Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: Bod (IP Logged)
Date: 29 July, 2020 23:08

The EU Plastics tax cash grab will destroy the single market

Make of this what you will.
BSI integrity was historically far higher than Common Market standards especially with regards to building standards and associated materials, perhaps with the exception of France.
The Grenfell tragedy highlights these ongoing deficiencies that were adopted.
Dumbing down of polymer ignition values to comply with EU minimums has never been discussed, as relaxation of their construction applications
Chlorine in water is a historical cleansing process in UK, and most of your prepacked salad packs are necessarily chlorinated to kill off various nasties imported from the salads production fields in some southern European countries that have very lax standards regarding the provenance of the sources of irrigation. (If you know what I mean)

Streptococcal infection in poultry in UK is rampant.

EU standards regarding livestock movements are appalling, and all live exports from UK should be banned . Carcass exports only.
On a positive note, Poland and Romania have recently improved minimum wage to 520 and 475 per month.


(Sm3)

Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 30 July, 2020 20:30

Quote:
Bod
The EU Plastics tax cash grab will destroy the single market
Make of this what you will.
BSI integrity was historically far higher than Common Market standards especially with regards to building standards and associated materials, perhaps with the exception of France.
The Grenfell tragedy highlights these ongoing deficiencies that were adopted.
Dumbing down of polymer ignition values to comply with EU minimums has never been discussed, as relaxation of their construction applications
Chlorine in water is a historical cleansing process in UK, and most of your prepacked salad packs are necessarily chlorinated to kill off various nasties imported from the salads production fields in some southern European countries that have very lax standards regarding the provenance of the sources of irrigation. (If you know what I mean)

Streptococcal infection in poultry in UK is rampant.

EU standards regarding livestock movements are appalling, and all live exports from UK should be banned . Carcass exports only.
On a positive note, Poland and Romania have recently improved minimum wage to 520 and 475 per month.


(Sm3)

OK. Several things there. The guy in the linked article obviously has his own agenda whilst making, what I believe to be, a good point. I can imagine exactly what was said in the working group meetings which occurred prior to this being imposed! Folk only interested in their own sphere/agenda with no knowledge or interest in the bigger picture!

Not sure where Grenfell came from but that is not really connected. Grenfell was caused by the Local Authority (having to) accepting the lowest bid without going into the fine detail or considering the long term (cos EU rules don't let them) and then there being a total lack of on site work supervision -situation normal- or work specification checking/understanding. The LA should have written a better performance spec and then (stuck to it and) accepted what the cost of doing the job properly was rather than pleading poverty and pressuring someone into doing the job cheaper by cutting corners!

Incidentaly, Common Standards to allow the Common Market to operate are a big dumbing down of every country's standards to match the worst standard which exists so that there is no barrier to trade. More than once, DIN have refused to publish an "agreed" european norm as a standard in Germany!



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: IanC (IP Logged)
Date: 31 July, 2020 11:05

I remember the early days of 'e' marking and harmonisation of standards when I was still a Trading Standards Officer. On one day, if you wanted an easy prosecution, you just went out and found a toy manufactured in Italy - if the spikes and sharp edges didn't get your kid the fully leaded paint would do a slower, but still certain, job.

The next day those toys had an 'e' mark on them and were deemed to be compliant with the Regulations regardless of reality.

Evolution in action for the parents who bought them, I guess.

Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: jojo (IP Logged)
Date: 31 July, 2020 19:49

Bods argument has some merit regarding Grenfel.

In the old days we had BS 476 class 1 for surface spread of flames and propagation. Composite systems both had to have Class 1 and then be tested. Under EU norms only a paper exercise had to be performed.

In construction tenders have to be marked as compliant OR non compliant bids. Invariably when non compliant bids are referred to the architects or engineers for approval they come back with NO COMMENT. Leaves the client to make up their own minds or the contractor takes the risk. (not quite as simple as that but you get the gist)

Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: RushdenTiger (KT at work) (IP Logged)
Date: 01 August, 2020 10:09

I'm not sure the problem is about which standards are better etc.

Surely it's about acceptance. If the EU accepts that new British Standards are equivalent or even better to the CE mark and allow goods under those marks to be imported into the EU all well and good. However, if they insist that we adhere to their standards and get additional accreditation from their authorised testing houses businesses who want to export into the EU have yet another unnecessary cost to sustain (in addition to getting the domestic BS standard).

Yorkie has explained that we still have a big say in the standards setting organisations but how long does this last as we grow apart from the largest trading block in the world.

We can all sit at home and clap ourselves on the back about how good our new BS will be but it'll mean sod all if no other country for whatever reason (valid or not) decides not to recognise them.

Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: IDLETIMES (IP Logged)
Date: 01 August, 2020 13:03

Like Rushden, I voted to remain and IMHO Brexit will prove to be a huge economic mistake. That is not to say that people who voted for B. are ignorant, stupid, did not understand what they were doing or were an 'ist' or an 'ism'. They thought it was for the best, I just think that they were wrong

Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 01 August, 2020 18:11

Quote:
jojo
Bods argument has some merit regarding Grenfel.
In the old days we had BS 476 class 1 for surface spread of flames and propagation. Composite systems both had to have Class 1 and then be tested. Under EU norms only a paper exercise had to be performed.

In construction tenders have to be marked as compliant OR non compliant bids. Invariably when non compliant bids are referred to the architects or engineers for approval they come back with NO COMMENT. Leaves the client to make up their own minds or the contractor takes the risk. (not quite as simple as that but you get the gist)

Every EN has fire and chemical requirements written into it by the "central office" and the expert working groups who create/write standards cannot change these sections. I can't comment nowadays re standards for cladding (could 35 years ago!) but I'd be amazed if the current standards didn't have similar or more stringent fire requirements. And, in my experience of complying a building product to an EN, you have to have it tested for fire. We used the fire labs at Warrington.

From what I read at the time re Grenfell, there were no fire stops installed so the fire spread within the cladding build up. Grenfell was, imvho, caused by the tender price having to be reduced so dramatically that the spec will have had to be downgraded and/or corners cut.

Not sure whether one was used (but I suspect it was) but a Design and Build Contract would have placed all the liability and risk on the contractor.



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

Re: OT. Brexit and British Standards.
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 01 August, 2020 18:23

Quote:
RushdenTiger (KT at work)
I'm not sure the problem is about which standards are better etc.
Surely it's about acceptance. If the EU accepts that new British Standards are equivalent or even better to the CE mark and allow goods under those marks to be imported into the EU all well and good. However, if they insist that we adhere to their standards and get additional accreditation from their authorised testing houses businesses who want to export into the EU have yet another unnecessary cost to sustain (in addition to getting the domestic BS standard).

Yorkie has explained that we still have a big say in the standards setting organisations but how long does this last as we grow apart from the largest trading block in the world.

We can all sit at home and clap ourselves on the back about how good our new BS will be but it'll mean sod all if no other country for whatever reason (valid or not) decides not to recognise them.

You are right about new British Standards perhaps not being as stringent as new European ones. But it could be the other way round. If our new standards are stricter (and there is no reason to expect them not to be as the dumbing down factor of an EN standard and their awful admin system will no longer be in the way) this will mean you will comply with an EN standard and European manufacturers will maybe struggle to meet our standard? And, in the same way you might have an extra test to pay for, so will they. And testing to an EN will give you a much bigger market to go at than their manufacturers will get.

In reality, existing BS standards (most of which are the same EN standard as used throughout europe) will change very slowly if at all. And EN standards and their development move at a glacial speed so not much will change in the short to medium tern imvho.



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

Current Page: 2 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net