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 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.
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.
Nail. Hit. Head. On the.
It's OK the NHS is getting a lot more money now.
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.
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.
And free movement is bit of a luxury for your humble working man - better to wait for orders.
Standards of one sort or another are ancient and they were going strong in the 50s too.
Ah but this is why we stay humble; we weren't smart enough to move to Monaco like that Ratcliffe fella
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.
No.
