Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Russia Report doesn’t look like a damp squib

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 21 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Russia Report doesn’t look like a damp squib

So now we have got ten months late the document and the headline in the Times report “Downing Street failed to protect EU referendum, says Russia report” sets out the political challenge for ministers only five months before the EU transition period comes to an end.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 324
    edited July 21
    First. And the question that OGH poses is central to the whole question:

    "..... the efforts that Johnson made to try to impede the publication of the document highlights even more its importance. If there was nothing to hide why did he go to such lengths to defer publication?"
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    Brexit is so boring.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 212
    Putin won, get over it!
  • I think it's a fairly damp squib TBH, in terms of the scandal which the opposition and critics of the government would have liked to find in the report. So it's not going to do anything other than reinforce existing partisan positions.

    This is a great pity, because stripped of the partisan mud-slinging, there's actually a serious report here which highlights some serious shortcomings in the intelligence services and in successive governments' responses to the increasingly sinister direction which Russia has taken. It's not helped by the fact that Boris and Raab seem to be taking a Trump-like attitude to it, guaranteeing that nothing will be done. Governance in the UK is not going to improve until we get rid of this lot.

    I don't think it's a damp squib, nor a smoking gun. It is however, important and it's worrying that the Tories are not treating it as such. See their attitude here as an example
  • Brexit is so boring.

    It is, it's also over.

    I do not like the conflation of a trading relationship with Brexit. We left the EU months ago, that is not up for debate.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    I see Farage tweeting that apologies are required.

    Is he thinking of litigation?
  • I see Farage tweeting that apologies are required.

    Is he thinking of litigation?

    Isn't this a bit moronic? They didn't find any evidence because they didn't look.

    I'm not saying they will find evidence (and I don't think it impacted the result anyway) but I don't see how he can be so certain.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    edited July 21
    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    @Peter_the_Punter If the laws of the universe change even a bit we are all in trouble...

    More seriously I’ve had to change only two bits of Physics teaching Since I started (other than not being able to say that the next eclipse visible from the UK is going to be in 1999).

    That which my 17 yr old grandson talks about appears significantly different from what I did in in 1956/7
    Probably a lot more radioactivity than then.
    There is very little I teach other than that that was not known before the First World War. Possibly some electronics.
    Do you teach materials science (sensu lato), as a matter of interest? It was one of my favourite modules of the 10 or so in Nuffield A Level physics in the 1970s - Gordon's book The New Science of Strong Materials was one of the key reading texts. Edit: of course much of this was not known before 1900 - e.g. the composite materials such as GRP and the reasons for their strength.
    There's some in the AS courses I've taught. And both of Gordon's books (Strong Materials and Structures) are fantastic examples of how to do popular science well.

    Suspect that's what triggered my intuition that this government (bringing it back to politics) is going to turn out to be brittle, like glass. Lots of things will hit it, most won't seem to do any damage, people will chortle at the lack of damage, then something small and surprising will hit the right place and the whole thing will shatter.
    Many thanks, I did wonder if they still did such things! It ended up a real personal interest (my partner was startled to see how delighted I was to see proper red hot riveting being done on repairs to the swing bridge in Bristol near the temporary sea burial of Colston) and also fed into professional work a bit.

    Nice metaphor too. Its apparent dependence on three key persons certainly doesn't presage the sort of redundancy and toughness you'd want, like GRP, of a proper government.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859

    I see Farage tweeting that apologies are required.

    Is he thinking of litigation?

    Has Farage been personally defamed?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    rcs1000 said:

    I see Farage tweeting that apologies are required.

    Is he thinking of litigation?

    Has Farage been personally defamed?
    I have zero idea, I just wondered from his tweet.

    Maybe his lawyers are checking
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 5,106

    I see Farage tweeting that apologies are required.

    Is he thinking of litigation?

    A lever for enoblement?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,190
    Presumably some/much of the blame goes to David Cameron?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    fpt

    Meanwhile, hardly anyone notices that the government is continuing its relentlessly thorough policy of wrecking British industry:

    You are missing the point Richard.

