Brexit matters

[Annetts key]

Until we left the EU, it wasn't a cost that needed to be taken into account! You can't even accuse businesses of failing to plan properly, because we didn't know what we were getting until the very last minute second.

Corrected that for you

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You can't even accuse businesses of failing to plan properly, because we didn't know what we were getting until the very last minute.

Is that really true? My memory is that we left the EU on 31 January 2020, having signed the withdrawal agreement, and there were then a full 11 months of transition period in which we retained membership of the single market and customs union, so that businesses could plan for the subsequent regime we'd negotiated, so in terms of knowing what the regulations would be there was considerable time to plan. What wasn't known and couldn't be planned for so much is what would actually happen in terms of how well the supply chains would cope in practice when the change to the new regulations came in - but realistically, that's always going to be an unknown, no matter how much theoretical warning you have of a change in rules: Until the change actually happens, you don't know how everything will work out in practice. Also the fact that the 11 months transition period turned out to mostly be 11 months of Covid lockdown didn't help at all.

 

[najaB]

Is that really true? My memory is that we left the EU on 31 January 2020, having signed the withdrawal agreement, and there were then a full 11 months of transition period in which we retained membership of the single market and customs union, so that businesses could plan for the subsequent regime we'd negotiated, so in terms of knowing what the regulations would be there was considerable time to plan.

Eleven months really isn't that long. Smaller changes to regulations have implementation periods measured in years.

And that's assuming that they even had the full eleven months. Take something like Customs declarations - the new system wasn't ready until after the transition period ended.

 

[class ep-09]

Is that really true? My memory is that we left the EU on 31 January 2020, having signed the withdrawal agreement, and there were then a full 11 months of transition period in which we retained membership of the single market and customs union, so that businesses could plan for the subsequent regime we'd negotiated, so in terms of knowing what the regulations would be there was considerable time to plan. What wasn't known and couldn't be planned for so much is what would actually happen in terms of how well the supply chains would cope in practice when the change to the new regulations came in - but realistically, that's always going to be an unknown, no matter how much theoretical warning you have of a change in rules: Until the change actually happens, you don't know how everything will work out in practice. Also the fact that the 11 months transition period turned out to mostly be 11 months of Covid lockdown didn't help at all.

11 months to untangle 40 years of common regulations is not that long ….

After the whole exercise , UK is still following EU regulations as otherwise UK would not be able to sell anything to the EU ( or have punitive tariffs for good coming from UK ).

First country in history that applied sanctions on itself .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2023 ==

Why Brexit is to blame for holiday traffic chaos at Dover

The Man Who Pays His Way: We asked for a hard EU frontier in southeast Kent, plus tougher passport controls

www.independent.co.uk

People voted for it ???

 

[DynamicSpirit]

11 months to untangle 40 years of common regulations is not that long ….

But the context wasn't talking about common regulations. The context was that I was replying to a post that claimed businesses weren't informed about the details of the new trading environment until the last minute. That is patently false because there were over 11 months between signing the Brexit agreement and the new trading regime that was set by that agreement coming into force. (Although I do agree with you to the extent that 11 months isn't that long for this kind of thing).

 

[Revilo]

The CPTPP includes Japan, Canada, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei. With UK joining it will account for 16% global GDP, more than the EU and 20% in time. And without having the trappings of a federal state.

 

[geoffk]

The CPTPP includes Japan, Canada, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei. With UK joining it will account for 16% global GDP, more than the EU and 20% in time. And without having the trappings of a federal state.

.......and thousands of miles away, not good for the UK's carbon footprint. There's also the matter of the corporate courts - secret tribunals which enable corporations to sue governments outside national legal systems for loss of profits, for example by increasing the minimum wage, protecting workers' rights or taking action on climate change. Previous campaigns succeeded in getting corporate courts dropped from the UK's Australia and Canada trade deals but they could sneak in again.

 

[najaB]

The context was that I was replying to a post that claimed businesses weren't informed about the details of the new trading environment until the last minute.

Eleven months *is* the last minute, where so many big changes are involved.

Consider that for a single directive - GDPR - businesses were given over two years, yet many were still not compliant on day one.

