Is this the way of you saying, yes, sorry, I was wrong, the UK didn’t rip up all the EU regulations.
The article Annie posted was completely different to the ones I’ve been posting, I suppose you are now going to say that you’re an expert on regulations so understood it completely.
I think you need to re-read my earlier post. I’m happy to accept my wording could have clearer but it didn’t state that the UK has ditched the EU regs en-masse. So I’m not sure any apology is at all required. I would of course refer you to your offensive accusations against me - for which you have decided that a reasonable response is sarcasm. Nice.
Now as to the synopsis (I’m sure you understand that was what the post was) of the issues facing the UK chemical sector in light of the UK withdrawing from the EU Reach. I’m surprised you were unable to grasp the message and the issue. It was very plainly summarised. You do not need to be any sort of expert to understand the problem created by Brexit. What the post lacked was a view on the risks now created. But no doubt you are happy with the risk in the same way that you will be happy about the necessary hike in costs. Another Brexit benefit no doubt.
Did you get your attitude from copying Victor Meldrew or did he copy you, which one was first?
Read my post earlier about EU-Reach vs UK-Reach. There are other equivalent regulatory systems all over the world, such as US-TSCA - the USA version. The EU-REACH system is specific to the EU, the UK version specific to the UK. We left the EU … why would we require EU chemical suppliers perform registrations in the wrong system ?
Don’t a substantial number of companies have to pay for both EU and UK Reach? Presumably they trade with both so it’s an extra cost to multinationals. A cost that will be passed to consumers here.
Edited to add that the UK government is / was very familiar with how clunky our systems are when they launched Brexit. Had there been a plan voters would have been made aware of the blockages to change. It’s just the way everything in Britain is set up - inefficiently. This is coupled with much vested interest by organisations and individuals who like it that way because it a) keeps them in jobs, b) makes them money. When they want to implement something like this they bring in management consultants so they have someone to blame when it doesn’t happen. The consultants stick around for a year or two, make a pile of dosh and then go off to another contract leaving incumbent managers scratching their heads when they find the swiss cheese of holes in their plans, invariably causing additional costs and delays. Just look at Hs2
Yes that’s why we have UK Reach and why the EU has EU Reach and so on and companies have to pay to register imports of chemicals to each one they import into. Same goes for the USA and the like.
I agree with your second as well - there was no plan for Brexit, the government, the media and just about everything else thought Project Fear would win. That was the plan and it failed miserably. Instead of making a plan with a clean break and honouring the decision made by the people, the government kept us in the EU in all but name. What Brexit has done though (and another benefit of Brexit) is expose our dysfunctional, highly politicised civil service and the sewer that is Whitehall. It has also shown that every party represented in the House of Commons has deliberately betrayed the peoples vote, our democracy, our values and our beliefs. In 2024 we need to do better.
A storm is coming I tell you.
Your post shows that you have not considered import and export issues. We all know you’d prefer all UK-EU trade to stop (you hate the EU that much) but the EU trading bloc remains our biggest customer and supplier. Many UK businesses depend on the importing of chemicals from the EU. The introduction of UK-REACH obliges EU companies selling to the UK to register a UK based business entity - and bear the costs of registration. There are multiple issues that will reduce the number of EU exporters bothered to continue to export to the UK - so the costs of these substances will increase (already have and continue to rise). All of this is necessary due to Brexit, and some aspects of the introduction of UK-REACH has actually gone well. But the outcome is higher cost for exporting and importing chemicals. It is essentially a red-tape burden obliged by Brexit.
BTW I’m no expert in chemicals or REACH so this article helped …
The EU trading block isn’t our biggest customer - we trade more with the USA and the rest of the world.
Read Annies article she submitted yesterday it provides a better overview of REACH registrations than your one from 2 years ago. It explains how these deadlines are extended etc and why they need to be - then read my reply above which explains why we need to extend the deadlines and need a change in the legalities to do this.
The EU was Britains biggest trading block .
It has fallen now because of Brexit not much of a benefit
We still have the same trading terms with the EU, the difference that Brexit has made is the ability to strike our own, more favourable trading relationships with other countries and other trading blocks, such as CPTPP etc. We were unable to do this as an EU member state.
Someone on this thread some weeks ago claimed that costs for transportation do not matter when it comes to trade. Should that be true and should the membership of CPTPP really entail those wonderful opportunities for more trade, then the loss in EU trade will be compensated by trade with the other side of the planet.