    To have a duplicate, meaningless, and onerous set of regulations was always the Brexiters' aim.

    So that we can say we have our own standards.

    That bonkers.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,263
    edited July 21
    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    That seems to sum up the fact that in an internet enabled world effort from anywhere in any direction on any cause can be made to influence an electorate.

    It is up to the electorate to sift through the information and act as they see fit.

    The alternative is an almighty range of banning, censorship and legal wrangles after the fact that will prove very little and open the door to censorship, which would be a big negative.

    In the end you have to trust the electorate, which may or may not be a good thing.

    The report did, I think, say that the paper based voting system was robust against interference. That may be a sign that low tech is in some areas the best solution.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    On topic.

    Sozza but I don't get the fuss over the Russian "interference" Even the bloke on R5 couldn't explain what actually they might have done apart from, er, reinforcing existing beliefs.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345
    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
    Indeed Russia is not that bothered by Brexit or anything like that in reality it is a sideshow. Russia cares about one thing and one thing alone above all else: Selling gas.

    It is all that keeps the Russia state afloat. Germany and similar nations in Europe are reliant upon his gas and Putin is reliant upon their cash. It is them who have a symbiotic nature.

    The UK is not Russia's friend with or without Brexit. We aren't using his gas and we are world leaders now at wind farms and other alternative energy to move our own energy production away from gas.

    If you want to hurt Putin then support offshore wind and alternatives like maybe tidal lagoons etc - that is the real issue at stake for Putin.
  • On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232
    TOPPING said:


    You are missing the point Richard.

    To have a duplicate, meaningless, and onerous set of regulations was always the Brexiters' aim.

    So that we can say we have our own standards.

    That bonkers.

    Ah yes, silly me. It was all about getting rid of EU red tape, so that we could tie ourselves up in massively increased amounts of red tape of our own creation (and still be subject to the EU red tape as well, of course).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    Exactly.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,843

    TOPPING said:


    You are missing the point Richard.

    To have a duplicate, meaningless, and onerous set of regulations was always the Brexiters' aim.

    So that we can say we have our own standards.

    That bonkers.

    Ah yes, silly me. It was all about getting rid of EU red tape, so that we could tie ourselves up in massively increased amounts of red tape of our own creation (and still be subject to the EU red tape as well, of course).
    Red white and blue tape.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809
    Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,750
    Pulpstar said:

    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.

    That's the point. Russian trolls, some human, some automated, stirred things up using some of the same techniques used by our mainstream parties. Whether posting lies on Twitter ought to be part of electioneering is another question but it is. And so on and so forth. No one is alleging KGB agents turned up at polling stations with pencils and rubbers, even if many on the fringes believe MI5 do just that.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,263
    Pulpstar said:

    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.

    Money

    Buying political influence, donations to parties.

    Cambridge Analytica by some link

    Troll farms

    And other nefarious activities that may or may not be real.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369
    Pulpstar said:

    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.

    The present voting system seems to have been endorsed and any move away to electronic voting would be unwise

    However, the allegations that conservative and labour peers have not been above criticism is of concern
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    Pulpstar said:

    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.

    That's the point. Russian trolls, some human, some automated, stirred things up using some of the same techniques used by our mainstream parties. Whether posting lies on Twitter ought to be part of electioneering is another question but it is. And so on and so forth. No one is alleging KGB agents turned up at polling stations with pencils and rubbers, even if many on the fringes believe MI5 do just that.
    We seemed to have a few on here before the 2017 (Or possibly 2015) election. Certainly there were a few posters who disappeared as soon as the polls closed.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919

    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
    Indeed Russia is not that bothered by Brexit or anything like that in reality it is a sideshow. Russia cares about one thing and one thing alone above all else: Selling gas.

    It is all that keeps the Russia state afloat. Germany and similar nations in Europe are reliant upon his gas and Putin is reliant upon their cash. It is them who have a symbiotic nature.

    The UK is not Russia's friend with or without Brexit. We aren't using his gas and we are world leaders now at wind farms and other alternative energy to move our own energy production away from gas.