 

[Gloster]

The following is based on my understanding and I don’t claim to be an expert. The CTPP includes a number of countries that have the reputation of having much lower employment, health and safety, consumer protection, state assistance, etc. than we have been used to in the EU. Combined with the laws being (or already) enacted at Westminster it will be possible to, actively or passively, get rid of all those ‘horrid’ EU laws and standards that protect the average citizen but prevent British business reaching the sunlit uplands (and making lots of money for their owners). Of course, the great majority of people will find their standards of life and living falling, but they won’t get a chance to do anything about it: the minimum service requirement could (in my opinion ‘is’) the first step in the emasculation of trade unions. It may be a slow process, but the present government is doing it in a way that means that future Labour (or whatever) governments will not be able to repair the damage before the next election. We are slowly sliding down a slippery slope and there aren’t many opportunities to stop and climb back remaining.

Maybe this should be a new thread.

 

[edwin_m]

The CPTPP includes Japan, Canada, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei. With UK joining it will account for 16% global GDP, more than the EU and 20% in time. And without having the trappings of a federal state.

Some of which we already have trade deals with. And which the official government body predicted would add a massive 0.08% to the UK economy.

 

[Fleetmaster]

The CTPP includes a number of countries that have the reputation of having much lower employment, health and safety, consumer protection, state assistance, etc. than we have been used to in the EU.

I don't get why people think these were EU initiatives. Our Health and Safety law dates back to 1974 and made us the envy of the world. Consumer protection mostly comes from British Standards. The 48 hour week is far less important than mandatory rest periods, sick pay and minimum wage, all having their roots in domestic legislation.

 

[Revilo]

Some of which we already have trade deals with. And which the official government body predicted would add a massive 0.08% to the UK economy.

The 0.08% figure is guesswork based on ‘gravity’ trade models weighted heavily towards geographic proximity that are becoming less predictive of global economic flows. The real possibility of the US signing up in the next five years would drastically alter the 0.08% figure. CPTPP membership will facilitate tariff-free access for 99% of British-made goods to economies that are generally growing faster than European ones. The ‘Global Britain’ vision of some Brexiteers may finally be taking shape, rather than the ‘little Englander’ mentality of some diehard Remainers.

 

[class ep-09]

The 0.08% figure is guesswork based on ‘gravity’ trade models weighted heavily towards geographic proximity that are becoming less predictive of global economic flows. The real possibility of the US signing up in the next five years would drastically alter the 0.08% figure. CPTPP membership will facilitate tariff-free access for 99% of British-made goods to economies that are generally growing faster than European ones. The ‘Global Britain’ vision of some Brexiteers may finally be taking shape, rather than the ‘little Englander’ mentality of some diehard Remainers.

And what exactly UK is going to sell or produce that these countries are not having ?



I know .. turnips .

Also, what prevented UK to be “global” while in the EU ?

Belgium sells more to China and South East Asia than UK while in the EU.

 

[edwin_m]

The 0.08% figure is guesswork based on ‘gravity’ trade models weighted heavily towards geographic proximity that are becoming less predictive of global economic flows. The real possibility of the US signing up in the next five years would drastically alter the 0.08% figure. CPTPP membership will facilitate tariff-free access for 99% of British-made goods to economies that are generally growing faster than European ones. The ‘Global Britain’ vision of some Brexiteers may finally be taking shape, rather than the ‘little Englander’ mentality of some diehard Remainers.

All figures are guesswork of some sort, but the laws of gravity do still apply to a large extent. If the USA joined we'd quite possibly be shafted, as we might not have enough influence to modify any terms that affect us unduly but have less impact on the members in the actual Pacific. And what do Pacific nations want to buy from the opposite side of the world that they can't get from a supplier closer to home?

 

[birchesgreen]

.......and thousands of miles away, not good for the UK's carbon footprint. There's also the matter of the corporate courts - secret tribunals which enable corporations to sue governments outside national legal systems for loss of profits, for example by increasing the minimum wage, protecting workers' rights or taking action on climate change. Previous campaigns succeeded in getting corporate courts dropped from the UK's Australia and Canada trade deals but they could sneak in again.

How quickly the clamour for "sovereignty" is forgotten.

 

[Fleetmaster]

And what exactly UK is going to sell that these countries are not having ?


I know .. turnips .

People are so ignorant of what Britian is actually good at. My company makes million pound machines utilizing high value parts shipped from around the world. We can probably sell five into Malaysia alone, which was our entire export total to the EU for ten years, while in the same period we sold ten in the UK and the USA.

