of splitting the Capital in two than having a left wing muslim in charge?
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
S
A
.
We manag well.
Of c EU.
So what?
This for me is what it comes down to. Do you:
snipped for length
For me the balance tipped in favour of (b) a long time ago and will only increase to favour it year-by-year as the EU stagnates and forms an ever smaller share of the global economy.
I think that is a very sensible summation.
All I did (and I have been an in-, out-, and now in-waverer) is look at how being in the EU applied to one area, financial services, a not inconsiderable part of the UK economy. I discovered that for financial services, we are unambiguously better off in. We have an input into the rules and all City institutions must abide by those rules unless they want to stop trading EU shares which is of course ludicrous. Now, we don't get any say in the rules for USD-business but wouldn't it be great if we did?!
I then looked at the much-maligned negotiated text and I saw appropriate safeguards for the financial services industry, and a codified "no ECU" clause.
So that is enough to keep me in.
Fair enough. I disagree on that and the supposed safeguards the deal provides, as do Business for Britain, but respect your perspective.
But I'm not basing my decision solely on what's most convenient for the City anyway.
Mr. Nabavi, if the EU requires a standard that the UK considers excessive, why would it not make sense for a purely domestic supplier to make goods to a UK standard rather than the EU one?
@EdConwaySky: Meow. Carney to Rees Mogg: "What concerns me is your selective memory"
@politicshome: Mark Carney accuses Jacob Rees-Mogg of "selective memory" after Tory MP accused him of "political partisanship".
Quite why some Tories grant Rees Mogg like Boris with a wholly unjustified cult status is a moot point. Here is a man who for example spent hours talking out the daylight saving bill in 2012 (alongside three of his eurosceptic cronies) for wholly arcane reasons. Regardless or not whether you supported that particular bill the man is an anachronism - wholly unsuited for any form of higher office.
What with the Bank of England Governor all but endorsing remain, Boris's 'cock up' edict, and now Priti Patel attacked by Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter for comparing leave to the Suffragettes, its turning out to be a poor day for leave
I get the impression Remain supporters are distinctly uncomfortable re. the Turkish summit, and I detect a tendency/wish to throw things, including wobblies.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
S
A
.
We manag well.
Of c EU.
So what?
This for me is what it comes down to. Do you:
snipped for length
For me the balance tipped in favour of (b) a long time ago and will only increase to favour it year-by-year as the EU stagnates and forms an ever smaller share of the global economy.
I think that is a very sensible summation.
I then looked at the much-maligned negotiated text and I saw appropriate safeguards for the financial services industry, and a codified "no ECU" clause.
So that is enough to keep me in.
Fair enough. I disagree on that and the supposed safeguards the deal provides, as do Business for Britain, but respect your perspective.
But I'm not basing my decision solely on what's most convenient for the City anyway.
No indeed, I tried to ask (anecdotally of course) those around me if it would affect their business. So far farming and "the entertainment industry" has opted for Remain...I keep on my quest. I would like concrete examples, as I asked @Richard_Tyndall for which sectors his non-EU exporting companies are in that complain about EU regs affecting them.
'Outside the EU, we could set our own standards for the UK market, but we wouldn't. It would be absurdly expensive to set up, require special testing labs, be very unpopular with manufacturers, and be confusing. In any case, we'd have to accept goods produced to EU-standards anyway, on any plausible scenario involving access to the Single Market for manufactured goods'
Exaggerated rubbish on all counts.
'It would be absurdly expensive to set up, require special testing labs, be very unpopular with manufacturers, and be confusing. '
Why would it be 'expensive'? Just saying e.g. you will accept a widget with a 50kw output when the EU standard is say 100kw costs b*gger all.
We have different plug designs from the rest of Europe now - why has that not changed if it is 'expensive, confusing, unpopular' etc. etc.? You could make point about left-hand drive cars - actually is not that expensive or confusing to make them.
Manufacturers would be free to follow whatever standards were most convenient for their own business.
'In any case, we'd have to accept goods produced to EU-standards anyway, on any plausible scenario involving access to the Single Market for manufactured goods'
Yes we would. But the point is they wouldn't be the ONLY goods acceptable in the UK market. And consumers would have the choice of what to buy.
Indeed, some EU manufacturers (eg of hair driers in my example) might feel they had lost out by being unable to produce goods that would have a ready market in the UK - which, you might want to remind yourself, is actually a rather large consumer market.
I get the impression Remain supporters are distinctly uncomfortable re. the Turkish summit, and I detect a tendency/wish to throw things, including wobblies.
