Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Then which parts of the red tape are we talking about?

Or are we talking about the kind of "red tape" the Sun uses to rail against the EU?

We’ve been over that above, I see no need to repeat it all but feel free to read what’s been posted.

There's a hell of a difference between laws that say that we have to have fruits of a certain shape or that you can't call this thing an x or this thing a y or you can't land these fish you accidentally caught in your net, and laws which stop hazardous materials being dumped in rivers and dangerous chemicals being put into food and toys. If you can't tell the difference you're acting either stupid or obtuse. Or both.

Stranger83 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Then which parts of the red tape are we talking about?

Or are we talking about the kind of "red tape" the Sun uses to rail against the EU?

We’ve been over that above, I see no need to repeat it all but feel free to read what’s been posted.

Considering bendy cucumbers weren't banned at all I feel we might have to go through this a couple of times more.

I'd also like to point out that you as a nation decided a certain N. Farage was the right man to send to the fisheries commission, and that part of the reason the small fisheries in the UK have gone belly up is because your own government hands out quotas to the big actors and then blame the EU. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread was a part of the mastodon pre-referendum thread where this was pointed out repeatedly. Paraphrasing someone I can't remember who it was from that thread: "If the UK feels it doesn't have enough influence as one of the big 3 in the EU you should fire your negotiators and get ones who know their job".

(Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.

This puts up the cost of all cucumbers as someone has to measure them to check if they are in class 1 or class 2, or if they bend over 20cm in which case they presumably are not allowed - though if you can find out what does happen to (I'm going to call them class 3) cucumbers then I'll be happy to remove the claim that bendy cucumbers are banned - but not that this is red tape.

In what way does the SHAPE of a cucumber in anyway affect the value of it, please do explain to me what benefit anyone other than the big companies who use this to push small producers out of the market due to their added costs.

This is red tape, pure and simple and this is the type of thing leavers talk about when they want to abolish red tape, we do not want to abolish laws that stop companies pumping poison into our rivers.

Better negotitators may have helped, maybe. We don't know but why is this even being negotiated? We shouldn't need to stop the requirement of a law on the SHAPE of a vegetable as the discussion shouldn't even be being had.

Whilst I'm no expert on all the EU regulation, I'm sure there are many more examples of this. I remember reading that there are 800 regulations on the sale of pillows, whilst the majority of these are probably perfectly sensible (they mustn't be unsafe, you cannot claim they are something they aren't and so on) I have no doubt that somewhere in there (and if not in pillows then in some other product) that there are a few that will be along the lines of 'They mustn't be a sold in black packaging', which is the red tape we want removing.

So the difference is "red tape" and red tape, with a smattering of "if only we had put someone who would have turned up to the comission and argued for British interests"?

The difference is that red tape is something that has been introduced simply for the sake of it, whilst useful laws are things that provide a benefit to someone.

Preventing dumping poison into the river is a useful law

Preventing the sale of a vegetable based purely on it's shape is red tape

If you cannot see the difference between these two then frankly there is no point in continuing the debate.

Stranger83 wrote:
(Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.

This puts up the cost of all cucumbers as someone has to measure them to check if they are in class 1 or class 2, or if they bend over 20cm in which case they presumably are not allowed - though if you can find out what does happen to (I'm going to call them class 3) cucumbers then I'll be happy to remove the claim that bendy cucumbers are banned - but not that this is red tape.

In what way does the SHAPE of a cucumber in anyway affect the value of it, please do explain to me what benefit anyone other than the big companies who use this to push small producers out of the market due to their added costs.

All fruit and vegetable is automatically weighed, calibrated and checked for defects (lasers & stuff).

Stuff sold at farmer markets, traditional produce, etc. is exempt from shape and weight cathegories and it's only bound for the rot, pesticide, etc. generic regulations in case you wonder.

So why this whole law? Fruit and vegetables were traded before with regulations that changed from country and even region to region.

Class I could mean something in the UK and something different in, say, Poland. So that a UK supermarket buying class I Polish apples would likely find they're not what they were looking for. And yes, straight cucumbers is a thing for big retailers because they take up less space in a box than bendy ones, and are also perceived as having better taste, exactly in the same sense that there are regulations for how red tomatoes, cherries and strawberries are, because those are qualities fruit retailers are ready to pay more for.

Now, whether the bend angle of a cucumber or the redness of a tomato are indeed quality indicators for fruit is a totally separate issue. What matters is retailers are ready to pay more for them, so regulators have to step in to tell them apart so that Italian, German and Spanish Class I cucumbers are exactly the same for, say, the produce purchasing officer at Tesco or Lidl.

