Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

Of course, because the ERG and their followers want to asset strip the UK.

I thought overseas interests had been asset stripping the UK for some time? Though the more recently the Chinese do appear to be making fundamental mistakes in their choice of investments.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I thought overseas interests had been asset stripping the UK for some time?

Foreigner investment into the UK really triggers the ERG and their followers.

RyanEzio

I run a business that deals with the EU. I will be very happy if a deal is agreed by the end of the week.


Extending without any sort of agreement is farcical and bad for business.

It'll just show how out of touch most MPs are with the rest of the UK.


Isn't it funny, those who want a 2nd ref are the ones who voted remain


I see Mr Corbyn said he is not going to vote for a deal ,if one is agreed with the EU. Party before politcs again


No matter what you voted for, an agreement with the EU on some sort of WA will at least move us forward.



Let's get this over the line and then have a GE to decide who we want to conduct our future relationship with the EU.

Herzlos

As a business trading with the EU are you happy with going to WTO until a new deal is arranged? How many years would you be happy waiting?

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

Foreigner investment into the UK really triggers the ERG and their followers.

Asset stripping isn't investment.

LHW99

phillw wrote: »

I'll ignore the "think of the children" bit at the end, it seems like the new regulation is better than the old.

https://www.cia.org.uk/reachready/Biocides/

The extra cost is because they are making the producers pay for testing before seeking approval, a cost which would otherwise have been shouldered by the tax payer. So I don't buy the argument.

As your link makes clear, under the new directive:
"BPR legislates first at the active substance level, requiring the approval of active substances supplied for use in biocidal products and establishing a list of both approved substances and approved suppliers of these substances."
Having had the active substances approved, any company that then wishes to use a given active has to "obtain an authorisation to place each product on the market"
So not enough that information has been provided, and accepted by the EU, on safety / efficacy by the manufacturer of the material, any other company that wants to use the approved active has to also go through the authorisation process - which costs a significant sum.
The link also makes clear that "Also new to the BPR is the governing of ‘treated articles’. This term means substances, mixtures or articles which are protected from the harmful effects of organisms by the treatment with, or incorporation of, a biocidal product. Examples include paints containing an in-can preservative or wood treated to protect it from termites. Due to this new provision, the effects of the Biocidal Products Regulation extend well beyond those who supply biocidal products"
What this also means is that if a particular active has been approved for one type of use (eg paint) the same compound is not necessarily also approved for eg wood treatment, even if it is used at the same concentration. A new approval process (and costs) have to be undertaken by the product supplier, even if the details have been approved when submitted by the manufacturer of the active material, or a supplier of an equivalent product.
Massive duplication, significant expenditure and a procedure that is excessively complicated.

phillw

RyanEzio wrote: »

I run a business that deals with the EU. I will be very happy if a deal is agreed by the end of the week.

I'm sure you would very happy if we could leave the EU and you have a deal that doesn't change anything.

Will you still be so happy if the deal means 40% tariffs?

LHW99 wrote: »

What this also means is that if a particular active has been approved for one type of use (eg paint) the same compound is not necessarily also approved for eg wood treatment, even if it is used at the same concentration. A new approval process (and costs) have to be undertaken by the product supplier, even if the details have been approved when submitted by the manufacturer of the active material, or a supplier of an equivalent product.
Massive duplication, significant expenditure and a procedure that is excessively complicated.

You should tell the grenfell victims that the cladding had been tested, just not in the way it was used and that further testing was just a massive duplication and waste.

Thrugelmir

LHW99 wrote: »

Massive duplication, significant expenditure and a procedure that is excessively complicated.

Which benefits a few major European players.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Which benefits a few major European players.

We're European, we're from the continent of Europe. Are you using a narrower definition?

RyanEzio

phillw wrote: »

I'm sure you would very happy if we could leave the EU and you have a deal that doesn't change anything.

Will you still be so happy if the deal means 40% tariffs?

Realistically, there's going to be transition period which could take up to 2-4 years for everything to change from EU law to British law. Business regulations, etc, etc.


I very much doubt 40% tariff will be slapped onto businesses. The UK and the EU will remain close partners, mainly on trade.


There may be issues regarding trade from outside the EU, mainly due to the competitiveness, that's why it's important to keep signing these free trade agreements with countries from outside the EU


I am unsure how the trade deal will work with the US. It really where they are politcally in the years to come.


Like i said before, businesses just need certainty. Not more uncertainty.



Pity all the parties couldn't just come together and agree something, just to move us forward.