2.
[…]an economic operator shall not be exempted from liability where the defectiveness of a product is due to any of the following, provided that it is within the manufacturer’s control:
(a)a related service;
(b)software, including software updates or upgrades;
(c)a lack of software updates or upgrades necessary to maintain safety;
(d)a substantial modification of the product.
Not sure if (a) or (d) would be more applicable, but I think it would be covered ?
Exactly. That's why the red tape and paperwork increased in UK once they left the EU.
The gist is, there are about ~30 countries that have their own laws and regulations(the exact number differs because it's not just the EU-only thing) and EU swoops in, makes up a regulation and tells all the members states and associated countries to align their laws and regulations with the EU stuff and you end up with 30 or so countries that have about the same laws and regulations instead of 30 very different laws and regulations. As a result, you don't have to deal with the laws of 30 countries - at least that's the idea but AFAIK EU is not unified enough to make this as smooth as desired - yet.
I'm all for improving trade, improving general cooperation, recycling rules/laws. The EU here did get a little too big with the curvature of a banana being mentioned.
However, I think a _LOT_ of people start to take issue when you say, "OK we're standardizing the way you vote now", "We're standardizing the way rights are structured in your country", "We now place the EU as a supreme directive with a foreign court on certain issues".
I can see the appeal, but this has a concerning dark side when it's brought in not through voting, but through treaty and trade in the real-world.
Notice how I'm avoiding saying crony-capitalizm or a alike.
I wish the EC was more successful in lasting by itself or the EU more flexible and less like a bag of hammers on certain issues which required a soft-touch.
I'm not a fan of red tape, but less of a fan of 'Brussels' (I'm not being lyteral) dictating law over a multi-layered legal system with various existing rights and paths to appeal. Hence why I personally voted for Brexit.
Yes I'm now working with those new laws and red-tape day to day (boy you think industy had it bad look into academia at times), but most of the issues I see come from foreign entities being in denial of Brexit happening and now drafting in draconian laws that look like they're punishing britain, even if it's just a case of the EU never thought to harmonize EU<->UK relations into 1 concrete set of agreements after the fact.
(Yes, Boris and alike did NOT help by sitting across the table acting like spolit childrean at a birthday party. No to mention the whole NI thing dominating discussions because the US has some dealings here historically (I'm being polite!) and for some reason dragged them in whenever there was a 'threat to the peace accords'...)
In summary, I like the idea, I just wish people didn't power-grab under the guise of standardization. (Huh, isn't that Intel with USB3, x86, ... or Apple with lightning, wifi, ...)
Brussels doesn't dictate any laws, member countries send elected and appointed people to Brussels then those people come together and agree on what to do and how to do it together and publish the directives like this one.
Countries like UK don't have a say on it anymore because they left the organization. EU doesn't impose any red tape over UK, it's just that if a British company wants to trade with EU needs to prove that they are doing it in accordance with the trade agreements with EU and that their products meet the EU standards.
For example, the UK companies will need to prove that the product that they sell in EU is mainly made in UK and not just an import from China(EU doesn't want UK to be hub for circumvention of trade deal, if China wants to sell stuff to EU they should do it with EU-China trade deals), then they will need to prove that their products meets the EU standards(EU doesn't want to import products that don't EU standards. Since UK is no longer a member, they can produce products that don't meet the EU standards and as a result UK companies need to prove that they meet EU standards).
That's why there's so much red tape and paperwork, this is to allow UK not to produce their stuff in accordance with the EU regulations and sign their own trade deal. For example, UK is now free to import chlorinated chicken from the USA and lead-paint from China if that's what they want or in less cynical words, UK is free to trade with the rest of the world in their own terms. That was one of the core promises of Brexit anyway and it was delivered.
yes, it's an example by absurdity of the problems, people believed it because of the amount of bloody paperwork that was introduced where there maybe wasn't any before...
Honestly if you aren't aware that no rule was made about this, either a) you're ill informed on a topic, b) you're a screeming anti EU phobic moron, or c) you've been living under some sort of teflon coated cover that has kept you from realising the only way people in the media, (politicians, celebrities, neds, chavs...) get any attention is to exagerate. Blimey... satire is lost on some people.
EU Regulation 2257/94 governed the curvature of bananas. It was later replaced with EU Regulation 1333/2011 which is specifically a regulation on bananas and lays down specific requirements for bananas, in particular on their colour, firmness, ripeness, curvature of the fingers, bruising, moistness, smell and many other factors.
That's false, it didn't govern curved bananas. At one point they considered creating a classification for bananas, not banning curved/straight bananas.
It's in the document that you linked. Even if that was the case, it would have ment that the UK demanded that. EU is not a Belgian institution, only the building is there and the people in that Building that make those EU laws and regulations are from France, Denmark, Spain and previously UK. You can confirm that by checking old photos and spot Nigel Farage.
