The CE mark, visible on various products to indicate that they comply with the minimum safety, health, and environmental protection requirements, will no longer be used in Britain from 1 January 2023 as a result of Brexit. Renaud Foucart explains what options and dilemmas the government is facing as a result

Foucart, Renaud

English

LSE Research Online

CE	or	UKCA?	The	cost	of	taking	back	control	of	ourown	product	regulationsThe	CE	mark,	visible	on	various	products	to	indicate	that	they	comply	with	the	minimum	safety,health,	and	environmental	protection	requirements,	will	no	longer	be	used	in	Britain	from	1January	2023	as	a	result	of	Brexit.	Renaud	Foucart	explains	what	options	and	dilemmas	thegovernment	is	facing	as	a	result.One	of	the	major	stated	objectives	of	Brexit	was	to	reduce	the	cost	of	excessive	regulation	andbureaucratic	procedures.	Another	was	to	‘take	back	control’	of	all	relevant	regulations,	in	thename	of	sovereignty.	The	current	uncertainties	about	the	replacement	of	the	CE	mark	by	the	UKConformity	Assessed	(UKCA)	marking	for	goods	show	that	those	two	objectives	are	oftenconflicting.	On	the	one	hand,	by	forcing	firms	to	apply	for	the	new	UKCA	marking,	the	government	would	beincreasing	bureaucracy	and	costs;	by	keeping	the	CE	label,	it	would	be	following	rules	and	regulations	on	which	ithas	no	say.To	prove	that	a	product	complies	with	health,	safety,	and	environmental	protection	standards,	most	countriesrequire	firms	to	apply	for	a	marking.	In	the	EU,	Switzerland,	Turkey	and	other	close	EU	trading	partners,	this	is	theCE	label.	In	the	US,	there	are	several	equivalent	labels	depending	on	the	type	of	product.If	nothing	changes	in	the	next	few	months,	in	2023	firms	selling	products	in	Great	Britain	(not	in	Northern	Ireland,which	remains	in	the	EU	single	market	for	goods)	will	have	to	carry	the	new	UKCA	certification.	This	label	wascreated	in	2019	by	Theresa	May’s	government	as	a	last	resort	solution	in	the	event	of	a	‘no	deal’	Brexit;	it	thenbecame	a	symbol	of	the	UK’s	determination	to	leave	the	single	market.As	the	current	U​K	standards	are	retained	from	EU	law,	obtaining	the	new	certification	is	at	the	moment	merely	acostly	bureaucratic	exercise,	duplicating	current	regulations.	In	the	future,	if	the	UK	chooses	to	diverge	from	someEuropean	standards,	the	change	may	involve	complete	testing	of	products	and	design,	or	process	modificationsaimed	specifically	at	the	UK	market.	A	similar	plan	exists	to	duplicate	the	REACH	database	on	chemical	productsby	the	end	of	2025,	for	a	cost	the	industry	estimates	at	£1bn.Several	recent	articles	hinted	that	the	Brexit	opportunities	minister	Jacob	Rees-Mogg	is	now	ready	to	abandon	theUKCA	requirement.	According	to	such	reports,	the	minister	would	be	happy	to	change	the	law	and	unilaterallyrecognise	the	EU	label	instead,	and	perhaps	even	labels	from	other	countries.	However,	Downing	Street	has	triedto	distance	itself	from	the	idea.Why	is	this	so	contentious?	Having	common	rules	and	standards	is	essential	for	trade	to	be	smooth:	they	makeconsumers	confident	that	what	they	buy	is	safe	and	not	produced	in	a	way	that	is	harmful	to	the	environment.	Theyalso	ensure	firms	compete	on	a	level-playing	field.	Such	rules	and	standards	are	typically	the	result	of	longinteractions	between	EU	institutions	and	industry,	and	subject	to	a	vote	by	the	EU	Parliament.The	details	can,	however,	be	very	specific.	To	be	allowed	to	affix	the	CE	marking	to	a	product,	a	firm	must	carry	outa	conformity	assessment,	provide	documents	describing	the	product	and	how	it	respects	corresponding	EUdirectives,	and	sometimes	pay	for	the	services	of	a	certified	third	party	carrying	an	assessment	procedure.	