If you're a small producer and don't class you product, then the rules don't apply to you. That's just for the big distribution. But believe it or not that sort of legislation is needed just as much as, say, building tolerances.

From some points of view, not being able to dump into rivers is needless red tape, it costs them to safely dispose it.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
(Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.

This puts up the cost of all cucumbers as someone has to measure them to check if they are in class 1 or class 2, or if they bend over 20cm in which case they presumably are not allowed - though if you can find out what does happen to (I'm going to call them class 3) cucumbers then I'll be happy to remove the claim that bendy cucumbers are banned - but not that this is red tape.

In what way does the SHAPE of a cucumber in anyway affect the value of it, please do explain to me what benefit anyone other than the big companies who use this to push small producers out of the market due to their added costs.

All fruit and vegetable is automatically weighed, calibrated and checked for defects (lasers & stuff).

Stuff sold at farmer markets, traditional produce, etc. is exempt from shape and weight cathegories and it's only bound for the rot, pesticide, etc. generic regulations in case you wonder.

So why this whole law? Fruit and vegetables were traded before with regulations that changed from country and even region to region.

Class I could mean something in the UK and something different in, say, Poland. So that a UK supermarket buying class I Polish apples would likely find they're not what they were looking for. And yes, straight cucumbers is a thing for big retailers because they take up less space in a box than bendy ones, and are also perceived as having better taste, exactly in the same sense that there are regulations for how red tomatoes, cherries and strawberries are, because those are qualities fruit retailers are ready to pay more for.

Now, whether the bend angle of a cucumber or the redness of a tomato are indeed quality indicators for fruit is a totally separate issue. What matters is retailers are ready to pay more for them, so regulators have to step in to tell them apart so that Italian, German and Spanish Class I cucumbers are exactly the same for, say, the produce purchasing officer at Tesco or Lidl.

If you're a small producer and don't class you product, then the rules don't apply to you. That's just for the big distribution. But believe it or not that sort of legislation is needed just as much as, say, building tolerances.

But this is my point, the big supermarkets were out buying the straight cucumbers anyway whilst the aldi and lidi were buying the bendy ones. So why pass a law on it? If I want to buy a bendy cucumber I should be allowed to - and I don't care if it's class as 'class 1' in England but 'class 2' in Poland, I'll be able to tell how bendy it is as soon as I see it in the shop.

I'm also still not sure what happens to class 3 cucumbers (i.e. those with a bend over 20cms)

I fully get laws on 'the cucumber cannot be sold if it's covered in dangerous pesticides' I get laws like 'you cannot sell cucumbers that have gone off' and laws that say 'you cannot sell a tomato as a cucumber'. What I don't get is a law that says 'you cannot sell this cucumber because of it's shape'.

If the supermarkets only wants to sell cucumbers that are straight then that is fine, and before this directive they could choose to do this if they thought it'd make them more money. The red tape element of it come in when you force everyone to follow the same example, regardless of if they want to or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
From some points of view, not being able to dump into rivers is needless red tape, it costs them to safely dispose it.

Yes, but 99% of the population can see that there is a net benefit to it - it's therefore virtually guaranteed that the law will not be revoked. If they tried I'd envision marches on Westminster and debates on TV - people boycotting the companies that dump poison in the river and the like, not to mention the government being removed at the next GE and replaced by a new government that'll stand on a platform of implementing the law

Please explain to me the net benefit of preventing me from buying a bent cucumber? If they went to revoke this law do you envision marches on Westminster for that? Perhaps we'd have a great cucumber boycott in the UK until we get our straight cucumber law back. Maybe historians would talk about how the conservative government never got into power again because they supported bent cucumbers!

Stranger83 wrote:

But this is my point, the big supermarkets were out buying the straight cucumbers anyway whilst the aldi and lidi were buying the bendy ones. So why pass a law on it? If I want to buy a bendy cucumber I should be allowed to - and I don't care if it's class as 'class 1' in England but 'class 2' in Poland, I'll be able to tell how bendy it is as soon as I see it in the shop.

I'm also still not sure what happens to class 3 cucumbers (i.e. those with a bend over 20cms)

I fully get laws on 'the cucumber cannot be sold if it's covered in dangerous pesticides' I get laws like 'you cannot sell cucumbers that have gone off' and laws that say 'you cannot sell a tomato as a cucumber'. What I don't get is a law that says 'you cannot sell this cucumber because of it's shape'.

