Registered On: April 2, 2014
“Those are the same demands expected of any third party state, not just the UK.”
Thanks to the wonderful EU if I’m a UK fashion retailer and have my goods made in India I have to pay extra for them to be exported to the EU, but if I have them made in the UK I don’t. Doesn’t sound very fair on India, or the retailer, but those are the rules. Funnily enough, however, this might just make it more economical to have the clothes made in the UK. So, more UK jobs.
You’ll find examples like this anywhere you look. But many of the costs currently being incurred aren’t down to tariffs. They’re down to costs generated by bureaucracy and stupid rules and regulations for which the EU is a past master. We also know that a lot of the additional costs are due to delays caused not by Brexit but covid.
Heath, you want evidence of jobs lost as a result of GDPR? I saw it with my own eyes but here’s a piece from Forbes, a publication with no axe to grind one way or another on the EU:
GDPR is a classic example of EU interference, which cost businesses and jobs while doing very little to achieve what it was supposed to do, protect people’s privacy. Thank God we’re out.
BI, this is muddled, contradictory and unreliable. Moreover re GDPR, nothing has changed.
First, let’s take your example of fashion retail and how goods made outside the EU, e.g. in India, which are then sold within the EU, attract a surcharge.
Exactly what’s so unusual about that? The idea is that goods made within the EU create EU jobs, which you mention. So you effectively counter your own criticism. Except that, now the UK has left, it can’t benefit in this way from domestic production!
Costs generated by bureaucracy and regulations? Er, that’s exactly what’s happened as a result of leaving! Have you had a news blackout this last 3 weeks?
Forbes has no axe to grind re the EU?
Forbes editor in chief is Steve Forbes, who ran for president on two occasions as a Republican. He served under Reagan and was advisor to Guiliani! Not likely to be enthusiastic about a protectionist trading block, which is a competitor to the US, and in the Republican view, tainted with socialism.
But no matter, the Forbes piece is based on a ‘working paper’. There’s no suggestion it ever reached publication in an established journal.
But let’s press on and see why.
You mention ‘jobs lost’ which you’ve ‘seen with your own eyes’. Well, we’ll let that pass.
But then you mention “EU interference”? EU interference in what, exactly? The EU members took a decision to introduce legislation re. data protection. This included, for example, a requirement for the public to give consent to organsations to process their personal data, as well as the right to be forgotten, and that companies should notify the EU of data breaches.
That all seems perfectly reasonable, and guess what? The introduction of GDPR has itself created lots of jobs!
Of course, it’s possible for EU members to do all kinds of things which would create jobs, but some measures mean there would be unacceptable costs in terms of social responsibility and protection, so they choose not to pursue a policy of ‘jobs at all costs’.
But guess what else? The UK now has its own GDPR which is virtually the same, word for word!!
So there you are, crowing away as usual, when the GDPR still exists in almost the same form as before.
Overall, it’s precisely this combination of lax argument and supposition dressed up as ‘fact’ to dazzle the uninitiated and fool the foolish, which, when peppered with the emotional comments like ‘thank God we’re out’, prevent any reasonable discussion of Brexit. Pure propaganda.
But it’s precisely what we’ve all come to expect.