    If you want to hurt Putin then support offshore wind and alternatives like maybe tidal lagoons etc - that is the real issue at stake for Putin.
    Or we could, god forbid, frack our own gas reserves.

    Putin really is the living embodiment of Dr Johnson's comment about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,750
    edited July 21
    rkrkrk said:

    Presumably some/much of the blame goes to David Cameron?

    The David Cameron who in his gap year was subject to what some believe was a KGB recruitment attempt? Or are you mixing him up with Dominic Cummings who spent years in Russia? Or with Boris who, well, the name tells you everything... ;)
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8757576/David-Cameron-tells-Russian-hosts-KGB-tried-to-recruit-me-but-I-failed-the-test.html
  • glwglw Posts: 6,410
    TOPPING said:

    On topic.

    Sozza but I don't get the fuss over the Russian "interference" Even the bloke on R5 couldn't explain what actually they might have done apart from, er, reinforcing existing beliefs.

    That is primarily what the Russian disinformation operations do. They don't bother to create new narratives and push a particular agenda as much as they amplify the most divisive existing views. So Russia "wins" by poisoning our politics in general, rather than getting a particular candidate or party elected.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 324
    rcs1000 said:

    I see Farage tweeting that apologies are required.
    Is he thinking of litigation?

    Has Farage been personally defamed?
    Americans always seem to go straight to litigation, especially if they are in the wrong, and if they are wealthy and powerful (ie think themselves important). I expect Farage has picked the idea up from there.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    To be fair, it wasn't Russia's president who came to Britain during the referendum campaign and fibbed like mad about our place in the trade agreement queue.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
    Indeed Russia is not that bothered by Brexit or anything like that in reality it is a sideshow. Russia cares about one thing and one thing alone above all else: Selling gas.

    It is all that keeps the Russia state afloat. Germany and similar nations in Europe are reliant upon his gas and Putin is reliant upon their cash. It is them who have a symbiotic nature.

    The UK is not Russia's friend with or without Brexit. We aren't using his gas and we are world leaders now at wind farms and other alternative energy to move our own energy production away from gas.

    If you want to hurt Putin then support offshore wind and alternatives like maybe tidal lagoons etc - that is the real issue at stake for Putin.
    Or we could, god forbid, frack our own gas reserves.

    Putin really is the living embodiment of Dr Johnson's comment about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel.
    I would have supported fracking a decade ago. It is unnecessary now. Technology has moved on.

    A world without gas should be our geopolitical aim. Even forgetting environmental reasons, eliminating gas is geopolitically a great thing for us. It removes the cash cow that so many of our geopolitical enemies rely upon.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,750
    edited July 21
    FPT -- favourite physicists

    The Sixty Symbols video channel features Nottingham University physicists explaining physics in entertaining fashion. They were asked here, who is your favourite scientist? No spoilers but Paul Dirac does get a mention. ETA ok the Youtube screenshot might include a spoiler.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    How are different plugs dealt with at the moment? Is the UK style plug used in any other part of the EU like Ireland?
    I was just wondering what would happen if something that is currently in the standard because it suits us were removed because no one else wants it.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,166

    @Barnesian
    You are quoting the current budget deficit, not the total one (the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement or PSBR). By Brown’s own Golden rule this should have been zero averaged over the economic cycle.

    This might be of interest: it suggests that things were perhaps somewhere between the picture painted by you and @Philip_Thompson.

    http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/MMPM/s-papers/Paul-Johnson-fiscal-pre-crisis-slides.pdf

    Thanks for the clarification. It looks to be an interesting paper.

    I think the PSBR is a dodgy metric as I think it includes LAs etc who should be able to borrow in their own right and excludes PFI and other dodges.

    The BIG metric used to the the Balance of Payments which is much more important. It shows whether we are paying our way as a country. It used to be quoted all the time and we all waited for the latest estimate. Will the IMF have to step in? The PSBR was hardly mentioned.