If the supermarkets only wants to sell cucumbers that are straight then that is fine, and before this directive they could choose to do this if they thought it'd make them more money. The red tape element of it come in when you force everyone to follow the same example, regardless of if they want to or not.

Maybe the point is to make sure big suppliers don't try to pass of bent cucumbers to supermarkets to be sold as straight for higher money?

Please explain to me the net benefit of preventing me from buying a bent cucumber? If they went to revoke this law do you envision marches on Westminster for that? Perhaps we'd have a great cucumber boycott in the UK until we get our straight cucumber law back.

Don't think anybody is trying to prevent you from buying but preventing less honest suppliers trying to pass inferior product at the price of higher quality product...If people are willing to pay higher price for straight cucumbers shops(and customners) are probably interested in ensuring they then don't end up paying price of straight for curved cucumber.

How are they preventing you from buying a bent cucumber?

Also, regarding the pillow regulation, wasn't that used as an example of a false claim in the old thread? I'm on my phone, so I can't search effectively, but I'm fairly certain there was a John Oliver clip mocking the fact that the number 800 was due to including stuff that mentioned pillow-shaped cereals and a bunch of other things not remotely related to actual pillows.

tneva82 wrote:


Maybe the point is to make sure big suppliers don't try to pass of bent cucumbers to supermarkets to be sold as straight for higher money?

So we need a law for this? For anything else we just put a clause in a contract that anything that doesn't meet the quality control requirements doesn't get paid for. I know that how we do things in my line of work.

Please explain to me the net benefit of preventing me from buying a bent cucumber? If they went to revoke this law do you envision marches on Westminster for that? Perhaps we'd have a great cucumber boycott in the UK until we get our straight cucumber law back.

Don't think anybody is trying to prevent you from buying but preventing less honest suppliers trying to pass inferior product at the price of higher quality product...If people are willing to pay higher price for straight cucumbers shops(and customners) are probably interested in ensuring they then don't end up paying price of straight for curved cucumber.

Stranger83 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Maybe the point is to make sure big suppliers don't try to pass of bent cucumbers to supermarkets to be sold as straight for higher money?

So we need a law for this? For anything else we just put a clause in a contract that anything that doesn't meet the quality control requirements doesn't get paid for. I know that how we do things in my line of work.

Need unified quality control? Generally those are different country to country so to prevent country A selling their cheap grade stuff for price of high grade one needs unified quality controls.

I sure as hell ain't going to pay price of high grade stuff and get return something that might be classified high grade in originating country but not in my country. Whether it's cucumber or PC.

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/straight-cucumbers/

Cucumbers have to be straight and must not arch more than 10mm for every 10mm of their length so people can tell how many are in a box.
(The Sun, 4 March 1998, p6)
Cucumbers do not have to be straight. There are grading rules, which were called for by representatives from the industry to enable buyers in one country to know what quality and quantity they would get when purchasing a box, unseen, from another country. Nothing is banned under these rules: they simply help to inform traders of particular specifications. The EU Single Market rules are identical to pre-existing standards set down both by the UN/OECD and the UK.

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/ec-to-ban-curved-cucumbers/

Statement: EC officials are trying to ban curved cucumbers to save money on packaging, and the only way to achieve this is through genetic engineering. This would result in a loss in quality and in taste. Furthermore Brussels is actually planning to introduce even more cucumber regulation.

Response: The Commission Regulation laying down quality standards for cucumbers (EEC 1677/88, 15.6.1988) has been in force for a number of years now, and there are no further changes being considered.
In fact there are no restrictions on the size, the shape and the curvature of cucumbers – the only restriction is on the class denomination, and as such cucumbers are categorised by class with reference to specific standards for each class, including the degree of curve. The reason for the “curvature” standard is that it is deemed an important determinant of the number of cucumbers that can be packed in a standard size box. It must be made clear that the demand for these standards came from the industry itself, and at a recent advisory committee representatives of the consumers and the trade fully endorsed the existing standard.
As regards allegations concerning the implementation of genetic techniques, it is apparent that certain seed companies are researching this field. However this is entirely their own initiative: the EC has nothing to do with this and does not intend to legislate in this area at all

.. same old , same old.

any minute we'll get told the one about jam now being a fruit spread or bananas only being sold in XX --

tneva82 wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Maybe the point is to make sure big suppliers don't try to pass of bent cucumbers to supermarkets to be sold as straight for higher money?

So we need a law for this? For anything else we just put a clause in a contract that anything that doesn't meet the quality control requirements doesn't get paid for. I know that how we do things in my line of work.

