On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:15:31 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:19:55 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

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

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

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

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

[1] It only applies to green ones.

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

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

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

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

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Because they are not designed around consumer-protection rules.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Mercury released into environment from

improper

disposal of dead CFLs all the time whereas mercury barometers
go on for donkeys' years.

Both being well down the last after electricity production and
industrial sources. CFL mercury is likely to be to soil in landfill
rather than the atmosphere thus in one sense returning to where it
came from; the main sources OTOH put it into the atmosphere. There is
more atmospheric mercury produced by dentistry than by CFLs -
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...onment.htm#3p0
and individual breakages of CFLs are not regarded as a significant
risk. Even nuclear power probably does its bit with mining of uranium
releasing mercury to the environment.


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

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

What are you on about? Who is talking about USA?

UK consumers should have choice.

There's plenty of it.

Why should we
only be able to buy feeble vacuum cleaners and slow kettles?

We're not. Try buying better-designed vacuum cleaners and don't put
too much water in your kettle.