Anyway, food in UK is horrendous and maybe UK should just go with the flow and do whatever continentals say about food :) Continentals can learn other stuff from the British of course. Like tap water being provided for free at every restaurant.
Why do you guys keep pretending this is a myth or didn't happen when you can read the regulations for yourself? I even gave you a link to read. The regulation is quite clearly written, no need to be afraid of it. And as for the silly "ban vs classify" word games, the European Commission's own press release on the repeal proposal said that they did ban curved bananas, and that they regretted doing so:
The proposal would also allow Member States to exempt fruit and vegetables from specific marketing standards if they are sold with a label "products intended for processing" or equivalent wording. Such products could be either misshapen or under-sized and could for example be used by consumers for cooking or salads etc. In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them.
"This is a concrete example of our drive to cut red tape and I will continue to push until it goes through," said Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. "It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things. It is far better to leave it to market operators. It will also cut down on unnecessary waste and benefit consumers."
• it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them
• it will also cut down on unnecessary waste
Why do you bring up Nigel Farage? Are you aware of how the EU works constitutionally? Farage was only ever in the European Parliament, which isn't allowed to write laws. It's one of the reasons Farage criticized it. That's why the press release about repealing "red tape" comes from a Commissioner, not an MEP.
Your final swipe at British food is uncalled for. Where I live there are shops dedicated to selling nothing but British food and they do well. Isn't the EU supposed to be all about cooperation and harmony between nations?
Because, It literally never happened. People in EU literally never been restricted from buying or selling bent or straight bananas. Anyway, Glad you feel like freed from banana shape tyranny, the world is whatever you perceive it to be.
Let's face it, a lot of people will take issue with _anything_ you'd say, for just about anything you choose as example and for different sets of "a lot of people". So while you are right, I cannot take it as an argument for either way. It's just the human nature and by extension the nature of democracy. It's also human to have sometimes leaders looking like acting irrationally, although they are very rational following their own goals which not always overlap with their voters and even less with their non-voting citizens. The only thing I don't approve in your text is blaming the others for not delivering something according to my taste. Like, if I'm not in the EU, there should be zero expectation that the EU does something I like.
> your text is blaming the others for not delivering something according to my taste
Oh I'm not accusing anyone of that, you can imply it if you want. I'm stating I hold a philosophical view and standing by that has consequences. I expected it to be more royally screwed up than it is in all honesty.
The results in the real world be damned, I held a view and I expressed it. I use public transport, I vote a certain way, I recycle even if that is also not worth a damn due to burning waste for power and new coal plants coming online around the world. Probably just makes me feel better that "you can't blame me for that jim"...
You make that "makes me feel better" sound a bit bad, but it's actually the start for everything good. If we the people don't practice it, why would companies and countries follow?
> but most of the issues I see come from foreign entities being in denial of Brexit happening and now drafting in draconian laws that look like they're punishing britain, even if it's just a case of the EU never thought to harmonize EU<->UK relations into 1 concrete set of agreements after the fact.
No way. The UK almost left with no agreement, Boris was pushing for it, he was put into power on that platform. Theresa May was probably the most sane voice of the Tories post-facto of Brexit, trying at least to push into some kind of deal to bring harmonisation between EU-UK laws, and she was thoroughly rejected by the British public and Tories in the House of Commons.
You can't blame the EU for the decisions you (as in UK) took, you voted for Brexit, the UK population voted in Boris, you reap what you sow.
There's no "punishment", the EU also loses a lot by not having the UK, European academia lost a lot, European advanced industry lost a lot, the EU didn't want the UK to leave, the EU tried to push for deals and was put on a cold foot by Boris's government...
It's frankly absurd to read this, the degree of victimisation for your own decisions, absolutely no one has gained anything from Brexit, neither in the UK or in the EU. I've seen friends scrambling to get residence in the countries they lived for years because of this stupidity.
Bendy bananas was never an issue, I can't take you very seriously if you are going to spew out tabloidal right-wing vitriol against the EU which was never an issue. The EU has many real issues to be discussed and tackled, using that stupid argument is not only stupid but shows absolute lack of grasp of what were the real issues within the EU.
Can you evidence your claim about red tape increasing in the UK? Because there's some strong data points suggesting that this isn't the case. One is that Nick Clegg - former UK deputy prime minister, arch-Remainer and now VP of Global Affairs at Meta - was recently spotted on X saying this:
"We’re expanding Meta AI to more countries, including Brazil and the UK. Unfortunately, we still can't roll it out in the EU because of the regulatory uncertainty we face there." [1]
So the UK is able to trade with US firms in this case whereas the EU can't, due to EU created red tape, and this is according to a man who wrote a book called "How to stop Brexit".
