Are standards necessary / useful in the UK?

[SamTheJarvis]

The main problem that I see with Britain not keeping in line with EU standards is that manufacturers will have yet more standards to follow.

If they're effective standards, what reason do we have not to adopt them independently? Same goes for any EU law, I don't see why we need to all sign the same bit of paper.

It seems the case to me that the health of the body of standards relies on non compliance and adversity to keep it in check.

 

[SamTheJarvis]

Self regulation doesn't work because Money. This has been proven over and over and over again.

It's definitely related to the economic health of a system. The less economic activity there is, the greater the incentive to swindle.

Saying it doesn't work because Money is reductive. Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal and yet quality of work and diligence were never higher, this was due to there being a strong sense of social cohesion and there was more to gain by doing a good job than a bad job.

Money itself is not the problem, the health of the system we live in absolutely is and always will be. The economic state is just the most tangible indicator of the health of a system, but there's far more behind the scenes.

 

[CornishWoodworker]

Standards are there for a reason and the reason many items fail prematurely is that of failure to meet standards and the combining of many parts from different sources each having their own standard although stating their compliance against their customers requirement.
When you start combining items with tolerance limits , you can quite easily find yourself outwith final tolerance somewhere on the final product.
Why does a particular woodlathe or bandsaw fail ?
Well its built to a price and anticipated usage and component parts chosen accordingly.
This is standards , in action.

 

[DBT85]

It's definitely related to the economic health of a system. The less economic activity there is, the greater the incentive to swindle.

Saying it doesn't work because Money is reductive. Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal and yet quality of work and diligence were never higher, this was due to there being a strong sense of social cohesion and there was more to gain by doing a good job than a bad job.

Money itself is not the problem, the health of the system we live in absolutely is and always will be. The economic state is just the most tangible indicator of the health of a system, but there's far more behind the scenes.

But we no longer live in 1950s britain (much to chagrin of some). Companies in the last 70 years have proven in all markets that if they are free to regulate themselves, be it financial institutions, house building, car manufacture etc, they will cut corners and even cheat the regulations that do exist in order to save money or make more money. Is it ALL companies and people? Of course not. But like the laws of the land you have to regulate and legislate for the lowest common denominator.

Small town Joe that makes kitchen cabinets for the 5 mile radius around him probably doesn't need that kind of regulation. His business stands on the feet of the work done and word of mouth. That stops as you get larger and larger until there are too many flawed people in positions of power, looking to save a penny here and tuppence there, becase in the end it all adds up and they've got owners or shareholders to pay or their own bonuses to look forward to.

 

[Jonm]

The list of Standards in the link are more Business Governance Standards, which are a bit different to Standards for Metrics. We couldn't do anything without standardisation of metrics, but Business Standards are not always necessary. Many companies perform perfectly well without adhering to any BSI standards. All these standards are a bit of a money making business, I would question why Standards are so expensive, probably on average £100 each, They should be available for a nominal fee. Then you have all the accreditation fees, the annual fees, the additional staff to maintain the standards. If you have really good staff who know what they are doing, you don't need business governance standards. Companies now often request that any suppliers have accreditation to various standards. and won't deal with companies who don't. it perpetuates the business. You can get a BSI accreditation for producing rubbish products, as long as you document how you make your rubbish product and follow the process during the audit. These standards don't measure the quality of what is being made, only the process put in place.

In many cases, Business standards are required these days, because industry is full of inexperienced people who haven't a clue what they are doing, so they need a guide to follow. Everything in business is being re-invented today and given a new sparkly name, but it's what good successful companies have been doing for years without having a Quality Management Systems.
Despite my slightly cynical view, overall, I think they are a good thing and I shouldn't complain, It was my source of income for many years.

Very true. I worked for a design company with a very high worldwide reputation for quality. They were resistant to the introduction of “Quality Assurance” on the basis that ”our reputation is our guarantee of quality”. They had to introduce it as clients started to require it.

The important thing was to ensure that the processes and procedures reflected what you should be doing and did not introduce unnecessary processes. Yes it did introduce a layer of bureaucracy and did not guarantee quality. There was an element of tick boxes but it did ensure that things like peer review did happen when required and not get forgotten. Overall I found it not to be onerous in use but setting it up needed to be done carefully and that initial work did require a lot of effort.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

1) Life is complicated.
2) There's nothing produced that someone won't make cheaper and worse.
3) Sometimes, innovation works and it can be made cheaper and better.
4) You have a choice. You can buy a product or service guaranteed to meet a given standard, or one that isn't.
5) Researching the standards relevant to every product or service takes time most of us don't have.
6) Sans intensive research, we go by reputation or word of mouth/forum/whatever.
7) How necessary a standard may be is related to the consequences of failure of product or service.

 

[Jake]

If they're effective standards, what reason do we have not to adopt them independently? Same goes for any EU law, I don't see why we need to all sign the same bit of paper.

That is exactly what will happen. There are two global regulatory systems, the EU and the USA. The US is quite concerned that the EU is winning the race to become the de facto global standard. That is because in many (not all) respects it is tighter, so using EU standards as the starting point and bolting on any extras for US compatibility is simpler. It's cheaper to do that than to try to produce different things to different standards. There are no other systems with any real influence at all (they are literally BS, except if you think very locally for local people). China might develop a third, but for the moment it is either DGAF or a follower of EU/US regs (in a mixture of substance and nominally).

