Standards

This morning I attended a webinar organised by Dansih Standards, regarding Brexit.

It was informative, too technical for me at times, but whT I draw from it is that in this, and other areas I suppose, good honest people are trying to make Brexit work in the real world.

The UK representative of British Standards explained about the UK, the four countries and the UK internal market. And that for complaince in Britain this would require certification of the new UKCA standard showing compliance, but for Northern Ireland there is the UKNI Standard which would also represent compliance with EU regulations and standards.

So a company, looking to sell goods in Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU will have to go throug complaince checks on three standards, triple the cost. This is the sheer madness of Brexit.

That the whole point of standards is the harmonisation of regulations to facilitate the flow of trade, to make trade easier. And Brexit will reverse that, bad with a deal, worse with no deal.

And just as businesses show that their requirement is more standardisation and harmonisation to facilitate trade, to make it more efficient, there are many in Government and sniffing round the edge, like Nigel, who want to destroy the very structures that allow "frictionless" trade, and facilitate other cross-border activities, just to have a British this or that. Irrespective that the businesses and people concerned want the opposite, this is what is going to happen.

Meanwhile Barnier is in London for more talks, but hope seems to be fading.

The latest problem is France using their veto for a compromise. Ths is because the EU is 27 sovereign nations, each with their own interests, and they will allow compromise up to a point. Remember, the Vote Leave said the UK had not been sovereign as a member of the EU, and yet we see a member state protecting its own sovereign interests. Like they were making shit up.

Even if there were a deal, then Johnson would have to get it ratified by Parliament, or would like to. But in the last two weeks, there have been two rebellions, each getting larger, and many in the ERG including Steve Baker has said they would veto any deal. It is possible, I think, for the Government to approve any deal without domestic ratification, but would not be a good look, and do nothing for party unity.

And if it comes down to it, voting on a Johnson negotiated deal would give Starmer a difficult choice. A deal is better than no deal, but supporting the deal or abstaining would mean that Labour would jake some responsibility of what may come after. But voting it down would bring no deal on their house and their fault.

This is partly due to May and Johnson never seeking a political agreement on Brexit and what it should be, so shoving it down Parliament's throat as a take it or leave it leaves everyone with a Hobson's Choice, and leaving it means no deal and a huge amount of blame.

It has also been suggested that common sense means Johnson will agree a deal. I have been waiting four and a half years for common sense to break our in Brexitlalaland, and it hasn't yet. And common sense would say there should have been no Brexit, then a soft Brexit before reaching this point.