    The Balance of Payments was demoted by the Tories because of the embarrassment of continually having to sell the family silver to make ends meet, which is still going on. PSBR suited them and particularly the Treasury as it was an instrument of Control. Brown liked it for that reason too. It was also a stick with which to beat Labour (as we have seen here today).

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,928

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 230
    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    @Peter_the_Punter If the laws of the universe change even a bit we are all in trouble...

    More seriously I’ve had to change only two bits of Physics teaching Since I started (other than not being able to say that the next eclipse visible from the UK is going to be in 1999).

    That which my 17 yr old grandson talks about appears significantly different from what I did in in 1956/7
    Probably a lot more radioactivity than then.
    There is very little I teach other than that that was not known before the First World War. Possibly some electronics.
    Do you teach materials science (sensu lato), as a matter of interest? It was one of my favourite modules of the 10 or so in Nuffield A Level physics in the 1970s - Gordon's book The New Science of Strong Materials was one of the key reading texts. Edit: of course much of this was not known before 1900 - e.g. the composite materials such as GRP and the reasons for their strength.
    There's some in the AS courses I've taught. And both of Gordon's books (Strong Materials and Structures) are fantastic examples of how to do popular science well.

    Suspect that's what triggered my intuition that this government (bringing it back to politics) is going to turn out to be brittle, like glass. Lots of things will hit it, most won't seem to do any damage, people will chortle at the lack of damage, then something small and surprising will hit the right place and the whole thing will shatter.
    Many thanks, I did wonder if they still did such things! It ended up a real personal interest (my partner was startled to see how delighted I was to see proper red hot riveting being done on repairs to the swing bridge in Bristol near the temporary sea burial of Colston) and also fed into professional work a bit.

    Nice metaphor too. Its apparent dependence on three key persons certainly doesn't presage the sort of redundancy and toughness you'd want, like GRP, of a proper government.
    GRP doesn't withstand blows very well at all. Those expensive carbon fibre bikes don't like being crashed.

    Fatigue failure is what does for most governments. Weibull statistics.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,166
    edited July 21



    I have this strange view from time to time that we are past the peak rate of technological advance. That is to say, science and technology will continue to advance but at a slower rate than it did in the 250 or so years following the Enlightenment.

    Consider the number of inventions, discoveries and new technologies which came about during the 100 years from, say 1850 to 1950, and compare with those that have emerged in the 70 years since 1950.

    In the former period I could list hundreds but: powered flight, cars, commercial electricity, electronics, telephones, radio, radar, cinema, TV, nuclear energy, computing, antibiotics, evolution, plate tectonics, production lines, plastics, bessemer process, refrigeration and reinforced concrete make a sample top twenty.

    Since 1950? Well, space travel, genetics, the internet and mobile computing I guess. And I am not sure we're going to make up the gap much in the remaining 30 years to 2050.

    Happy to be persuaded otherwise.

    Pervasive AI, virtual reality big time, and personalised genetics will be transformative. Not to mention nano, and energy innovations.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,166

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    How are different plugs dealt with at the moment? Is the UK style plug used in any other part of the EU like Ireland?
    I was just wondering what would happen if something that is currently in the standard because it suits us were removed because no one else wants it.
    The plugs in Ireland are the same as in the UK.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    FPT -- favourite physicists

    The Sixty Symbols video channel features Nottingham University physicists explaining physics in entertaining fashion. They were asked here, who is your favourite scientist? No spoilers but Paul Dirac does get a mention. ETA ok the Youtube screenshot might include a spoiler.

    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
  • If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.

    If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.

    Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
  • Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
    Not really. They pay for their MiGs with roubles. They use the hard currency to buy British newspapers, football clubs, real estate and similar assets.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809
    Barnesian said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    How are different plugs dealt with at the moment? Is the UK style plug used in any other part of the EU like Ireland?
    I was just wondering what would happen if something that is currently in the standard because it suits us were removed because no one else wants it.
    The plugs in Ireland are the same as in the UK.
    So unlikely to be got rid of. Good.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919

    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
    Indeed Russia is not that bothered by Brexit or anything like that in reality it is a sideshow. Russia cares about one thing and one thing alone above all else: Selling gas.