We really don't need the EU, they're genuinely not interested in competing on a level playing field even within their own market. They barely work at all. The machines in the EU are the least used. If they can fix a market to their advantage, they would rather use inferior locally produced rubbish. We've spent millions on EU compliance, it's honestly not worth the money.

Our machines are awesome, and yet they literally sit alongside piles of German built junk in large usually deserted French facilities (because they're aways on break). We use anodized aluminum and etched branding. The use steel and stickers. They are ten times our size, and yet they can't seem to get their heads around the fact it is possible to fix a machine in one day with one person when you have freedom of movement and goods. Even out of the EU, we can still kick their bottoms on basic customer service.

They have no competitors, because everyone wrongly assumes German engineering is the best and trying to compete with them would be impossible. If we wanted to, we could wipe the floor with them. But their machines aren't half as interesting or complex. Pretty damn boring in fact.

The kicker? A sister company of theirs is responsible for EU compliance testing. No surprise why it costs so much then!

 

[Gloster]

I don't get why people think these were EU initiatives. Our Health and Safety law dates back to 1974 and made us the envy of the world. Consumer protection mostly comes from British Standards. The 48 hour week is far less important than mandatory rest periods, sick pay and minimum wage, all having their roots in domestic legislation.

Indeed. In #5,949 I was tempted to point out that some of the legislation pre-dates the EEC, some is a natural development of pre-EEC legislation and some is an EEC/EU reaction to changes in society. However, it has all been absorbed into EU legislation and I fear that the mass dumping of EU laws will result in many of these regulations being thrown out. It is quite possible that the government will be forced to retain some laws that they had hoped to get rid of, but I reckon that it is likely that plenty that should be retained in a civilised society will go because it is too complicated, too time-consuming, too obscure, etc.

 

[Revilo]

How quickly the clamour for "sovereignty" is forgotten.

In signing up to CPTPP we incur no free movement obligations and will not have to make CPTPP law supreme over British law. Nor will we have to pay net contributions running into billions of pounds. Joining CPTPP makes it even less likely that we will re-join the EU too.

 

[317 forever]

Right, thanks for the correction. In any case, our joining was subject to debate in Parliament and the intention to join was a specific manifesto promise of Heath and the Conservatives:

1970 Conservative Party Manifesto - CONSERVATIVEMANIFESTO.COM

The full text of all Conservative Party manifestos from 1900 to the present.

www.conservativemanifesto.com

As an aside, the 1970 Conservative manifesto reads as if it was written in 2023 by Labour under Starmer, if you just swap every reference to Labour and the Conservatives.

2024 could see the fall of the "strongest" government since 1970. Labour had a majority of 96 in 1966 but still lost the 1970 General Election. The subsequent governments to fall were the Conservative one elected in 1970 with a majority of 30, the Labour one elected in 1974 with a majority of 3, the Conservative one elected in 1992 with a majority of 21 and the Labour one elected in 2005 with a majority of 66. The current Conservative government looking vulnerable in the polls came in with a majority of 80.

 

[jon0844]

Corrected that for you

You meant millisecond, as the Government was on record saying that nothing would change for ages. Then nearer the time they told businesses to check the new rules and failed to publish what those new rules/regulations would be!

Businesses never stood a chance, except of course for the big firms like Amazon that have the means to easily process the paperwork and have sites all over Europe. UK businesses were told that they should open offices in the countries they want to export to! Yeah, that's easy for a small 'mom and pop' business or other small businesses already struggling with red tape in the UK, let alone this.

But who needs a market of 400 or 500 million people when we have the UK, full of people with loads of disposable income and desperate to spend it...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2023 ==

I don't get why people think these were EU initiatives. Our Health and Safety law dates back to 1974 and made us the envy of the world. Consumer protection mostly comes from British Standards. The 48 hour week is far less important than mandatory rest periods, sick pay and minimum wage, all having their roots in domestic legislation.

We were responsible for many good things in UK law becoming EU law. Who knew we weren't just paying money to 'those people in the EU' - we were the EU. We were as powerful as France and Germany, perhaps more so in many regards. Founding members and able to steer the whole union to suit us - and we got an awful lot of money back from the EU, with many communities getting grants that they aren't getting from the UK Government now.

As for EU compliance. If you don't bother, surely you won't sell any of your 'interesting' machines to the EU? And the UKCA scheme hasn't happened yet and is just the same as the EU CE scheme isn't it? So surely you have no choice but to gain and maintain compliance?