Need unified quality control? Generally those are different country to country so to prevent country A selling their cheap grade stuff for price of high grade one needs unified quality controls.

I sure as hell ain't going to pay price of high grade stuff and get return something that might be classified high grade in originating country but not in my country. Whether it's cucumber or PC.

Again, see above about quality controls being placed into the contract. My company (a software house) offers hosting - as part of that we offer a guarantee of 99.99999% uptime over a year. If we don't meet that then they customer doesn't pay - simple.

We don't need a law saying that everyone must meet 99.99999% uptime as this isn't something a lot of people care about, so to force them all to follow this would just be silly. This is the point I'm making. If you want 99.99999% uptime (or straight cucumbers) then write your contract to state this, you don't need to make it something that everyone needs to follow. We charge a higher rate than a lot of competitors to get that 99.99999%, most people wouldn't care less and are happy to pay a small amount, it'd be red tape to force everyone to get 99.99999% uptime.

See, you point out a PC - I could quite rightly buy a PC anywhere I wanted, I can go out and buy a cheap £100 one that is only a word processor, or a gaming monster at £2000. Assuming I did ask for a gaming monster and they showed me a word processor I'd simply not pay as it's not what I agreed to buy. There is no need for the regulation here, it's red tape.

The majority of supermarkets want to sell fruit and vegetable that looks like the customers expect them to look. This increases the price of cucumbers even if you don't care about the bend. The existence of regulation in the field does not create this price increase; rather, the fact that non-bent cucumbers are more valuable is what has caused the law to exist in the first place. You'd still have to pay for the measuring of cucumbers even without the law since all the major companies would demand straight cucumbers, forcing suppliers to adapt to that demand, but there'd be much more room for cucumber fraud or misunderstandings.


I just wrote "cucumber fraud" in a serious conversation. My life is now complete.

EDIT: To go with the PC analogy, if you ordered a "monster gaming PC" from Ruritanistan and you got a "potato-with-a-Roman-candle-stuck-in-it" level computer back I'm willing to bet that you don't care much that it'd qualify as a "monster gaming PC" in Ruritanistan. Hence the standardisation of terms.

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
(Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.

This puts up the cost of all cucumbers as someone has to measure them to check if they are in class 1 or class 2, or if they bend over 20cm in which case they presumably are not allowed - though if you can find out what does happen to (I'm going to call them class 3) cucumbers then I'll be happy to remove the claim that bendy cucumbers are banned - but not that this is red tape.

In what way does the SHAPE of a cucumber in anyway affect the value of it, please do explain to me what benefit anyone other than the big companies who use this to push small producers out of the market due to their added costs.

All fruit and vegetable is automatically weighed, calibrated and checked for defects (lasers & stuff).

Stuff sold at farmer markets, traditional produce, etc. is exempt from shape and weight cathegories and it's only bound for the rot, pesticide, etc. generic regulations in case you wonder.

So why this whole law? Fruit and vegetables were traded before with regulations that changed from country and even region to region.

Class I could mean something in the UK and something different in, say, Poland. So that a UK supermarket buying class I Polish apples would likely find they're not what they were looking for. And yes, straight cucumbers is a thing for big retailers because they take up less space in a box than bendy ones, and are also perceived as having better taste, exactly in the same sense that there are regulations for how red tomatoes, cherries and strawberries are, because those are qualities fruit retailers are ready to pay more for.

Now, whether the bend angle of a cucumber or the redness of a tomato are indeed quality indicators for fruit is a totally separate issue. What matters is retailers are ready to pay more for them, so regulators have to step in to tell them apart so that Italian, German and Spanish Class I cucumbers are exactly the same for, say, the produce purchasing officer at Tesco or Lidl.

If you're a small producer and don't class you product, then the rules don't apply to you. That's just for the big distribution. But believe it or not that sort of legislation is needed just as much as, say, building tolerances.

But this is my point, the big supermarkets were out buying the straight cucumbers anyway whilst the aldi and lidi were buying the bendy ones. So why pass a law on it? If I want to buy a bendy cucumber I should be allowed to - and I don't care if it's class as 'class 1' in England but 'class 2' in Poland, I'll be able to tell how bendy it is as soon as I see it in the shop.

I'm also still not sure what happens to class 3 cucumbers (i.e. those with a bend over 20cms)

I fully get laws on 'the cucumber cannot be sold if it's covered in dangerous pesticides' I get laws like 'you cannot sell cucumbers that have gone off' and laws that say 'you cannot sell a tomato as a cucumber'. What I don't get is a law that says 'you cannot sell this cucumber because of it's shape'.