Well it's only visa free travel to Schengen nations. Apparently the Swiss are spitting blood.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them decide to leave Schengen.
Do we really know what we are getting with Remain?
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
Your eagerness to join such rabid scaremongering does you no credit. I do not think anyone is thinking nothing will change. There is always going to be change in the future. But we do not have to join the euro and if then eurozone integrate further then its up to them. Its agreed we cannot interfere in the eurozone and it cannot interfere with us. We are not required to be part of ever closer union, despite what others might claim. Now if you want to walk away from the single market then say so - and explain it to our industry, but if you want to leave the EU but retain access to the single market then in effect things remain basically as they are now with free movement. Leave are clearly split on this and those who want an end to EU immigration at any cost need to say so. What about non EU immigration? Having lit the blue touchpaper where do the odious leavers stop?
I may be wrong but I don't recall any Leavers calling the Remainers odius or nutjobs, why do you constantly refer to people who disagree with you childish names?
Thats how I find them. The hate campaign they run disgusts me. Others put it more politely but thats how I find the likes of Farage an the way they have skewed the issue of the EU down to immigration and more than that weaved the prospect of millions of evil Syrians flooding to us. Leavers on this board have talked to each other about the best way to sneak it into the campaign.
All this means that logical arrangement which maintain access to the EU single market are verboten to Leavers. Thus has the argument degenerated. This is the sad reality and I point it out and I point out my feelings. And this is before we get to the other wing of Leave which want to use it as a surrogate to push the tory party to the thin voting grounds of the far right.
You dish out abuse because you find it difficult to make your argument without it.
Mr. Nabavi, if the EU requires a standard that the UK considers excessive, why would it not make sense for a purely domestic supplier to make goods to a UK standard rather than the EU one?
Because firstly some body has to create a UK standard, just for the UK, which takes time, money and interminable committee meetings with manufacturers and bureaucrats. Why should we bother, when there's a ready-made off-the shelf set of well-defined standards already in existence? And even if we do bother, for it to make any difference in practice the manufacturer has to decide that it's worthwhile making a UK-only version of the widget, when he'll be able to sell the EU-compliant version in the UK anyway. In practice, this is not realistic in either government terms or business terms.
It happens all the time? Really? So what are the complaints about having to be compliant with EU standards about?
Your point was that UK standards are a fantasy for the domestic market. They are not, and they exist. Member states can (and do) exercise their regulatory and standards regime to the extent that the EU is yet to exercise theirs.
Take a look at the BSI Group on British Standards. They have only started to be replaced in areas due to creeping harmonisation of standards in Europe through the EU by European Standards (EN)
I actually work in engineering so know what I'm talking about.
As a keen Remainer and former PB thread writer, perhaps you're ideally placed to pen the pro case?
As I've made clear many times, I am not a keen Remainer. I'm a reluctant Remainer because the alternatives, to the very limited extent that anyone has bothered to try to define them, look worse.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
Canada has a large immigrant population and it continues to arrive in large numbers per capita, so is a poor example for leavers. Indeed according to recent figures about 25% of the Australian population was born overseas. Both Australia and Canada are large vast continental wide territories which have vast mineral reserves. Good luck to them.
Mr. Nabavi, if the EU requires a standard that the UK considers excessive, why would it not make sense for a purely domestic supplier to make goods to a UK standard rather than the EU one?
Because firstly some body has to create a UK standard, just for the UK, which takes time, money and interminable committee meetings with manufacturers and bureaucrats. Why should we bother, when there's a ready-made off-the shelf set of well-defined standards already in existence? And even if we do bother, for it to make any difference in practice the manufacturer has to decide that it's worthwhile making a UK-only version of the widget, when he'll be able to sell the EU-compliant version in the UK anyway. In practice, this is not realistic in either government terms or business terms.
We have different plug designs from the rest of Europe now - why has that not changed if it is 'expensive, confusing, unpopular' etc. etc.? You could make point about left-hand drive cars - actually is not that expensive or confusing to make them.
Of course, for historic reasons, we have UK-specific variants as part of EU regulation. But that's not the same as creating new variants.
Mr. Nabavi, if it's cheaper or superior for the same cost compared to the EU variant it'll be more popular. And profit is, I'm given to understand, a solid motive for capitalist entrepreneurs.
It seems in Richard's fantasy world nothing exists or is possible outside the EU. His posts on this particular standards point are some of the most ignorant I have seen on this site.