    It is all that keeps the Russia state afloat. Germany and similar nations in Europe are reliant upon his gas and Putin is reliant upon their cash. It is them who have a symbiotic nature.

    The UK is not Russia's friend with or without Brexit. We aren't using his gas and we are world leaders now at wind farms and other alternative energy to move our own energy production away from gas.

    If you want to hurt Putin then support offshore wind and alternatives like maybe tidal lagoons etc - that is the real issue at stake for Putin.
    Or we could, god forbid, frack our own gas reserves.

    Putin really is the living embodiment of Dr Johnson's comment about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel.
    I would have supported fracking a decade ago. It is unnecessary now. Technology has moved on.

    A world without gas should be our geopolitical aim. Even forgetting environmental reasons, eliminating gas is geopolitically a great thing for us. It removes the cash cow that so many of our geopolitical enemies rely upon.
    The one worry I have is that a lot of planning is based on the tacit assumption that somebody will have come up with a decent fusion reactor over the next decade.

    Not sure that particular cavalry is on the horizon.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809
    Any way I realise I’ve spent most of today on here and I need to do something a bit more useful with my holiday!

    Play nicely.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345

    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
    Indeed Russia is not that bothered by Brexit or anything like that in reality it is a sideshow. Russia cares about one thing and one thing alone above all else: Selling gas.

    It is all that keeps the Russia state afloat. Germany and similar nations in Europe are reliant upon his gas and Putin is reliant upon their cash. It is them who have a symbiotic nature.

    The UK is not Russia's friend with or without Brexit. We aren't using his gas and we are world leaders now at wind farms and other alternative energy to move our own energy production away from gas.

    If you want to hurt Putin then support offshore wind and alternatives like maybe tidal lagoons etc - that is the real issue at stake for Putin.
    Or we could, god forbid, frack our own gas reserves.

    Putin really is the living embodiment of Dr Johnson's comment about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel.
    I would have supported fracking a decade ago. It is unnecessary now. Technology has moved on.

    A world without gas should be our geopolitical aim. Even forgetting environmental reasons, eliminating gas is geopolitically a great thing for us. It removes the cash cow that so many of our geopolitical enemies rely upon.
    The one worry I have is that a lot of planning is based on the tacit assumption that somebody will have come up with a decent fusion reactor over the next decade.

    Not sure that particular cavalry is on the horizon.
    Right now virology is pushing ahead as a science, needs must and all that. Not sure we've ever had a working coronavirus vaccine created before ?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
  • TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?

  • Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    I tried to say this but I guess I am not as articulate as you. Still I agree with every word.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    Yes exactly
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 480
    What is not said in this report speaks even louder than what is being said. There is primie facie evidence that both the EU and the Scottish referendums were targetted by Russia, but "this was not investigated". There are several ways that interference could have taken place, the massed use of bots in social media for example, subversive messages that confuse and drown out legitimate messages and the illicit use of money. There is considerable evidence that all three methods have been used in the USA and in various European elections. The committee can not say that it has happened in the UK. However the failure to investigate ammounts to wilful blindness, and that is an incredibly serious situation.

    In intelligence the test is not "reasonable doubt", it is likelihood and collateral and in both cases the committee implies that Russian targetting was likely and there are credible reasons to beleive it took place.

    In fact it is as close to a smoking gun as you are ever going to get in the world of the spooks.
  • TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    Self esteem. A bit like no longer having to pay 1/7th of the 32,000 EU employees, as someone (contrarian?) posted on the last thread, to gain the privilege of having to pay 50,000 custom officials (among other things) soon.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 907
    So 7 deaths reported today in the last seven days in English Hospitals and PHE state there have been 110 deaths in all settings.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    Speak for yourself. Many of us don't need to "look at the literature from the twentieth century" because we were there at the time. Many aspects of it sucked, including the one you highlight. Cars are a special case; there is no chirality involved in 99% of the issues on which trading standards are required. Belgian sofas, for instance, do not need to be flameproof in a radically different way from Danish sofas.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    You really think that we are going to draw up completely new or even marginally new standards? And then if we do (clue: we won't) we will expect firms to adopt them by January?