Unfortunately the DE article (cited some days ago in this thread) only mentioned opportunities in trade of services and expertise whithout naming any specifics. Let us ignore that for now and just believe it.
In theory when you also ignore the estimates (e. g. 0.08% GDP rise by the AUS/NZ deal) then everything might be fine “in due course”.
Cheaper wine, cheaper lamb and beef, cheaper dairy products from the other end of the planet.
IMHO benefits of Brexit can be seen through 2 different eyes: people/companies in the EU and retired people in the UK.
When companies leave the UK and move to the EU then it is a benefit for the EU.
When the UK can print the crown on pint glasses, use stronger vacuum cleaners, use older measurements, enjoy a renewed strong feeling of sovreignty, then these are benefits for the UK.
Personally I fail to see Brexit benefits for younger people in the UK.
Could someone please be so kind and name some?
You obviously didn’t bother reading the article I posted the link to in post 1527 and especially this bit:
This factor played a role in the Australian and New Zealand deals. One reason why these deals have made so little impact is that they were designed to. In order to protect domestic farmers, full tariff-free access to the UK market is being phased in, over 10-15 years for beef and lamb, and over five years for dairy.
Some sort of protection for domestic producers is warranted, both in order to allow them time to adjust and on grounds of promoting security of supply. But not only is the time for adjustment excessively long but it would surely be better to give direct support to farmers rather than blocking out overseas competition.
This is particularly true because those most at risk of losing out from cheaper imports of Australian and New Zealand products are not domestic producers but rather other overseas suppliers to the UK market, principally producers in the EU. As cheaper supplies are admitted to the UK, they will have to lower their prices.
Also both the UK and New Zealand have higher animal welfare standards which is important to us Brits:
https://ahdb.org.uk/trade-and-policy/new-zealand-animal-welfare
The Animal Protection Index ranks 50 countries across the world based on their animal welfare standards for farm animals, pets, animals in captivity and those used in research. In 2014, New Zealand, UK, Switzerland, and Austria were given the highest rating ‘A’. These ratings have recently been updated and have reduced for both the UK and New Zealand. The UK is now rated B, and New Zealand is rated C. Both countries are rated C for the category “protecting animals used in farming” which demonstrates that the animal welfare standards in farming are at a similar level. The justification for reducing ratings were topics similar to those discussed by the when it gave evidence in Westminster on international trade. It stated that the animal welfare standards in the UK and New Zealand are broadly equivalent, and that in some areas New Zealand standards may be above the UK’s. The RSPCA stated the UK was ahead of New Zealand in areas such as bans on sow stalls, more free range hens, and general cleanliness when it comes to poultry. However, the UK is behind New Zealand in terms of allowing non-stun slaughter, greater lameness in sheep, legal live exports, and poorer access to the outdoors for dairy cattle.
There are also differences in regard to humane slaughter and slaughter facilities. Since 2018, there has been a legal requirement for all abattoirs in England to have CCTV installed. There is also a legislative requirement for all animals to be stunned prior to slaughter, with the exception of those destined for consumption by people of faith. There is no requirement for CCTV in slaughterhouses in New Zealand. However, it is compulsory for all animals to be stunned before commercial slaughter. Encouragingly, the UK Government has confirmed that it will continue to approve slaughterhouses in New Zealand to ensure that the standards are equivalent to the UK’s and ensure the import ban on meat not slaughtered to UK standards.
Ha ha ha ha ha. You are bonkers.
So what you are saying the same as “I sell more to everyone else put together”. Yes of course you bleedin’ do, that is blindingly mind-numbingly obvious. If you add up the trade of everywhere else you get a bigger number. But all that wasted pointless maths does not change the fact that EU is a bigger trading bloc than any of the others. If this is the quality of your thinking no wonder you’ve worked out that Brexit is jolly brilliant.
There are none.
I am sure that you can do better! There must be some. 
After 1615 posts I still can’t see any .
pitchforks at dawn?
Last year almost half our imports came from the EU. The % of British exports has fallen (prev 50-55%) but was 42% last year although still substantial. Imports from EU countries have risen slightly since 2019.
My main gripe is that people who voted for Brexit are not happy with the situation. It seems it has just been a total waste of time and money because those who voted for it are even more disappointed than before.
Today is my quoting day. Qouting from this thread, not 100% exactly though
“They are just numbers”.
“There are lies, damned lies”.