 

[alex397]

In signing up to CPTPP we incur no free movement obligations and will not have to make CPTPP law supreme over British law. Nor will we have to pay net contributions running into billions of pounds. Joining CPTPP makes it even less likely that we will re-join the EU too.

Will the British public get to vote for representatives in the CPTPP, like we did in the EU with MEPs?

I realise it is a bit like comparing apples with, er, turnips, but I thought one of the reasons we left the EU is because it was so ‘undemocratic’?

 

[Fleetmaster]

As for EU compliance. If you don't bother, surely you won't sell any of your 'interesting' machines to the EU? And the UKCA scheme hasn't happened yet and is just the same as the EU CE scheme isn't it? So surely you have no choice but to gain and maintain compliance?

We can sell EU customers the model as it stands now. We can sell Malaysians the cutting edge models with all the latest technology available. They will in time be more efficient than their EU competitors.

Even if nothing changes and we remain aligned, we are already better off, since we were of course always going to ensure our machines met UK standards. But if they do diverge, that's when we really come out on top.

It goes from being unlikely to an absolute certainty that any new entrant tying themselves to EU law cannot usurp us. In turn, we will have maintained our advantage such that non-EU competitors taking aim at our non-EU markets will have a serious hill to climb.

 

[najaB]

We can sell EU customers the model as it stands now. We can sell Malaysians the cutting edge models with all the latest technology available. They will in time be more efficient than their EU competitors.

Standards don't set a ceiling on quality, but rather a floor. If we want to sell into the EU market then we will have to meet EU standards.

There was nothing stopping us from setting higher standards for UK producers as those products would, by default, have met EU standards.

The only logical reason for the UK to have our own standards regime is because we want to allow inferior products into our market.

 

[edwin_m]

Standards don't set a ceiling on quality, but rather a floor. If we want to sell into the EU market then we will have to meet EU standards.

There was nothing stopping us from setting higher standards for UK producers as those products would, by default, have met EU standards.

The only logical reason for the UK to have our own standards regime is because we want to allow inferior products into our market.

Actually, trying to set higher standards in the UK as an EU member would probably have been viewed as anticompetitive. However, trying to set higher standards as a non-member is probably a non-starter too, as suppliers won't want to produce a bespoke product for such a small market, and if any do they will price it accordingly.

 

[najaB]

Actually, trying to set higher standards in the UK as an EU member would probably have been viewed as anticompetitive.

Note that I said for UK manufacturers, rather than for the UK market.

Let's say that, while still in the EU, the UK wanted to sell into the Madeupistan market and they had higher standards than the EU. The UK government could insist that UK manufacturers had to produce to the Madeupistanian standards, which would allow them to sell into both markets.

The fact that UK producers could be undercut in the UK by EU manufacturers would be the subject of conversation between HMG and UK industry, not the UK and the EU.

And, even absent a standards change by the HMG, there was nothing stopping individual UK manufacturers from producing to Madeupistanian standards and selling info both markets.

I stand by what I said earlier - the only logical reason for a small market to want different standards to the much larger market in their doorstep is to implement lower standards.

 

[AM9]

We can sell EU customers the model as it stands now. We can sell Malaysians the cutting edge models with all the latest technology available. They will in time be more efficient than their EU competitors.

Even if nothing changes and we remain aligned, we are already better off, since we were of course always going to ensure our machines met UK standards. But if they do diverge, that's when we really come out on top.

It goes from being unlikely to an absolute certainty that any new entrant tying themselves to EU law cannot usurp us. In turn, we will have maintained our advantage such that non-EU competitors taking aim at our non-EU markets will have a serious hill to climb.

That sounds like the Dyson principle, eschew perfectly good standards and race to the bottom. Even when he got his way, he then took his manufacturing to the lowest bidder. That was the knighted champion of Britishness.

Note that I said for UK manufacturers, rather than for the UK market.

Let's say that, while still in the EU, the UK wanted to sell into the Madeupistan market and they had higher standards than the EU. The UK government could insist that UK manufacturers had to produce to the Madeupistanian standards, which would allow them to sell into both markets.

The fact that UK producers could be undercut in the UK by EU manufacturers would be the subject of conversation between HMG and UK industry, not the UK and the EU.