    Jeez.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    Self esteem. A bit like no longer having to pay 1/7th of the 32,000 EU employees, as someone (contrarian?) posted on the last thread, to gain the privilege of having to pay 50,000 custom officials (among other things) soon.
    I think I've already grown an inch. Brexiters far more of course.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345

    So 7 deaths reported today in the last seven days in English Hospitals and PHE state there have been 110 deaths in all settings.

    Care home figures take a while to come through.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
  • Cicero said:

    What is not said in this report speaks even louder than what is being said. There is primie facie evidence that both the EU and the Scottish referendums were targetted by Russia, but "this was not investigated". There are several ways that interference could have taken place, the massed use of bots in social media for example, subversive messages that confuse and drown out legitimate messages and the illicit use of money. There is considerable evidence that all three methods have been used in the USA and in various European elections. The committee can not say that it has happened in the UK. However the failure to investigate ammounts to wilful blindness, and that is an incredibly serious situation.

    In intelligence the test is not "reasonable doubt", it is likelihood and collateral and in both cases the committee implies that Russian targetting was likely and there are credible reasons to beleive it took place.

    In fact it is as close to a smoking gun as you are ever going to get in the world of the spooks.

    For the purpose of a thought experiment, imagine for one second the reaction from the media and the body politic if all of that had happened during the premiership of someone named Corbyn or Starmer.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    You really think that we are going to draw up completely new or even marginally new standards? And then if we do (clue: we won't) we will expect firms to adopt them by January?

    Jeez.
    No. I expect they will originally be exactly the same as CE.

    But I also expect that time will not end on 1/1/21. In the future if Europe chooses to change their standards we can choose to adopt their changes or reject them. In the future if the UK chooses to change our own standards then we can do so. We will be in control.

    In the future if there is a different spec required due to different standards then manufacturers will cope with that. Just like the cope with our 3 pin plug that isn't used on the continent. Just like the cope with Right Hand Drive vehicles.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,252
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    I expect Putin was delighted at the result of the Brexit referendum because it has divided, paralysed and weakened the UK, and indirectly both the EU and NATO. How much they manipulated the debate via their troll farms we will not know for some time.

    Ultimately though it was British voters that put crosses on the ballot paper. Democracy does not exclude the thick, or the manipulated. Whether or not we were manipulated, it is no ones fault but our own.

    I imagine he's far more delighted at the enormous cheque the Germans are writing him for energy sales.

    More MIGs for the dear old RAF to chase around the skies eh?
    Indeed Russia is not that bothered by Brexit or anything like that in reality it is a sideshow. Russia cares about one thing and one thing alone above all else: Selling gas.

    It is all that keeps the Russia state afloat. Germany and similar nations in Europe are reliant upon his gas and Putin is reliant upon their cash. It is them who have a symbiotic nature.

    The UK is not Russia's friend with or without Brexit. We aren't using his gas and we are world leaders now at wind farms and other alternative energy to move our own energy production away from gas.

    If you want to hurt Putin then support offshore wind and alternatives like maybe tidal lagoons etc - that is the real issue at stake for Putin.
    Or we could, god forbid, frack our own gas reserves.

    Putin really is the living embodiment of Dr Johnson's comment about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel.
    I would have supported fracking a decade ago. It is unnecessary now. Technology has moved on.

    A world without gas should be our geopolitical aim. Even forgetting environmental reasons, eliminating gas is geopolitically a great thing for us. It removes the cash cow that so many of our geopolitical enemies rely upon.
    The one worry I have is that a lot of planning is based on the tacit assumption that somebody will have come up with a decent fusion reactor over the next decade.

