On 03/10/2019 11:25, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 03/10/2019 09:53, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim
StreaterÂ* writes
In article , "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 03/10/2019 08:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/2019 08:17, Andy Burns wrote:
Max Demian wrote:

What if the nozzle is in the /middle/, cunningly concealed
behindÂ* theÂ* rear number plate, which hinges down for access?

Presumably safety provisions such as nCAP have put paid to that
sortÂ* of thing?Â* Or with more or less global car models, the laws
in the USÂ* are applied everywhere?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/393.65
Â*Its not that laws are global, but if you manufacture for your
tightestÂ* market, its is unlikely to make sense doing it
differentlyÂ* for any other

Well that's TNP saying one of the main reasons claimed for brexit,
being able to have different standards for different markets, out
of the window.
Remain voters have said this from the beginning.

Rubbish. Whether to do that or not, once we are out, becomes a
commercial matter for the company involved, rather than purposelessly
being forced upon them.
Â*Did you object when British Standards were first brought in?
Â*AFAIK we have been members of the Electro Technical Commission since
dayÂ* one. Did you object to that?
Â*We do ourselves a disservice by considering producing sub standard
products for sale to gullible markets.

Your insistence in deliberately misunderstanding is weird.

There is an inherent conflict between consumers and manufacturers.
Manufacturers want to sell more,Â* expensive products.
Manufacturers want to lower wages and eliminateÂ* employment and trade
booundariesÂ* into markets they own and protect those markets from
other manufactures.

Accepted.

This is what the EU is all about.

They certainly wish to protect industries considered vital. Hence the
iron and steel issues.

It's sold as harmonisation, safety, ecologically moral, social justice
and politically correct. This is sheer humbug. It is essentially
protecting big business and impoverishing the consumer who is forced
to consume to comply with the latest law.

This is a point of divergence. Who elected you to decide whether the
specification of a product used across Europe is excessive or not?
Our experts undoubtedly have the opportunity to decide if a regulation
is necessary and put forward their views, along with those of other
member states.

Far better that ouir own experts/government can set our own standards if
necessary. It makes sense to stick to EU standards generally, but for
some things, it might suit us to have a good enough, but less stringest
standard and on others, we might prefer to have a stonger standard.

The alternative seems to me to be the product coming out of China back
in the 1980's. Appeared to do the job, worked for a while and was cheap,
hence saleable.

The alternative is our own standard, but maybe also choosing to accept
EU standards; maybe Japanese, Australian, Canadian. Why not, if they are
good enough. US standards for many things are pretty crap though.

Renewable energy is the prime example. In terms of CO2 reduictiomn it
is pointless compared with - say - nuclear power.

But it generates money for the renewable industry for which the
consumer pays. Its a tax on energy that ends up in renewable fat cat
pockets.

OK. This is a special case. I'm not sure about your fat cats but the
rest of it rings true.

Do you have any other examples?

I read your comment elsewhere about housing needing to meet hugely
different energy saving criteria. Our building regulations only apply to
us. Is the situation in Sweden or Spain different in some way?

I think that you'll find that much of the building regulations is common
across the EU.

SteveW