And, even absent a standards change by the HMG, there was nothing stopping individual UK manufacturers from producing to Madeupistanian standards and selling info both markets.

I stand by what I said earlier - the only logical reason for a small market to want different standards to the much larger market in their doorstep is to implement lower standards.

Actually, it is usually the case that manufacturing to more than one standard is more cosly than just manufacturing to the universal higher standard, even if the other requirements scrape the bottom of the barrel which is what can happen in these races to the bottom. That's why most far eastern manufactured goods (not inluding 'pound shop trash'), fully comply with EU regulations wherever they are shipped, yet they are still globally competitive.

 

[edwin_m]

Note that I said for UK manufacturers, rather than for the UK market.

Let's say that, while still in the EU, the UK wanted to sell into the Madeupistan market and they had higher standards than the EU. The UK government could insist that UK manufacturers had to produce to the Madeupistanian standards, which would allow them to sell into both markets.

The fact that UK producers could be undercut in the UK by EU manufacturers would be the subject of conversation between HMG and UK industry, not the UK and the EU.

And, even absent a standards change by the HMG, there was nothing stopping individual UK manufacturers from producing to Madeupistanian standards and selling info both markets.

I stand by what I said earlier - the only logical reason for a small market to want different standards to the much larger market in their doorstep is to implement lower standards.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with most of this, but decisions on exceeding local standards or meeting the standards for a third country would be for the UK supplier with no involvement from UK government. They would have to do this to sell to that market, and (if the Madeupestan standards exceed the relevant ones in all respects) might then make a commercial decision to sell the same design in the UK or indeed the EU. They could also produce a product that didn't meet UK or EU standards, provided they didn't place it on the market in those regions.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Standards don't set a ceiling on quality, but rather a floor. If we want to sell into the EU market then we will have to meet EU standards.

There was nothing stopping us from setting higher standards for UK producers as those products would, by default, have met EU standards.

The only logical reason for the UK to have our own standards regime is because we want to allow inferior products into our market.

They are a floor on new products. Previous compliance is valid unless or until a new regulation explicitly invalidates a previous standard. This rarely happens in the EU, because in engineering for example, the hard work of identifying safety or other core issues was already done by institutions like British Standards.

The EU are not some all knowing all seeing entity and the rest of the world are just slapdash irresponsible customer killing morons. If a serious safety issue arises, such as an industry standard lubricant suddenly being found to be cancer causing, it's not even remotely true that the EU would be the only place that updates their standards. It infuriates British industry that the British public have been drip fed this idea by a technically illiterate media and Europhile political opposition that the UK are some kind of second rate developing nation, or aspires to be. We are world leaders in things like cancer research.

It is only really environmental standards where they are using a ratchet. In that case, an EU customer that can no longer buy our machines because they're too loud for example, has far bigger problems on their plate than us deciding we really can't be bothered with the EU market anymore (our machines are already quiet enough that you don't need ear protection, because we are actually good at what we do).

British Standards never made a potentially massive regulatory decision that wipes out entire product lines without good reason. The EU found it pretty easy to emulate the bureaucracy and ancillary activity side of standard setting. It speaks well to their basic purpose, adding complexity for its own sake, or to deter non-EU exporters who might threaten EU sectors.

The EU never really got a handle on the fact these things have an impact on their own business's health, because the EU is so large and remote from ordinary citizenry and economic actors that by the time they are even aware a decision of theirs has completely altered their balance of trade, it has already happened.

The EU behemoth had absolutely no clue until it was far too late that German car makers had become entirely dependent on a technology that EU standards were specifically designed over decades to render obsolete. How on Earth does that happen in a well functioning trade block whose standards exist in large part to keep thier own companies competitive?

Their car makers were so busy trying to cater for EU market at a macro scale, fat and content in their free movement paradise, they forgot entirely that the EU doesn't really have the means or the intent to drive innovation as a global power. It is frankly irrelevant to a walled garden with a captured market.

Non-EU car makers didn't innovate because they saw the growth potential in the EU. It's just a happy accident that the follies of the EU mean they are now an additional market opportunity among their global ambitions. And of course, as the EU is prone to do, since it didn't benefit EU companies, this was a market opportunity that was greatly limited when the Eurocrats responded to a looming trade deficit with a planet destroying domestic company protecting policy fudge.