Your point was that UK standards are a fantasy for the domestic market. They are not, and they exist. Member states can (and do) exercise their regulatory and standards regime to the extent that the EU is yet to exercise theirs.
Take a look at the BSI Group on British Standards. They have only started to be replaced in areas due to creeping harmonisation of standards in Europe through the EU by European Standards (EN)
I actually work in engineering so know what I'm talking about.
You are talking nonsense.
No, you are the one talking nonsense. Yes, there are areas which don't currently have EU-wide standards. As you say, they are gradually being further reduced. That's not the same as claiming, as you are, that we'd actually seek to reverse the process if we left. That is the fantasy I was referring to. It is to everyone's benefit to harmonise these rules, just as the US and Canada tend to.
A recent example is the high-powered hair drier story. Outside the EU, we can set our own standards for the UK market which will mean continued non-EU imports or domestic production of higher power hair driers.
Outside the EU, we could set our own standards for the UK market, but we wouldn't. It would be absurdly expensive to set up, require special testing labs, be very unpopular with manufacturers, and be confusing. In any case, we'd have to accept goods produced to EU-standards anyway, on any plausible scenario involving access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. The idea of a whole set of product-type standards, just for the UK and in addition to accepting that EU-compliant goods can be sold here, is simply not going to happen. Even if it did, almost no manufacturers would want to use those standards, rather than standards which would give access to a market of 500 million people.
In other words, it is fantasy.
You really think it would be too difficult/expensive to produce some higher wattage hairdryers that could be used in the UK (and anywhere else that didn't want to be limited to piddly useless ones)? Car manufacturers produce right-hand-drive cars which are used only in the UK and Ireland within Europe (ok, and Malta and Cyprus).
You really think it would be too difficult/expensive to produce some higher wattage hairdryers that could be used in the UK (and anywhere else that didn't want to be limited to piddly useless ones)? Car manufacturers produce right-hand-drive cars which are used only in the UK and Ireland within Europe (ok, and Malta and Cyprus).
So, we are going to set up an entire British Standard for Hairdryers? Really? You believe that?
We have different plug designs from the rest of Europe now - why has that not changed if it is 'expensive, confusing, unpopular' etc. etc.? You could make point about left-hand drive cars - actually is not that expensive or confusing to make them.
Of course, for historic reasons, we have UK-specific variants as part of EU regulation. But that's not the same as creating new variants.
You can buy powerful hairdryers and fast-boiling kettles now. Soon, you won't be able to.
It seems in Richard's fantasy world nothing exists or is possible outside the EU. His posts on this particular standards point are some of the most ignorant I have seen on this site.
It's not a fantasy world. Mark Carney is surely correct to say that negotiating trading arrangements outside the EU would be "difficult". Of course it would be. Many worthwhile things are difficult. It would take a good deal of hard work, patience, and skill. But then, that's surely what we pay our negotiators for.
In the end, do bureaucratic obstacles, and administrative difficulties make life outside the EU impossible? I believe not.
It seems in Richard's fantasy world nothing exists or is possible outside the EU. His posts on this particular standards point are some of the most ignorant I have seen on this site.
It's not a fantasy world. Mark Carney is surely correct to say that negotiating trading arrangements outside the EU would be "difficult". Of course it would be. Many worthwhile things are difficult. It would take a good deal of hard work, patience, and skill. But then, that's surely what we pay our negotiators for.
In the end, do bureaucratic obstacles, and administrative difficulties make life outside the EU impossible? I believe not.
@MrHarryCole: Ladies Day is kicking off: "Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter attacks Priti Patel for comparing Leave campaigners to Suffragettes"
Once you identify yourself prominently with a public campaign, you lose the right to your image in association with that campaign. Pankhurst's great-granddaughter has no more right to that memory than anyone else these days.
In any case, Pankhurst was a snob who shut up shop once votes for middle-aged women over thirty years old had been achieved.
We have different plug designs from the rest of Europe now - why has that not changed if it is 'expensive, confusing, unpopular' etc. etc.? You could make point about left-hand drive cars - actually is not that expensive or confusing to make them.
Of course, for historic reasons, we have UK-specific variants as part of EU regulation. But that's not the same as creating new variants.
You can buy powerful hairdryers and fast-boiling kettles now. Soon, you won't be able to.
Your point was that UK standards are a fantasy for the domestic market. They are not, and they exist. Member states can (and do) exercise their regulatory and standards regime to the extent that the EU is yet to exercise theirs.