If the supermarkets only wants to sell cucumbers that are straight then that is fine, and before this directive they could choose to do this if they thought it'd make them more money. The red tape element of it come in when you force everyone to follow the same example, regardless of if they want to or not.

Perhaps this works better with an example.

Tesco wants to buy Class I potatoes, which were defined by some obscure office in the defra as those with a certain number of eyes, smooth clean skin and a minimum weight of 100g per potato (I'm totally making this up, btw)

Farmer Ted grows potatoes, and selects them for Class I and intends to sell those to Tesco. His asking price is 1 pound per kilo

Farmer Wojciech also grows potatoes, to Polish Minrol class I which allows for more eyes, less smooth skin and a minimum weight of 80g per potato. So this class I potatoes can be sold at testo at 0,80 pounds, landed in whatevershire.

So Tesco gets the wrong kind of potatoes, and farmer Ted loses his business with Tesco.

It's an industry standards issue, just like the thousands other industry standards there used to be before the advent of the EU. And common standards are a Good Thing.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
(Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.

This puts up the cost of all cucumbers as someone has to measure them to check if they are in class 1 or class 2, or if they bend over 20cm in which case they presumably are not allowed - though if you can find out what does happen to (I'm going to call them class 3) cucumbers then I'll be happy to remove the claim that bendy cucumbers are banned - but not that this is red tape.

In what way does the SHAPE of a cucumber in anyway affect the value of it, please do explain to me what benefit anyone other than the big companies who use this to push small producers out of the market due to their added costs.

All fruit and vegetable is automatically weighed, calibrated and checked for defects (lasers & stuff).

Stuff sold at farmer markets, traditional produce, etc. is exempt from shape and weight cathegories and it's only bound for the rot, pesticide, etc. generic regulations in case you wonder.

So why this whole law? Fruit and vegetables were traded before with regulations that changed from country and even region to region.

Class I could mean something in the UK and something different in, say, Poland. So that a UK supermarket buying class I Polish apples would likely find they're not what they were looking for. And yes, straight cucumbers is a thing for big retailers because they take up less space in a box than bendy ones, and are also perceived as having better taste, exactly in the same sense that there are regulations for how red tomatoes, cherries and strawberries are, because those are qualities fruit retailers are ready to pay more for.

Now, whether the bend angle of a cucumber or the redness of a tomato are indeed quality indicators for fruit is a totally separate issue. What matters is retailers are ready to pay more for them, so regulators have to step in to tell them apart so that Italian, German and Spanish Class I cucumbers are exactly the same for, say, the produce purchasing officer at Tesco or Lidl.

If you're a small producer and don't class you product, then the rules don't apply to you. That's just for the big distribution. But believe it or not that sort of legislation is needed just as much as, say, building tolerances.

But this is my point, the big supermarkets were out buying the straight cucumbers anyway whilst the aldi and lidi were buying the bendy ones. So why pass a law on it? If I want to buy a bendy cucumber I should be allowed to - and I don't care if it's class as 'class 1' in England but 'class 2' in Poland, I'll be able to tell how bendy it is as soon as I see it in the shop.

I'm also still not sure what happens to class 3 cucumbers (i.e. those with a bend over 20cms)

I fully get laws on 'the cucumber cannot be sold if it's covered in dangerous pesticides' I get laws like 'you cannot sell cucumbers that have gone off' and laws that say 'you cannot sell a tomato as a cucumber'. What I don't get is a law that says 'you cannot sell this cucumber because of it's shape'.

If the supermarkets only wants to sell cucumbers that are straight then that is fine, and before this directive they could choose to do this if they thought it'd make them more money. The red tape element of it come in when you force everyone to follow the same example, regardless of if they want to or not.

Perhaps this works better with an example.

Tesco wants to buy Class I potatoes, which were defined by some obscure office in the defra as those with a certain number of eyes, smooth clean skin and a minimum weight of 100g per potato (I'm totally making this up, btw)

Farmer Ted grows potatoes, and selects them for Class I and intends to sell those to Tesco. His asking price is 1 pound per kilo

Farmer Wojciech also grows potatoes, to Polish Minrol class I which allows for more eyes, less smooth skin and a minimum weight of 80g per potato. So this class I potatoes can be sold at testo at 0,80 pounds, landed in whatevershire.

So Tesco gets the wrong kind of potatoes, and farmer Ted loses his business with Tesco.