    Not sure that particular cavalry is on the horizon.
    Right now virology is pushing ahead as a science, needs must and all that. Not sure we've ever had a working coronavirus vaccine created before ?
    Mainly because we've never needed one. Not much money (or demand) for immunising against one of the four coronaviruses in the suite of 200+ viruses that make up the common cold.

    Work on SARS and MERS vaccines was well under way when both viruses were brought into check without needing the vaccines (and the Oxford vaccine owes a lot to work done on MERS vaccination). Animal coronaviruses in the UK have needed vaccines, which have been promptly forthcoming.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,981


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,809

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    Self esteem. A bit like no longer having to pay 1/7th of the 32,000 EU employees, as someone (contrarian?) posted on the last thread, to gain the privilege of having to pay 50,000 custom officials (among other things) soon.
    This is in fact - and in all seriousness - the point. Lots more red tape but it's our red tape.

    British red tape for British people.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 451
    Off topic and apologies if quoted before but good poll for Trump in Georgia

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14b1jw1EuSpo90_kwZJKiSjHMQ378jFoA/view

    Looks like a slightly heavier female weighting as well
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 36,008
    Was it a secret Russian plan to get Brexit so the UK could apply tougher sanctions to its top officials through its own Magnitsky Act?

    Putin is a shit-stirrer, who wants division and paralysis in the West to further his geopolitical aims. That much is clear. But I will read the report before commenting further.

    What is unforgivable is our Government delaying its release. There are no excuses.

    (Incidentally, I very much doubt it'd have affected GE2019 in any way but that's by the by)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    Indeed. There but for the grace of Brexit go we.

    Thank goodness the UK voters were smart enough to say enough is enough and get out.
  • To be fair, it wasn't Russia's president who came to Britain during the referendum campaign and fibbed like mad about our place in the trade agreement queue.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,928


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    That's a lot of words to say nothing.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,163
    Poor old Barry has read a different report to the rest of us

  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    MrEd said:

    Off topic and apologies if quoted before but good poll for Trump in Georgia

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14b1jw1EuSpo90_kwZJKiSjHMQ378jFoA/view

    Looks like a slightly heavier female weighting as well

    A weighting towards slightly heavier females?

    Do the skinny ones tend to vote democrat?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 36,008
    Pulpstar said:

    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.

    Probably laundered funding to some fringe campaign groups, and mass-bots on social media. But this is really playing at the edges.

    The far more concerning thing is the big donations to the Conservative Party, and indirect links through the UK-based oligarchs that make them. Not that this meaningfully affects policy, of course.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859
    MrEd said:

    Off topic and apologies if quoted before but good poll for Trump in Georgia

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14b1jw1EuSpo90_kwZJKiSjHMQ378jFoA/view

    Looks like a slightly heavier female weighting as well

    Trafalgar tries to adjust for shy Trump supporters, and has more aggressive turnout filtering that other pollsters.

    Georgia has also been very aggressive at reducing the number of polling stations in black neighbourhoods, which will probably have a meaningful impact on the result. If you're going to queue for an hour or two to vote, that is effectively a voting tax, as your time is valuable.

    I personally think that both GA and AZ will be a stretch for the Democrats, although I expect Mark Kelly to beat out Martha McSally in the Arizona Senate race.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,750
    USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 36,008

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    I think it's a question of degree, like you say.

    We won't go against the whole rest of the world, like Richard says, but we occasionally might want to take a different tack to the US and the EU.

    Provided the cost of compliance isn't meaningfully different, that shouldn't pose a big problem.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    That's a lot of words to say nothing.
    He's broadly right that we're not going to diverge from EU and ISO product standards, mind. Look at Canada's product standards, and if you spot a difference to US ones, let me know.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    That's a lot of words to say nothing.
    The analogy of course is with UKCA. A lot of bluster and so forth to achieve nothing.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764
    England deaths - all settings

    Today they announced 112

    Yesterday - 30
    Seven day average - 38

    Note how the much of todays report goes to filling the weekend gap.

    image
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    rcs1000 said:


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    That's a lot of words to say nothing.
    He's broadly right that we're not going to diverge from EU and ISO product standards, mind. Look at Canada's product standards, and if you spot a difference to US ones, let me know.
    Look at what Americans call Smarties (left) versus what the Canadians call them ;)

    image
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    This is a classic example of something that would never have happened while we were there, as we would have blocked it.