For	thatreason,	it	is	in	the	interest	of	producers	to	follow	a	single	standard	when	trading	in	several	countries.	British	firmsrepeatedly	warned	the	government	of	the	high	cost	of	implementing	UKCA,	and	overwhelmingly	support	thepossibility	of	keeping	the	EU	standard.Why	not	simply	follow	the	will	of	British	businesses	and	recognise	European	standards,	then?	The	UK	does	notseem	to	seek	any	specific	change	to	the	actual	regulations.	There	is	not	a	single	mention	of	UKCA	in	the	recentgovernment	publication	on	the	potential	‘Benefits	of	Brexit’.	There	is	also	no	specific	example	of	health	and	safetyor	environmental	regulation	it	considers	altering.	The	only	change	in	marking	detailed	in	the	document	is	the	returnof	the	crown	stamp	symbol	on	pint	glasses,	something	EU	law	never	actually	prohibited.British Politics and Policy at LSE: CE or UKCA? The cost of taking back control of our own product regulations Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2022-04-25Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ce-ukca/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/The	main	reason	is	the	deep	commitment	of	the	current	UK	government	to	keep	the	theoretical	right	to	diverge	fromEU	regulation.	This	specific	definition	of	sovereignty	is	not	entirely	absurd.	It	is	actually	consistent	with	the	well-documented	public	preference	for	being	in	control,	not	in	order	to	achieve	something	specific,	but	for	the	sake	of	it.We	value	more	the	decisions	we	take,	even	if	they	are	in	practice	meaningless.	This	preference	nevertheless	has	areal	cost.UK	manufacturing	constitutes	almost	half	of	the	UK	exports	and	is	deeply	integrated	with	EU	supply	chains.	Anyforeign	firm	wanting	to	export	goods	to	the	UK	typically	already	uses	the	CE	label.	The	same	holds	for	any	UK	firmexporting	to	the	EU.	Hence,	in	case	of	unilateral	recognition	of	the	CE	label,	the	UK	standard	is	unlikely	to	everbecome	relevant.	With	the	EU	having	consistently	refused	to	recognise	the	UKCA	marking,	only	the	goods	that	aremade	and	sold	exclusively	in	the	UK	would	possibly	display	it.In	case	of	unilateral	recognition,	what	would	happen	if	the	UK	government	chose	to	diverge	from	EU	rules?	If	it	triesto	have	stricter	rules,	firms	could	easily	bypass	them	by	using	a	CE	mark	instead	of	the	UKCA	one.	If	it	tries	to	havemore	relaxed	rules,	consumers	will	perceive	the	CE-marked	goods	as	the	high-quality	ones	and	the	UKCA	standardas	inferior.	Hardly	a	good	symbol	for	‘Global	Britain’.Absent	any	identifiable	benefit	from	specific	changes	in	health,	safety,	or	environmental	regulations,	the	UKtherefore	faces	two	equally	undesirable	options.	Either	to	unilaterally	recognise	foreign	certifications,	at	the	cost	ofbeing	less	‘sovereign’	than	before	Brexit;	or	insist	on	keeping	UK-only	standards,	which	would	imply	morebureaucracy	and	red	tape.	Both	outcomes	are	the	opposite	of	what	many	members	of	the	government	claim	theywant	to	achieve	outside	of	the	EU	single	market._____________________About	the	AuthorRenaud	Foucart	is	Senior	Lecturer	in	the	Management	School	at	Lancaster	University.	British Politics and Policy at LSE: CE or UKCA? The cost of taking back control of our own product regulations Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2022-04-25Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ce-ukca/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

CE or UKCA? The cost of taking back control of our own product regulations

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/116814/1/politicsandpolicy_ce.pdf

CE or UKCA? The cost of taking back control of our own product regulations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online