Mrs May and Mr Davis are opening a Pandora’s Box of complexity, confusion and chaos.
By advocating the Mutual Recognition of Standards (to achieve ‘frictionless’ trade post Brexit), They appear to not even know the basics, being unwilling or unable to clarify what they mean by ‘standards’, and consequently fail to acknowledge the many subtleties and ‘show-stopping’ problems involved.
Mrs May in her Our Future Partnership speech at the Mansion House on 2nd March 2018 expressing banal generalities about ‘standards’ said:
The UK will need to make a strong commitment that its regulatory standards will remain as high as the EU’s. That commitment, in practice, will mean that UK and EU regulatory standards will remain substantially similar in the future.
Many of these regulatory standards are themselves underpinned by international standards set by non-EU bodies of which we will remain a member – such as the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which sets vehicle safety standards.
Mr Davis in his Foundations of the Future Economic Partnership Speech in Vienna 20th February 2018 was similarly vague about mutual recognition and standards:
Such mutual recognition will naturally require close, even-handed cooperation between these authorities and a common set of principles to guide them.
And the certainty that Britain’s plan — its blueprint for life outside of the European Union — is a race to the top in global standards.
And not a regression from the high standards we have now.
Are they talking about standards in terms of:
- Parameters (for safety, performance, environmental impact etc.) and levels of performance against them;
- Highly prescriptive laws and regulations covering whatever bureaucrats can think of;
- Standards published by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) or the European Centre for Standardisation (CEN)
- British Standards Institute (BSI); organisations that have statutory duties (under UK and/or EU law) to assess conformity or enforce compliance;
- All of these or something completely different?
Whilst clarity and precision are prerequisites for any published standard or specification, Mrs May appears to believe she has already been clear in setting out what she wants relating to mutual recognition of standards. In her statement to the Commons 5th March 2018, Mrs May concluded:
My message to our friends in Europe is clear. You asked us to set out what we want in more detail. We have done that.
Mrs May and Mr Davis are not being clear about what they want or even trying to understand the subject of mutual recognition of standards, which they are so convinced they can get the EU to adopt. Yet what they appear to be after conflicts with how the EU uses ‘standards’ and shows their ignorance of how the EU and Single Market functions. Mutual recognition where it exists at all is being superseded by harmonised standards, processes, procedures, regulation and market surveillance, within a centralised legal and bureaucratic framework. Mutual recognition is the laborious, slow exception, not the fast rule.
A major thrust of the European Union (EU) through its New Approach Directives (which cover many products) is towards the legally mandated use, without deviation, of harmonised requirements, and published European Specifications and Standards. These Directives (which are EU law) contain ‘essential requirements’ such as for safety, reliability and availability, health, environmental protection, technical compatibility, accessibility. In turn these may mandate requirements contained in a dated version of a ‘European specification’ which can be a common technical specification, a European technical approval or a national standard transposing a European standard. A common technical specification is a technical specification laid down in accordance with a procedure recognised by the Member States which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
A Directive will normally only refer to a part (specific clauses) of a wider ‘European specification’. European Standards can contain national deviations or special national conditions – these are then disallowed in the Directive as part of achieving harmonised requirements. Derogations (or variations) against requirements in Directives are discouraged requiring the granting of unique or special permission by the relevant authority which increasingly is an arm of the European Commission. Generally national standards (or rules) can be used only where permitted by a Directive or in the absence of an applicable European specification.
There are published international, European and British standards for materials, components and finished products, processes, systems, management subjects etc. There are also more fundamental ones such as Basic Safety Publications which are intended for use by technical committees in the preparation of standards. Organisations from the UK participate in drafting committees in the ISO, CEN and BSI et al to produce published standards. This involvement will be unaffected by Brexit.
There is also considerable interchange of international standards (ISO, IEC, EN), often with common text or even numbering and cross referencing of requirements. Also standards first produced by national bodies (such as BSI) can end up being adopted internationally as ISO or European Standards, with some re-drafting. Generally, International Standards (from ISO, IEC, CEN, CENELEC etc.) are well refined whilst specified requirements in Directives can contain grammatical errors and be mixed with information making them more difficult to follow.
Harmonising Standards to produce a single internationally accepted Standard and requirements at European or global level makes considerable sense for quality, safety, technical or functional compatibility, production and testing etc. Often for historical and economic reasons this is far from being immediately practicable. Perhaps the simplest illustration is in paper sizes where the ISO series (which originated in Germany) is not followed in North America leading to endless document reformatting.
Rocking the ‘Standards Boat’ as Mrs May and Mr Davis propose, is a minefield and not for the unwary or ignorant. The above is merely the tip of the iceberg since standards, to be of any use at all, need to be supplemented and implemented within an appropriate legal, regulatory and surveillance framework, which, like it or not, the EU has developed in considerable detail. They are not going to change. Consequently to get their Brexit strategy right and ‘deliver a wide range of benefits to enhance competitiveness and performance’ (available from the BSI or ISO), Mrs May and Mr Davis should practise what they preach and race to the top, under independent conformity assessment, by rapidly adopting ISO 44001:2017 (formerly BS 11000) Collaborative Business Relationships.