Take a look at the BSI Group on British Standards. They have only started to be replaced in areas due to creeping harmonisation of standards in Europe through the EU by European Standards (EN)
I actually work in engineering so know what I'm talking about.
You are talking nonsense.
No, you are the one talking nonsense. Yes, there are areas which don't currently have EU-wide standards. As you say, they are gradually being further reduced. That's not the same as claiming, as you are, that we'd actually seek to reverse the process if we left. That is the fantasy I was referring to. It is to everyone's benefit to harmonise these rules, just as the US and Canada tend to.
Bollocks. Twice bollocks and triple bollocks.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
If we left the EU, the BSI would continue and we'd take a common sense view. Some standards that'd been harmonised with EU standards we'd agree were sensible and made sense to continue, particularly if we did, say, 90% of our trade in that product with the EU.
In other areas, we might take a view the standards were bureaucratic, costly, ineffective and inappropriate, particularly in areas where we only did 20% of our trade in that product with the EU, and therefore repeal or replace them with our own bespoke British standard.
You're running up the White Flag on the EU again saying it's all hopeless. With such an intellectual surrender before you've even got any powers back, it's no wonder you'd prefer to stay in the EU and have others run our economy for us.
@MrHarryCole: Ladies Day is kicking off: "Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter attacks Priti Patel for comparing Leave campaigners to Suffragettes"
Once you identify yourself prominently with a public campaign, you lose the right to your image in association with that campaign. Pankhurst's great-granddaughter has no more right to that memory than anyone else these days.
In any case, Pankhurst was a snob who shut up shop once votes for middle-aged women over thirty years old had been achieved.
Hey! Any girl who wants to chain herself to my railings and suffer a jet movement gets my vote!
I wouldn't show my Fez around here for some time if I were you.
My gut instinct says this too, but I do wonder if it will do at least something about the immediate job of stopping the boats. Here's my train of thought (on the basis of no research other than the news reports):
- The people making the crossings, with around a 1.5-2% risk of dying on each journey, may not be the individuals who benefit from the one-for-one swap deal, which will be a disincentive unless you are feeling very altruistic to a stranger. With this the EU are moving towards the UK position of trying to take directly from camps rather than off the boats which is good. - Turkey being a ready place to take them back to, you can pluck people from boats and plonk them straight back on Turkish soil. Having not reached EU soil, you may increase the numbers who are simply regarded as illegal immigrants because they never get to the point of claiming asylum. - Even if the crossers do manage to claim asylum (and the UN will still oblige such claims to be heard), this can be processed back in Turkey. I don't know if this disadvantages boat people relative to other claimants, as the highly effective (but dubious) Australian approach does, but it could at least remove the inherent advantage.
BUT - Returning more might mean people making multiple attempts and this multiplier might increase the numbers the EU ultimately take. - Even if the incentive is removed from the individual sea crossers, there are some perverse incentives and a degree of deniability available to Turkey, and their good faith is very questionable at the moment. - Timing could be an issue, how soon after returning a sea crosser does the EU have to decide upon and take an asylum seeker from Turkey? Do the EU countries have big enough administrations on the ground in Turkey to keep pace and deliver their part of the bargain? - Although the Turkey route is so much easier for Syrians, this does not yet address the central and western illegal immigration routes to the EU.
However, I think the EU countries are now of the mindset whereby they will do what is necessary to stem the flow substantially. Whether this tightens things soon enough to alter the immigration narrative of the Brexit vote is another matter.
You really think it would be too difficult/expensive to produce some higher wattage hairdryers that could be used in the UK (and anywhere else that didn't want to be limited to piddly useless ones)? Car manufacturers produce right-hand-drive cars which are used only in the UK and Ireland within Europe (ok, and Malta and Cyprus).
So, we are going to set up an entire British Standard for Hairdryers? Really? You believe that?
Yes. And I don't believe a word of the rubbish you're writing on this subject.
'So, we are going to set up an entire British Standard for Hairdryers? Really? You believe that?'
It would be entirely our choice if we wished to. And it would cost peanuts - all we do is get the old rules out of the drawer and put a new name on the top.
In some cases it may make perfect sense to align our standards with those of the EU. When they suggest something stupid, or obviously protectionist (or both) we just don't align.
Your point was that UK standards are a fantasy for the domestic market. They are not, and they exist. Member states can (and do) exercise their regulatory and standards regime to the extent that the EU is yet to exercise theirs.
