FOCUS BREXIT
>>> Continued from page 33
inconsistencies and wrongful assumptions. Marketing departments
make big play of brands and the value of promoting the geographic origin of goods. For example, various products are branded as ‘Scottish’ or ‘Made in Wales’ in adverts. Government and business will doubtless look at the salience or accuracy of such claims, and whether they have any demonstrable eff ect or infl uence within the UK internal market.
Discussion In the post-COVID, post- Brexit economic recovery, it is critical for companies – and a dynamic, integrated economy – to have smart
●Manufacturers could try to drive the market by making goods to more stringent standards in the hope that other home nations adopt them later. Care is required with
T e right regulation is vital to the construction industry
regulation that is common to all home nations. Barriers that hinder the supply of materials and products will be detrimental to customers. Trade associations like SELECT and the BMF want
to avoid logistical disruption to our SME members as a result of separate but parallel regulatory burdens. The BMF is aware of the
potential diffi culties that could lie ahead. For example, signifi cant diff erences applying to Building Regulations in either Scotland or England could have marked implications for manufacturers and contractors. Other possible repercussions could be: ●If one or more nations decided to set higher or more stringent standards or regulations, would manufacturers either (a) withdraw from a market or (b) produce goods to two or more sets of standards or regulations to maintain sales or market share?
reserved and devolved matters to avoid regulatory diff erence between London and Edinburgh. Despite the House of Lords’ concessions, the Scottish Parliament has voted to reject the internal market provisions. The Scottish Government has described them as “an act of constitutional sabotage” and, with the Welsh Government, is looking to mount a joint legal challenge.
Conclusion Unmanaged regulatory diff erences have a knock-on eff ect along supply chains. Higher prices passed on can either restrict choice or reduce the number of fi rms off ering goods. That is in nobody’s best interest. In my opinion, the logical approach is to remove un-coordinated, separate and parallel regulatory burdens at diff erent stages of the supply chain. If not confronted, the cumulative burden will add signifi cant costs that force companies to weigh up if it worth entering or remaining in a market…or not.
“In the post-COVID, post-Brexit economic recovery, barriers that hinder the supply of materials and products will be detrimental to customers”
34 CABLEtalk FEBRUARY/MARCH 2021
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