It's an industry standards issue, just like the thousands other industry standards there used to be before the advent of the EU. And common standards are a Good Thing.

Tesco wouldn't buy 'class 1' potatoes, they could simply state that all potatoes that they sell should be round, lacking roots and sufficiently brown in the contract (or anything else that they deem to be desirable), there is no longer a need a classification system as they have stated exactly what they want in the contract, ASDA can then highlight what they want for their potatoes and so on whilst Fred, the local greengrocer just wants some potatoes and doesn't care what they look like.

Now you have two big growers who are supplying Tesco and ASDA with what they need, whilst Feed just goes to a local farmer who doesn't have to waste his time following the classification regulations and can give Fred (and all the other green grocers) potatoes cheaper as he doesn't need to spend time checking how brown they are.

At no point does this need regulation, you just need a proper contract and by introducing the regulation all you've really done is push up the cost poor Fred has to pay for his potatoes as they need to be given a classification before he can sell them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


EDIT: To go with the PC analogy, if you ordered a "monster gaming PC" from Ruritanistan and you got a "potato-with-a-Roman-candle-stuck-in-it" level computer back I'm willing to bet that you don't care much that it'd qualify as a "monster gaming PC" in Ruritanistan. Hence the standardisation of terms.

If they sent me a potato with a roman candle stuck in it I'd refuse to pay as the contract I signed was for a monster gaming PC, specifying out what it should be built like. Why do we need a regulation on this? If I stated it needs 32GB of Ram and I got a potato with a roman candle it's pretty clear it's not what I agreed in the contract of sale.

So again, why the red tape of added regulation for EVERYONE just so that Tesco don't have to state in their contract that a Monster gaming PC needs 32GB of ram?

EDIT TO ADD:
A perfect example of this in my own line of work. We guarantee 99.99999% uptime but still specify within this that if the client asks us to take the system down this does not count as down time - a clear contract removes the need to burden everyone with the red tape if it is not required for them.

So having each buyer work out their own contract with Fred is less red tape than a standard one that works the majority of the time?

For the PC point, because BigCorpShop in Ruritanistan is selling a mega gaming PC for the standards of Ruritanistan, which happens to be a potato with a roman candle in it. While NotAnotherBigCorpShop in Madeupitopia is selling a mega gaming PC that's a Cabbage with an ethernet cable stuck in it.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So having each buyer work out their own contract with Fred is less red tape than a standard one that works the majority of the time?

For the PC point, because BigCorpShop in Ruritanistan is selling a mega gaming PC for the standards of Ruritanistan, which happens to be a potato with a roman candle in it. While NotAnotherBigCorpShop in Madeupitopia is selling a mega gaming PC that's a Cabbage with an ethernet cable stuck in it.

But you'd detail your specification to the people before they sent it. If I state that it should contain 32GB or ram a potato with a candle doesn't meet the contract, and so doesn't get paid for under standard contract law - it's really not difficult and I can only assume you've never dealt with a contract if you cannot get your head around it.

As for Fred, his customers just want a Potato, they don't care what it LOOK like they just want a potato, so he wouldn't even need to sort out a contract stating the requirements of the look of it. And because he doesn't need to spend time sorting them out into how they look and different classes he can sell them cheaper too. So not having to sort the potatos at all IS less red tape than having to sort them, I cannot help but think you're intentionally choosing to misread my posts to fit your own narrative.

Meanwhile Tesco and ASDA are still happy as their contract ensures they are getting what they want.

(And before anyone says it, this is just the SHAPE regulation I'm covering, I still support laws on how the potatoes are grown to ensure they are safe and that they are not rotten or anything like that)

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
(Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.

This puts up the cost of all cucumbers as someone has to measure them to check if they are in class 1 or class 2, or if they bend over 20cm in which case they presumably are not allowed - though if you can find out what does happen to (I'm going to call them class 3) cucumbers then I'll be happy to remove the claim that bendy cucumbers are banned - but not that this is red tape.

In what way does the SHAPE of a cucumber in anyway affect the value of it, please do explain to me what benefit anyone other than the big companies who use this to push small producers out of the market due to their added costs.

All fruit and vegetable is automatically weighed, calibrated and checked for defects (lasers & stuff).

Stuff sold at farmer markets, traditional produce, etc. is exempt from shape and weight cathegories and it's only bound for the rot, pesticide, etc. generic regulations in case you wonder.

So why this whole law? Fruit and vegetables were traded before with regulations that changed from country and even region to region.