Take a look at the BSI Group on British Standards. They have only started to be replaced in areas due to creeping harmonisation of standards in Europe through the EU by European Standards (EN)
I actually work in engineering so know what I'm talking about.
You are talking nonsense.
No, you are the one talking nonsense. Yes, there are areas which don't currently have EU-wide standards. As you say, they are gradually being further reduced. That's not the same as claiming, as you are, that we'd actually seek to reverse the process if we left. That is the fantasy I was referring to. It is to everyone's benefit to harmonise these rules, just as the US and Canada tend to.
Bollocks. Twice bollocks and triple bollocks.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
If we left the EU, the BSI would continue and we'd take a common sense view. Some standards that'd been harmonised with EU standards we'd agree were sensible and made sense to continue, particularly if we did, say, 90% of our trade in that product with the EU.
In other areas, we might take a view the standards were bureaucratic, costly, ineffective and inappropriate, particularly in areas where we only did 20% of our trade in that product with the EU, and therefore repeal or replace them with our own bespoke British standard.
You're running up the White Flag on the EU again saying it's all hopeless. With such an intellectual surrender before you've even got any powers back, it's no wonder you'd prefer to stay in the EU and have others run our economy for us.
@MrHarryCole: Ladies Day is kicking off: "Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter attacks Priti Patel for comparing Leave campaigners to Suffragettes"
Once you identify yourself prominently with a public campaign, you lose the right to your image in association with that campaign. Pankhurst's great-granddaughter has no more right to that memory than anyone else these days.
In any case, Pankhurst was a snob who shut up shop once votes for middle-aged women over thirty years old had been achieved.
Hey! Any girl who wants to chain herself to my railings and suffer a jet movement gets my vote!
@MrHarryCole: Ladies Day is kicking off: "Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter attacks Priti Patel for comparing Leave campaigners to Suffragettes"
Once you identify yourself prominently with a public campaign, you lose the right to your image in association with that campaign. Pankhurst's great-granddaughter has no more right to that memory than anyone else these days.
In any case, Pankhurst was a snob who shut up shop once votes for middle-aged women over thirty years old had been achieved.
Hey! Any girl who wants to chain herself to my railings and suffer a jet movement gets my vote!
You really think it would be too difficult/expensive to produce some higher wattage hairdryers that could be used in the UK (and anywhere else that didn't want to be limited to piddly useless ones)? Car manufacturers produce right-hand-drive cars which are used only in the UK and Ireland within Europe (ok, and Malta and Cyprus).
So, we are going to set up an entire British Standard for Hairdryers? Really? You believe that?
I'm actually lost for words Richard. In your mind it seems that Britain would cease to exist as a country the day we left the EU.
Same old rubbish, we're too small, too poor or too stupid alone.
It seems in Richard's fantasy world nothing exists or is possible outside the EU. His posts on this particular standards point are some of the most ignorant I have seen on this site.
It's not a fantasy world. Mark Carney is surely correct to say that negotiating trading arrangements outside the EU would be "difficult". Of course it would be. Many worthwhile things are difficult. It would take a good deal of hard work, patience, and skill. But then, that's surely what we pay our negotiators for.
In the end, do bureaucratic obstacles, and administrative difficulties make life outside the EU impossible? I believe not.
For some, it would seem to be too much effort. Why bother renegotiating, when one can simply wave the white flag, and adopt the position of surrender?
Witness last week, with Hollande lording it over the UK, whilst a humiliated Cameron 'bent over' and took his medicine.
@MrHarryCole: Ladies Day is kicking off: "Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter attacks Priti Patel for comparing Leave campaigners to Suffragettes"
Once you identify yourself prominently with a public campaign, you lose the right to your image in association with that campaign. Pankhurst's great-granddaughter has no more right to that memory than anyone else these days.
In any case, Pankhurst was a snob who shut up shop once votes for middle-aged women over thirty years old had been achieved.
Hey! Any girl who wants to chain herself to my railings and suffer a jet movement gets my vote!
I'm not wearing any underwear. Ask me why!!
why?
Because the pants haven't been built yet that'll take the JOB on!!!
You really think it would be too difficult/expensive to produce some higher wattage hairdryers that could be used in the UK (and anywhere else that didn't want to be limited to piddly useless ones)? Car manufacturers produce right-hand-drive cars which are used only in the UK and Ireland within Europe (ok, and Malta and Cyprus).
So, we are going to set up an entire British Standard for Hairdryers? Really? You believe that?
We did previously.