The issue is not size, since US regulators are in close contact with their citizenry and economy. It is bureaucracy. It is mindset. On a good day, the US recognises that making their rules in a vacuum with an intent toward isolationist policy, is a retrograde step. The EU never has these good days. Not even on their radar. They genuinely thought they had created a super power, without ever testing that hypothesis. It's being tested now, and the reality is clear. Left behind.

The edge cases are where the money gets made and competitive advantage tells. Mars has no choice but to alter the recipe of Skittles if one major market decided unilaterally that there is a risk factor. Or far worse, Mars are big enough that if they want to make Skittles "safe" only in the EU, they can.

Mars are not, with the best will in the world, remotely responsible for the majority of UK GDP. Companies like us are the future of the UK economy, at least the part that aims to make anything that cannot easily be emulated elsewhere because it can only done with skills and experience that were hard won over generations through global competition.

As a consequence, we have the luxury of ignoring markets that are relatively small and lack growth potential, which is the EU for the foreseeable future. We have the commercial flexibility to decide if a specific part of our shop floor is occupied for the next six months with building and testing a machine destined for the EU or non-EU markets. It is an increasingly easy decision.

There is indeed nothing logical about ripping up standards to allow global competition undercut our business with products the EU would actually deem to be unsafe. Hence why that is not remotely what this new ability to diverge is about at all. It's about cutting red tape and removing barriers to competition on matters of skill and experience and the actual quality of the product and after market service.

 

[najaB]

Hence why that is not remotely what this new ability to diverge is about at all. It's about cutting red tape and removing barriers to competition on matters of skill and experience and the actual quality of the product and after market service.

Which is only of any use if there are sizable markets with standards that directly conflict with those set by the EU, such that products compliant with EU standards could not be sold in those markets. Those markets also have to be big enough that there are new business opportunities big enough to offset the losses in trade with markets that comply with EU standards.

I'm interested to know what these markets are.

 

[Fleetmaster]

I stand by what I said earlier - the only logical reason for a small market to want different standards to the much larger market in their doorstep is to implement lower standards.

This is where your logic is unsound. For the sectors we thrive in as UK plc, the fact they are next door is entirely irrelevant.

I'm interested to know what these markets are.

As I already said, Malaysia. We can easily sell more to that one country, than our entire EU market.

That sounds like the Dyson principle, eschew perfectly good standards and race to the bottom. Even when he got his way, he then took his manufacturing to the lowest bidder. That was the knighted champion of Britishness.

Actually, it is usually the case that manufacturing to more than one standard is more cosly than just manufacturing to the universal higher standard, even if the other requirements scrape the bottom of the barrel which is what can happen in these races to the bottom. That's why most far eastern manufactured goods (not inluding 'pound shop trash'), fully comply with EU regulations wherever they are shipped, yet they are still globally competitive.

You are wrongly assuming the EU standard is the higher standard. You also wrongly assume that the EU is a big enough market for a global manufacturer to justify the expense of meeting EU standards.

The machines we sell to the US do not randomly kill their operators or produce unsafe products. The EU had no part in that, since in every way that matters, all they did was take British Standards and add a layer of bureaucracy and distance.

We gladly met those parts of the US standard where they differ from the EU, not just because they are a huge market in their own right, but because unlike the EU, in many fields, the US is a global superpower, so meeting their standards unlocks other markets in their sphere of influence, even those that don't strictly require US standards.

Unlkle the EU, but very like British Standards, if the US mandates something, it is usually for a very sound reason that can only enhance your global competitiveness. US protectionism is of course also their ulterior motive, but for a whole host of reasons, this is a lesser effective means of protectionism than it is for the EU, hence the EU become focused on the thing that doesn't make their products competitive.

The EU wrongly assumed that they could tell the rest of the world that X is the best way to do something, without realizing that the EU as a distinct entity has never really proven it can make or do anything better than say, the Japanese.

Everything the EU does well, was inherited. Everything it does badly, is similary an inherited structural flaw of member countries that the EU's mechanisms and bodies have been entirely unable to remove, for boringly parochial reasons.

We already know we do standards well, always have, so with a view to areas of innovation where we excel and can unlock huge global markets, it's a fair bet that the UK standard will be seen as the gold standard, and it is highly likely that the equivalent EU standard, if they choose to diverge from us, will only hurt their own competitiveness.

If we need their market, we'll spend the money. A simple commercial decision. A very different paradigm to being inside the EU but having global ambitions.