Class I could mean something in the UK and something different in, say, Poland. So that a UK supermarket buying class I Polish apples would likely find they're not what they were looking for. And yes, straight cucumbers is a thing for big retailers because they take up less space in a box than bendy ones, and are also perceived as having better taste, exactly in the same sense that there are regulations for how red tomatoes, cherries and strawberries are, because those are qualities fruit retailers are ready to pay more for.

Now, whether the bend angle of a cucumber or the redness of a tomato are indeed quality indicators for fruit is a totally separate issue. What matters is retailers are ready to pay more for them, so regulators have to step in to tell them apart so that Italian, German and Spanish Class I cucumbers are exactly the same for, say, the produce purchasing officer at Tesco or Lidl.

If you're a small producer and don't class you product, then the rules don't apply to you. That's just for the big distribution. But believe it or not that sort of legislation is needed just as much as, say, building tolerances.

But this is my point, the big supermarkets were out buying the straight cucumbers anyway whilst the aldi and lidi were buying the bendy ones. So why pass a law on it? If I want to buy a bendy cucumber I should be allowed to - and I don't care if it's class as 'class 1' in England but 'class 2' in Poland, I'll be able to tell how bendy it is as soon as I see it in the shop.

I'm also still not sure what happens to class 3 cucumbers (i.e. those with a bend over 20cms)

I fully get laws on 'the cucumber cannot be sold if it's covered in dangerous pesticides' I get laws like 'you cannot sell cucumbers that have gone off' and laws that say 'you cannot sell a tomato as a cucumber'. What I don't get is a law that says 'you cannot sell this cucumber because of it's shape'.

If the supermarkets only wants to sell cucumbers that are straight then that is fine, and before this directive they could choose to do this if they thought it'd make them more money. The red tape element of it come in when you force everyone to follow the same example, regardless of if they want to or not.

Perhaps this works better with an example.

Tesco wants to buy Class I potatoes, which were defined by some obscure office in the defra as those with a certain number of eyes, smooth clean skin and a minimum weight of 100g per potato (I'm totally making this up, btw)

Farmer Ted grows potatoes, and selects them for Class I and intends to sell those to Tesco. His asking price is 1 pound per kilo

Farmer Wojciech also grows potatoes, to Polish Minrol class I which allows for more eyes, less smooth skin and a minimum weight of 80g per potato. So this class I potatoes can be sold at testo at 0,80 pounds, landed in whatevershire.

So Tesco gets the wrong kind of potatoes, and farmer Ted loses his business with Tesco.

It's an industry standards issue, just like the thousands other industry standards there used to be before the advent of the EU. And common standards are a Good Thing.

Tesco wouldn't buy 'class 1' potatoes, they could simply state that all potatoes that they sell should be round, lacking roots and sufficiently brown in the contract (or anything else that they deem to be desirable), there is no longer a need a classification system as they have stated exactly what they want in the contract, ASDA can then highlight what they want for their potatoes and so on whilst Fred, the local greengrocer just wants some potatoes and doesn't care what they look like.

Now you have two big growers who are supplying Tesco and ASDA with what they need, whilst Feed just goes to a local farmer who doesn't have to waste his time following the classification regulations and can give Fred (and all the other green grocers) potatoes cheaper as he doesn't need to spend time checking how brown they are.

At no point does this need regulation, you just need a proper contract and by introducing the regulation all you've really done is push up the cost poor Fred has to pay for his potatoes as they need to be given a classification before he can sell them.

Sorry but you evidently aren't in touch with how big distribution operates. The industry moved beyond that "each one sets his rules" quite a long time ago. Global markets (not just EU) and all that. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean you don't need it.

And don't worry because Fred the greengrocer can indeed buy his potatoes from a local farmer and sell them. Again the law is about nomenclature, once you can see and touch you don't need it.

Indeed it did, because we introduced these regulations instead, which helped the big business as they don’t need to bother doing their own checks and hindered everyone else. Which takes me back to the original point, it’s red tape – good for big business but really doesn’t provide any benefit to anyone else and I’ll be happy to see it go.

I’d love to keep debating this but sadly I’m now off to work.

So it's easier for everyone to work out their own contracts than have an industry standard?

All this regulation talks of bendy/straight cucumbers reminds me of this tweet:

Dude, what are you in for?

*raises sleeve to show tattoo of pineapple & protractor* pic.twitter.com/NtDr295Ods

— Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) April 16, 2016

Good to know that the US isn't alone in silly/weird regulations.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
just because we leave, it doesn't mean that we have to give up on matching European quality checks, the red tape will stay the same. It might get less if we look at British home grown products, like fish we have to throw away for some reason or another.