BS 3456-B4:1966 admittedly covered the testing of other electrically-driven domestic appliances, but I don't see why the same synergy of developing a standard to cover multiple product classes would now be beyond the wit of the British.
You really think it would be too difficult/expensive to produce some higher wattage hairdryers that could be used in the UK (and anywhere else that didn't want to be limited to piddly useless ones)? Car manufacturers produce right-hand-drive cars which are used only in the UK and Ireland within Europe (ok, and Malta and Cyprus).
So, we are going to set up an entire British Standard for Hairdryers? Really? You believe that?
I'm actually lost for words Richard. In your mind it seems that Britain would cease to exist as a country the day we left the EU.
Same old rubbish, we're too small, too poor or too stupid alone.
This is from the Deputy Editor of politics.co.uk, and I've heard a similar rumour.
Hearing rumours of new London mayoral poll today. Last one had big Sadiq lead. Apparently Tories’ private polling shows race has narrowed.
Well, we're getting a good response in outer London. I think we will get a solid level of turnout from Enfield and Barnet where I've been at the weekends. More Sadiq = Islamist stuff will definitely damage his standing among the remaining WWC voters and some trendy types who don't mind Zac being a Tory like they didn't mind Boris being a Tory.
This race is far from over, I genuinely think we can win it and win the by-election in Richmond.
Well small anecdote, my Mum has voted every time it is possible to vote since the 60s, and has a 100% record of voting Labour...
But on the mayoralty she says doesn't know what to do/might not vote, which is the equivalent of someone criticising Turkey, and @JosiasJessop not responding
Not a very pleasant post Sam, even whilst hiding behind a smiley.
So the EU are bribing Turkey to keep out swarms of unwanted immigrants, all sounds a bit racist to me.
The Remainers on here are pro freedom of movement as am I, I'm surprised they support an organisation that is so blatantly xenophobic.
It's hardly a bribe though, is it? Turkey has spent billions over the last five years housing up to two million refugees, mainly from Syria and Iraq. Some estimates have this cost at around 8 billion dollars, on top of which are the other costs of the conflict to the country. It is also an ongoing cost to them, both fiscally and socially.
If we were in that situation, we'd be pleading the international community for help as well. And we're a much richer economy.
But we need to be doing more to tackle the people and organisations behind the people smuggling. Even if they lead to significant personages in surrounding countries.
Its a bribe and Turkey have been working to get just that. They have consistently let people go through, do nothing to stop the people smugglers and are actively helping some dodgy stuff and people in Syria for their own ends. A rum bunch to say the least, one can only hope they never get close to membership of the EU..
So the EU are bribing Turkey to keep out swarms of unwanted immigrants, all sounds a bit racist to me.
The Remainers on here are pro freedom of movement as am I, I'm surprised they support an organisation that is so blatantly xenophobic.
It's hardly a bribe though, is it? Turkey has spent billions over the last five years housing up to two million refugees, mainly from Syria and Iraq. Some estimates have this cost at around 8 billion dollars, on top of which are the other costs of the conflict to the country. It is also an ongoing cost to them, both fiscally and socially.
If we were in that situation, we'd be pleading the international community for help as well. And we're a much richer economy.
But we need to be doing more to tackle the people and organisations behind the people smuggling. Even if they lead to significant personages in surrounding countries.
Its a bribe and Turkey have been working to get just that. They have consistently let people go through, do nothing to stop the people smugglers and are actively helping some dodgy stuff and people in Syria for their own ends. A rum bunch to say the least, one can only hope they never get close to membership of the EU..
Disagree with all of that. But I think you're safe on the last clause.
If the EU were to say ... "We accept that you are bearing extra costs. We are happy to recommend that our populations support you through charitable gifts. Would you be satisfied with that?"
In some cases it may make perfect sense to align our standards with those of the EU. When they suggest something stupid, or obviously protectionist (or both) we just don't align.
At last some sanity!
That is exactly what I'm saying, except that it's not going to be 'in some cases', it's going to be in almost all cases. There is simply not enough reason or drive to do otherwise.
If the EU were to say ... "We accept that you are bearing extra costs. We are happy to recommend that our populations support you through charitable gifts. Would you be satisfied with that?"
What would be Erdogan's response?
A good question. Have given a tentative response on the next thread.
Comments
As we have discussed before, however, I do believe we should have an input into the rules of a very important market for us.