Another data point is that the amount of trade with the EU wasn't hurt by leaving. Although there was a transient drop in goods exports it recovered within months, and trade in services (where the UK is strongest) didn't change at all. In fact the UK now exports significantly more services to the EU than it did before Brexit, with imports being roughly the same. The EU as a share of UK exports has barely changed, going from 43.1% in 2019 to 42.6% in 2022, which is consistent with the slow long term decline visible for many years pre-Brexit due to the rise of Asia. [2]
So whether you go by specific cases like Meta AI or overall import/export aggregation, the UK doesn't seem to be suffering from being outside the EU and is arguably benefiting, assuming you care about access to US AI services (which quite a lot of us do!).
Commercial Invoice: A detailed invoice for each transaction is needed for customs clearance, containing information like the value of goods, description, and terms of sale.
Packing List: Provides details of the goods being shipped, quantities, weights, and packaging information. It's used by customs to verify contents.
Commodity Codes (HS Codes): Classify the goods you are trading. These codes determine the duties and VAT that may apply.
Certificates of Origin:If your goods are eligible for preferential treatment (e.g., lower tariffs), you might need proof of origin to claim this benefit under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).
VAT and Duties: If you're selling to EU consumers, you may need to register for VAT in the EU or use the One-Stop Shop (OSS) scheme for simplified reporting.
Proof of Transport:ocuments such as bills of lading or airway bills to demonstrate that goods have left the UK or entered the EU.
Product-Specific Documentation: ome goods (e.g., food, chemicals, or electronics) may require additional certifications, safety data sheets, or compliance with product standards (e.g., CE or UKCA marking).
Trade Agreement Compliance: Ensure that your business complies with the terms set out in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, especially regarding rules of origin and applicable tariffs.
I'm sure Brexit even created jobs(for bureaucracy) to sustain previous levels of trade. I guess there's no evidence that increased bureaucracy is bad for business and the stats suggests that UK is doing great according to the government and some business with interest of processing EU users data not being able to do the things that Samsung is doing is a proof of reduction of bureaucracy. No?
And yet in the end trade hasn't changed, so apparently there's something wrong with your argument. Let's look at the list.
> Product-Specific Documentation
EU specific certificates were previously always required, now they sometimes aren't. A net reduction in bureaucracy.
> VAT and Duties: If you're selling to EU consumers, you may need to register for VAT in the EU or use the One-Stop Shop (OSS) scheme for simplified reporting.
VAT registration was previously required anyway. In some cases it can now be avoided; a net reduction in bureaucracy.
> Commercial Invoice ... Packing List: Provides details of the goods being shipped ... Proof of Transport documents
These are used regardless of where you ship to. Do you really think people are moving things about Europe without invoices or bills of lading? Net neutral.
> Trade Agreement Compliance: Ensure that your business complies with the terms set out in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, especially regarding rules of origin and applicable tariffs
Most UK trade is in services that are tariff free anyway, and trade agreement compliance is apparently easy enough to not discourage trade.
It's just not that big of a deal. Meanwhile "can't use AI" is a big deal for any economy that wishes to remain advanced.
> Only now every user of the software in Europe has recourse to sue you if you make a mistake, instead of just your paying customers.
Only if they somehow directly got it from GP, through some kind of commercial thing. I doubt downloading stuff from Github for personal use qualifies.
The way I read it, this directive wants to ensure that for any digital product sold on the EU market, there exist some entity that can be sued in EU jurisdiction; within the Union, that would be the vendor; outside - a vendor representative, or an importer. Which is a perfectly reasonable expectation to have, and it's how it mostly works with physical goods and services (aliexpress notwithstanding).
I've talked to various people over the last couple of years, and it seems Colonial Pipeline was the big eye-opener for politicians in USA: Nobody could be sued, even though they were aware of the problems.
In EU I've heard more about ransomware in general and the behavior of Microsoft and Oracle in license negotiations and "audits" in particular.
But the overall tenor is that politicians have had it up to here with the IT industry's "What me worry?" attitude to quality, responsibility and liability.
Cookie pop-ups is a clear case of "malicious compliance" and I guess all spying companies hoped they could make it so annoying that citizens of EU would revolt or something.
Didn't work, instead many more people (at least here in EU) are now aware how how bad the spying has become.
EU has been pretty vocal about "Circular Economy" and also the right to repair for ages, so I do not expect a bona-fide repair job brings anybody in legal trouble.
But conversely: Should the original manufacturer be responsible if somebody installs hacked-up "performance" software in a car ?
2. […]an economic operator shall not be exempted from liability where the defectiveness of a product is due to any of the following, provided that it is within the manufacturer’s control: (a)a related service; (b)software, including software updates or upgrades; (c)a lack of software updates or upgrades necessary to maintain safety; (d)a substantial modification of the product.
Not sure if (a) or (d) would be more applicable, but I think it would be covered ?
reply