    Now we've gone the biggest voice against further integration has gone, and it's probable that (a) the core countries will integrate more, while (b) the non-core will find themselves sidelined.

    I think this probably increases the survivability of the EU/Eurozone, but makes it increasingly likely that it will be a smaller group of countries.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 223
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Off topic and apologies if quoted before but good poll for Trump in Georgia

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14b1jw1EuSpo90_kwZJKiSjHMQ378jFoA/view

    Looks like a slightly heavier female weighting as well

    Trafalgar tries to adjust for shy Trump supporters, and has more aggressive turnout filtering that other pollsters.

    Georgia has also been very aggressive at reducing the number of polling stations in black neighbourhoods, which will probably have a meaningful impact on the result. If you're going to queue for an hour or two to vote, that is effectively a voting tax, as your time is valuable.

    I personally think that both GA and AZ will be a stretch for the Democrats, although I expect Mark Kelly to beat out Martha McSally in the Arizona Senate race.
    Yes, efforts by the Russians, or anybody else, to interfere in USA elections pale in comparison to Trump's concerted efforts to suppress the anti-Trump vote through all sorts of shenanigans, including as in Georgia that you mention. I think this will be the big story in the USA for the next 6 months. On Newsnight last night, somebody (sorry, can't remember her name) was saying that a large proportion of Democrat donations was being spent on lawyers rather than campaigning. This vote rigging, which it is in effect, is absolutely scandalous, and more of an affront to democracy than any bots on social media.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    As a further aside, the "recovery fund" was agreed unanimously by the governments of the (remaining) EU countries. So, while you might say "we wouldn't have gone for it", it's hard to say why 27 countries agreeing to raise funds at the EU level is undemocratic.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 953
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    While undoubtedly true is it not also true that now the UK will have a voice in those iso committees rather than as currently the eu alone sits on them
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,523
    edited July 21
    This says it all for today, really. The evidence is so copious and the Russians so laughingly brazen, nowadays, that even a very short enquiry, should the government actually want it, would be likely to turn up all sorts of interesting information in a very short space of time.



  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,809

    Pulpstar said:

    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.

    Probably laundered funding to some fringe campaign groups, and mass-bots on social media. But this is really playing at the edges.

    The far more concerning thing is the big donations to the Conservative Party, and indirect links through the UK-based oligarchs that make them. Not that this meaningfully affects policy, of course.
    +1

    (assuming elegant touch of sarcasm in last sentence)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    I think it's a question of degree, like you say.

    We won't go against the whole rest of the world, like Richard says, but we occasionally might want to take a different tack to the US and the EU.

    Provided the cost of compliance isn't meaningfully different, that shouldn't pose a big problem.
    Those UK plugs have an ISO code too.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 5,106
    Brom said:

    Poor old Barry has read a different report to the rest of us

    Notwithstanding, Sheerman is a fool. There is a lot more "nothing to see" analysis on here today than there should be. The slightest sniff at a Corbyn win at the hand of Putin would have these posters apoplectic with rage, and so they should be.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 451

    USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)

    I think Biden has said there are four Black women in there who you would have to think are Harris, Rice, Demmings and Lance Bottoms. But maybe one of them has dropped out. Really not sure why suddenly Bass is in the frame - it feels a bit like the Tammy Duckworth surge
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    Being more serious @rcs1000 looking at that Smarties packaging it reveals a very serious product standard difference between the USA and Canada. Packaging in general is Canada is subject to Canadian law that it must be dual-languaged in both English and French. Hence on that picture "new package!" becomes "neuveau emballage!" on that packaging too.

    A minor difference sure, but as far as I understand everything across the entire country is subject to that whereas that obviously isn't the case in the USA. If Americans want to export their products for sale on Canadian shops they have to comply with that law as far as I understand.
This discussion has been closed.