In financial services, for example, I would not like to think that we were spectators. In 2018 there will be new rules for share trading and a whole lot besides in the financial services sphere. Many of the rules were promoted by the FCA, as I'm sure you are aware. If we were outside the EU, the FCA would get less of what it wanted. Now that's a good thing, you may argue; but I disagree.
(a) Prioritise a seat at the top table in the EU and 1/28th of the say on future single market regulations, an early warning/consultation over what initiatives are afoot, and a veto over some, accepting that otherwise you have to apply 100% of the rules to 100% of your economy and concede sovereignty on trade, regional policy, justice, social, employment, commercial, agriculture and fisheries policies, or;
(b) Prioritise independence, where you get no say in the rules of the single market, but you only have to comply with them to the extent you wish to trade or do business within it, and can otherwise do as you wish domestically and internationally, just like any other country, subject to WTO rules. For influence, use bilateral ties and relationships to maintain British influence within the European polity.
For me the balance tipped in favour of (b) a long time ago and will only increase to favour it year-by-year as the EU stagnates and forms an ever smaller share of the global economy.
Clearly they have a wide choice but if we are not in the EU if we are not in the EEA then one place they will never come is here.
Kia have in fact a plant in Slovakia.
Toyota design cars in Europe as well as build them here. As well as the UK it has a plant in France - it makes minicars in the Czech republic.
Renault-Nissan say they expect to save billions this year alone with synergies. They have a research and investment bill of some 8-10 billion dollars a year. The motor industry sums are vast.
We are not going to export anything if we export our plants. Why stand up and thumb our noses at our share of EU inward investment?
But that is not being offered by Leave.
Why not? We don't necessarily adopt US standards for our domestic market.
It will be up to manufacturers - and consumers - to decide. Some manufacturers, with big export sales to the EU, may decide to produce entirely on an EU standard. If this means they open a gap in the domestic market, other firms (domestic or foreign) may choose to fill it.
A recent example is the high-powered hair drier story. Outside the EU, we can set our own standards for the UK market which will mean continued non-EU imports or domestic production of higher power hair driers.
Any UK manufacturers wanting to export to the EU will of course need to meet EU standards. They may choose to, or they may choose to export somewhere else.
They are called British Standards. We have a whole suite of them in the engineering industry that we apply to design and construction of our own infrastructure (incl. things like widgets) that are often not co-terminus with European Standards.
The Turkish deal is appallingly bad
"Visa free travel" for 75m Turks from referendum month.
What does Remain look like?
** But also some male passengers
All I did (and I have been an in-, out-, and now in-waverer) is look at how being in the EU applied to one area, financial services, a not inconsiderable part of the UK economy. I discovered that for financial services, we are unambiguously better off in. We have an input into the rules and all City institutions must abide by those rules unless they want to stop trading EU shares which is of course ludicrous. Now, we don't get any say in the rules for USD-business but wouldn't it be great if we did?!
I then looked at the much-maligned negotiated text and I saw appropriate safeguards for the financial services industry, and a codified "no ECU" clause.
So that is enough to keep me in.
In other words, it is fantasy.
Leavers on this board have talked to each other about the best way to sneak it into the campaign.
All this means that logical arrangement which maintain access to the EU single market are verboten to Leavers. Thus has the argument degenerated. This is the sad reality and I point it out and I point out my feelings.
And this is before we get to the other wing of Leave which want to use it as a surrogate to push the tory party to the thin voting grounds of the far right.
@OpiniumResearch: Sadiq Khan leads Goldsmith by five points in our London mayoral race poll for the @standardnews https://t.co/toco9m6d0W'
Was the poll before or after we learnt more about Khan's pals ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first
It's not fantasy. It happens all the time.
Or narrowly defeated?
But I'm not basing my decision solely on what's most convenient for the City anyway.
Exaggerated rubbish on all counts.
'It would be absurdly expensive to set up, require special testing labs, be very unpopular with manufacturers, and be confusing. '
Why would it be 'expensive'? Just saying e.g. you will accept a widget with a 50kw output when the EU standard is say 100kw costs b*gger all.
We have different plug designs from the rest of Europe now - why has that not changed if it is 'expensive, confusing, unpopular' etc. etc.? You could make point about left-hand drive cars - actually is not that expensive or confusing to make them.
Manufacturers would be free to follow whatever standards were most convenient for their own business.
'In any case, we'd have to accept goods produced to EU-standards anyway, on any plausible scenario involving access to the Single Market for manufactured goods'
Yes we would. But the point is they wouldn't be the ONLY goods acceptable in the UK market. And consumers would have the choice of what to buy.