So we will end up following one way or another - having lost a voice in what the regs we need to follow should be.

 

[George_N]

Ditching EU standards as we speak, finalised any day now. Less red tape should help speed up our trade with the whole world and possibly the universe! We'll soon see the results.

Sadly not less red tape. Border/ customs checks on every consignment going between U.K. and EU. A ream of paper for every single truck. Hundreds of new customs agents needed to try and keep all that straight. The EU has an Aviation Agency, Medicines Agency, Chemicals Agency etc that took care of regulating their respective sectors for 28 countries (27 now we’ve left) and we need to replicate each and every one for ourselves. That’s thousands more civil servants on the public payroll ie not actually earning money for the economy.
Where there “might” be less red tape is in areas where we deregulate, like workers rights and environmental standards (because who needs those, right?)

 

[sploo]

So we will end up following one way or another - having lost a voice in what the regs we need to follow should be.

Nail. Hit. Head. On the.

It's staggering that so many failed to understand that. Given that it would be completely counter-productive to not follow widely adopted regulations (i.e. those from the EU); having 1/28th of a voice may not have been ideal, but now having 0/27th of a voice is even worse.

 

[Jameshow]

Stronger standards would be a good thing.....

Not only just safety aspects but also quality standards.

CE mark really isn't a standard of quality generally.

I could be wrong but the old B.S. standards were as much a sign of quality as much as safety?

In the wake of Brexit, B.S. could be revived as a standard of true engineering standards.

Cheers James

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Nail. Hit. Head. On the.

It's staggering that so many failed to understand that. Given that it would be completely counter-productive to not follow widely adopted regulations (i.e. those from the EU); having 1/28th of a voice may not have been ideal, but now having 0/27th of a voice is even worse.

No change on that one - the UK is still a member of CEN, as you'll see under 'membership' in this link;

European Committee for Standardization - Wikipedia

By the way, the British Standards Institution is not a part of government, it's an independent organisation. Originally set up in 1901 as an industry committee, it was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1929. It is not publicly funded, hence the need to cover it's costs by charging for it's standards and services.

BSI Group - Wikipedia

 

[DBT85]

Nail. Hit. Head. On the.

It's staggering that so many failed to understand that. Given that it would be completely counter-productive to not follow widely adopted regulations (i.e. those from the EU); having 1/28th of a voice may not have been ideal, but now having 0/27th of a voice is even worse.

It's OK the NHS is getting a lot more money now.

 

[sploo]

No change on that one - the UK is still a member of CEN, as you'll see under 'membership' in this link;

European Committee for Standardization - Wikipedia

I'm very happy to be wrong on that one then! Whether lack of MEPs will result in reduced representation in that area I don't know; but let's hope not.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

.... Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal and yet quality of work and diligence were never higher, this was due to...

My rose-tinted hindsight detector has gone bananas. There was a great deal of economic growth in the 50s post war and driven by technological and other factors, but there was shoddy work then just as there is now.

 

[Jacob]

.......
Where there “might” be less red tape is in areas where we deregulate, like workers rights and environmental standards (because who needs those, right?)

And free movement is bit of a luxury for your humble working man - better to wait for orders.

 

[Jacob]

.... Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal ....

Standards of one sort or another are ancient and they were going strong in the 50s too.
The Romans had standards (no pun intended!) Building regs were around in the dark ages. They got a major boost following the fire of London (1666) - party walls, more use of brick and other measures imposed. Relax regulations and you get Grenfell Tower.
The military depended upon them - they'd specify all sorts of things in minute detail, such as sails - weight/quality of cloth and the thread, the number of stitches per inch. Not only government - Guilds and other trade orgs set up standards.
They are just an inescapable and essential feature of living in a cooperative society. Removing standards doesn't liberate anybody it just creates chaos. What they amount to is a minimum specification.
Food regs are big and essential. Who wants a sub standard sausage roll, or a polluted water supply?
I wonder how the truckers are doing in Dover at the moment!

 

[sploo]

And free movement is bit of a luxury for your humble working man - better to wait for orders.

Ah but this is why we stay humble; we weren't smart enough to move to Monaco like that Ratcliffe fella

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm very happy to be wrong on that one then! Whether lack of MEPs will result in reduced representation in that area I don't know; but let's hope not.

You'll be happy to know that the number of MEPs a country has (or not) does not affect their input to standards. The standards bodies (CEN, BSI and so on) deal with standards, but not regulations, directives or laws. The European Commission and various Parliaments deal with laws, directives and regulations, but not standards.

 

[Jacob]

You'll be happy to know that the number of MEPs a country has (or not) does not affect their input to standards. The standards bodies (CEN, BSI and so on) deal with standards, but not regulations, directives or laws. The European Commission and various Parliaments deal with laws, directives and regulations, but not standards.

Regulations are largely about standards. In fact surely they amount to the same thing? Agreements/directives about how things should be done.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Regulations are largely about standards. In fact surely they amount to the same thing? Agreements/directives about how things should be done.

No.