[…] own game’ and her aspiration of ‘frictionless’ trade through a free trade agreement and mutual recognition of standards is unachievable. If the EU does make any deal it will be on their terms and with ‘strings […]
Safety standards are important for step/extension ladders for example and you should never assume that all ladders will support your weight or abnormal loads.
How many people know these are rated on their maximum safe load capacity and some of the ladders are only rated at 90Kg (200Ibs) – Grade III. I look around today and a fair number of people would exceed this load and if they fell because the ladder collapsed from under them would likely kill themselves on it. Believe me when I say the ladder will break when someone is using it. It is shockingly sold to unwitting domestic users in DIY stores.
The next higher grade II is for maximum safe load 102Kg ( 225Ibs) This is the minimum standard in my books for light domestic use.
Then higher still grade I is for maximum safe load 113kg (250Ibs)
The highest grade for commercial use is grade 1A for maximum safe loads of 136 kg (300Ibs)
A grade 1A ladder will probably last longer and take much more punishment. This is a must for everyday use and construction sites.
Standards are simply ignored when it comes to such as Chinese imports; that is why there is so much crap being foisted on us. Whatever standard is applied that issue will not be solved.
For us, whatever country we export to will expect compliance with their own standards – just as happen now.
Where is the issue?
1. Nigel Moore said: “Yet what they appear to be after conflicts with how the EU uses ‘standards’ and shows their ignorance of how the EU and Single Market functions.”
Gobbledygook. Mr Moore claims Mrs May is not clear, then shows he isn’t either.
2. Nigel Moore said: “Mutual recognition where it exists at all is being superseded by harmonised standards … within a centralised legal and bureaucratic framework.”
In the EU, yes, (over decades already, but still not complete): the EU animus is to centralise everything. In the whole world? – possibly, but it will take decades longer to accomplish even for the most optimistic fan of the NWO. In the meantime, of course, businesses supply what the customer wants, which goes way beyond “standards”.
3. Nigel Moore said: “Mutual recognition is the laborious, slow exception, not the fast rule.”
Cobblers. See above, no.2. Even Mr Moore says: Harmonising Standards to produce a single internationally accepted Standard … [o]ften for historical and economic reasons … is far from being immediately practicable.”
Mr Moore fails to give concrete examples, talking more like a cod-lawyer and bureaucrat, than anyone who has to use “standards”. Two completely different examples are: UNC screws; and insurance regulations. Any engineering business that needs to make UNC screws will use the well known USA standards. These are not “centralised” thread standards, but their recognition is world-wide.
Then in January 2017 the USA and the EU reached an agreement whereby USA and EU insurers operating in the other market will only be subject to oversight by the regulators in their home jurisdiction. This is Mutual Recognition, and was achieved in 14 months.
The fact of the matter is that where standards can be international, they already are, or are moving towards that outcome, without the centralisation inherent in the EU. Where it is not practical, or too slow, mutual recognition is the rule. Mr Moore seems to be from a band of hand-wringers whose sole purpose is obfuscation, with the aim of securing himself accolades and a job.
Is this not the time to remind everyone that it was widely reported at the time of Grenfell that the fire hazard tests devised by the Building Research Institute for British safety standards were more stringent – and costly than the EU ones. Since everyone had to demonstrate compliance with EU regs it’s obvious which test they did. If my memory serves me correctly those panels would have probably failed our test. Or was this just fake news? Do I need to go on the BBC re-education course?
According to the Guardian, the insulation used in Grenfell Tower was Celotex RS5000:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/13/grenfell-tower-building-control-warned-about-refit-insulation-plan
On the Celotex website it states:
“RS5000
Specifically designed for Rainscreen cladding applications, Celotex RS5000 meets the performance criteria in BR 135 and therefore is suitable for buildings above 18m”
https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000
However, on the same web page they say that they no longer supply it.
I think you’re right, I do recall seeing an article at the time which pointed out that the cladding used on Grenfell did meet EU regulations, but didn’t take into account certain other factors that British Standards specified, something like the maximum height beyond which a type of cladding could be used.
I get the impression that the negotiators are making far more of a meal of things than is necessary.
Post-Brexit we will still find it expedient to apply international standards.
I came across an oddity recently regarding 3.5 mm diameter audio plugs and sockets. While two such plugs may appear at first glance to be the same, for example your stereo headphone plug, there are two different lengths available, which differ by just 2 mm. Using the wrong plug and socket combination results in unsatisfactory connections, or even physical damage. Standards are great, so let’s have lots of them!
The USA (not an EU member), Japan (not an EU member) and China (not an EU member) all do vast amounts of trade with the EU – how do they resolve this “problem” to which Mr Moore refers?
With respect, it seems Mr Moore is making a mountain out of a molehill. I suggest that the UK (if it ever actually leaves the EU) use exactly the same solution as those non-EU countres presently do (whatever that solution may be).
Nigel
Interesting perspective but I am not clear what exactly you are advocating is the answer to this perplexing issue in the context of ensuring we achieve a clean Brexit.