Indeed, some EU manufacturers (eg of hair driers in my example) might feel they had lost out by being unable to produce goods that would have a ready market in the UK - which, you might want to remind yourself, is actually a rather large consumer market.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them decide to leave Schengen.
Lewes MP Maria Caulfield will vote for the UK to Leave the European Union. https://t.co/k2H1fft6ZJ
Take a look at the BSI Group on British Standards. They have only started to be replaced in areas due to creeping harmonisation of standards in Europe through the EU by European Standards (EN)
I actually work in engineering so know what I'm talking about.
You are talking nonsense.
Both Australia and Canada are large vast continental wide territories which have vast mineral reserves. Good luck to them.
In the end, do bureaucratic obstacles, and administrative difficulties make life outside the EU impossible? I believe not.
In any case, Pankhurst was a snob who shut up shop once votes for middle-aged women over thirty years old had been achieved.
https://youtu.be/2_2lGkEU4Xs
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
If we left the EU, the BSI would continue and we'd take a common sense view. Some standards that'd been harmonised with EU standards we'd agree were sensible and made sense to continue, particularly if we did, say, 90% of our trade in that product with the EU.
In other areas, we might take a view the standards were bureaucratic, costly, ineffective and inappropriate, particularly in areas where we only did 20% of our trade in that product with the EU, and therefore repeal or replace them with our own bespoke British standard.
You're running up the White Flag on the EU again saying it's all hopeless. With such an intellectual surrender before you've even got any powers back, it's no wonder you'd prefer to stay in the EU and have others run our economy for us.
- The people making the crossings, with around a 1.5-2% risk of dying on each journey, may not be the individuals who benefit from the one-for-one swap deal, which will be a disincentive unless you are feeling very altruistic to a stranger. With this the EU are moving towards the UK position of trying to take directly from camps rather than off the boats which is good.
- Turkey being a ready place to take them back to, you can pluck people from boats and plonk them straight back on Turkish soil. Having not reached EU soil, you may increase the numbers who are simply regarded as illegal immigrants because they never get to the point of claiming asylum.
- Even if the crossers do manage to claim asylum (and the UN will still oblige such claims to be heard), this can be processed back in Turkey. I don't know if this disadvantages boat people relative to other claimants, as the highly effective (but dubious) Australian approach does, but it could at least remove the inherent advantage.
BUT
- Returning more might mean people making multiple attempts and this multiplier might increase the numbers the EU ultimately take.
- Even if the incentive is removed from the individual sea crossers, there are some perverse incentives and a degree of deniability available to Turkey, and their good faith is very questionable at the moment.
- Timing could be an issue, how soon after returning a sea crosser does the EU have to decide upon and take an asylum seeker from Turkey? Do the EU countries have big enough administrations on the ground in Turkey to keep pace and deliver their part of the bargain?
- Although the Turkey route is so much easier for Syrians, this does not yet address the central and western illegal immigration routes to the EU.
However, I think the EU countries are now of the mindset whereby they will do what is necessary to stem the flow substantially. Whether this tightens things soon enough to alter the immigration narrative of the Brexit vote is another matter.
It would be entirely our choice if we wished to. And it would cost peanuts - all we do is get the old rules out of the drawer and put a new name on the top.
In some cases it may make perfect sense to align our standards with those of the EU. When they suggest something stupid, or obviously protectionist (or both) we just don't align.
It's not confusing or particularly expensive.
Same old rubbish, we're too small, too poor or too stupid alone.
Witness last week, with Hollande lording it over the UK, whilst a humiliated Cameron 'bent over' and took his medicine.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2bde51d6-e4a2-11e5-ac45-5c039e797d1c.html#axzz42JK0W0nZ
Coming to a pool near you!
BS 3456-B4:1966 admittedly covered the testing of other electrically-driven domestic appliances, but I don't see why the same synergy of developing a standard to cover multiple product classes would now be beyond the wit of the British.
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030308516
That shouldn't be too expensive.
Pity the poor UK based EU-compliant widget manufacturers who are now going to have to comply with and produce to BSI standards also.
That shouldn't be too expensive.
If the EU were to say ... "We accept that you are bearing extra costs. We are happy to recommend that our populations support you through charitable gifts. Would you be satisfied with that?"
What would be Erdogan's response?
That is exactly what I'm saying, except that it's not going to be 'in some cases', it's going to be in almost all cases. There is simply not enough reason or drive to do otherwise.
£250 million is the cost of building a new hospital - or 10 schools.