I was always more concerned with the idea that the EU wanted to start working with each of the nations budgets and start to meddle in their own money. Kind of like the whole Apple tax, which has now started a precedent.

It's no big deal for me if we have to change 3 pin plugs to 2 pin plugs for European markets - I can live with that.

Agree with your point about the EU and Apple.

If Apple end up paying the full amount, then I'm a Welshman

They'll get a slap off the wrist, told not to do it again, and everybody lives happily ever after.

Apart from it makes the EU look weak at a time where they need a show of strength due to a post brexit world.

I always found European sockets to be very dangerous, why run 220 volt without a safety socket?

And there is nothing wrong with being Welsh, Sheep make excellent bedwarmers in the winter.....

I bought some bendy cucumbers from Tesco yesterday, they actually sell an entire range of very affordable, very wonky vegetables, and have been doing so for a few years, and they're really popular, the farmers they work with are now able to sell 95-97% of their crop:

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/stores/ranging-and-merchandising/tesco-adds-cucumbers-and-courgettes-to-wonky-fruit-and-veg/538054.article

The debate in this topic isn't really based on reality?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
There's a hell of a difference between laws that say that we have to have fruits of a certain shape or that you can't call this thing an x or this thing a y or you can't land these fish you accidentally caught in your net, and laws which stop hazardous materials being dumped in rivers and dangerous chemicals being put into food and toys. If you can't tell the difference you're acting either stupid or obtuse. Or both.

There isn't, actually. The bendy banana law was part of a wide-ranging quality control law about fruit. Only one of the clauses was about the bendiness of bananas, the rest were about "real" safety aspects such as mould and decay. You will notice you can still buy bendy bananas in British shops, they are usually the smaller ones that come from the Windward Isles. The Germans are very keen on big straight bananas, for some reason. (The bendy clause was later modified anyway.)

So, to rescind that particular law would be to chuck out the baby with the bathwater. The UK will still need quality control laws about fruit, furthermore any of our farmers who wish to export to the EU will have to follow the EU directive anyway. A sad blow for the UK banana growing industry.

This is I think one of the problems with the anti-EU campaign. A few rather trivial examples are picked out and blown up beyond measure in order to generate the kind of anti-EU feeling that contributed to the Leave vote. However a great deal of the EU legislation is well thought out and helpful. I mentioned the Recreational Craft Directive earlier, because it is a good example.

British Laws for British People make sense if everything that goes on happens within Britain and never touches the outside world. A lot of EU trade legislation is intended to harmonise quality and safety throughout all EU nations, because the purpose of the EU is to enable all the members work work together very easily. You can complain about Class II cucumbers but at least everyone in the EU who needs to, knows what a Class II cucumber is, because there is an EU wide definition.

 scarletsquig wrote:

The debate in this topic isn't really based on reality?

That sums up the entire Brexit debacle.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:

The debate in this topic isn't really based on reality?

That sums up the entire Brexit debacle.

Debacle or not, BREXIT is happening. As I've said before, a bold vision is what's needed to really transform the UK and make it fit for the 21st century.

Sadly, the un-Conservative party will not give us that - managed decline is all they offer.

If the left would stop wallowing in referendum defeat, and I do sympathise with the hurt they're going through, they would see what a wonderful opportunity lies before them.

Unfortunately they're incompetent (Corbyn) or too busy trying to stab Corbyn in the back.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ r_squared

I was in the middle of typing out a response to your points, but then I realised that life is just too short and precious.

Turning back to the point at large; if in future we can avoid crap like this it would be a great start. As stranger83 said, just let the customer decide how to handle it. Let them ask what the shop deals in and let them take it from there.

Because working with 2 completely separate units of measure makes everything so much simpler?

Red tape, red top more like it.

Apart from cucumbers, and whinging about buying a pahnd of butter, there really wasn't anything wrong with EU llegislation. "Red tape" It was just another convenient way to label Europe as nosey busy bodies "interfering" with Great British business, especially amongst those who actually haven't got a clue about any regulations apart from the ones ludicrously blown up in the Sun and DM.
We managed very well working with our European partners and that won't change, but we will continue to have to comply with EU regs to trade with them anyway, as we do with any other country and the chances are we may even invent a few regulations of our own to suit our own needs and business.
I have no idea what they may be because I cannot see the futureno matter how hard strager83 demands that I "produce evidence" , but it is entirely plausible and indeed possible that we may decide to grade Cox's apples according to rosiness.