Chemical firms fear toxic consequences of Brexit
Julian Sarkar has spent more than 10 years and 600,000 euros (£525,000) making his small British company compliant with strict European Union regulations to import chemicals into the bloc. Now, incensed by the government’s pursuit of what he sees as an extreme version of Brexit, he is shifting a third of his business into continental Europe, fearing that higher costs and bureaucracy will prove toxic for his firm over time.
“I despair,” said the 59-year-old, who will avoid UK ports when shipping goods from India and China into continental Europe with his firm Zanos. “Everything I’ve seen in terms of the new approach will involve additional cost and additional work”.
Zanos is one of thousands of British companies that could be stripped of the right to trade seamlessly in Europe after Brexit if a way cannot be found to keep Britain in or aligned to the regulatory system Reach that acts as a passport for chemicals.
At stake is not just the future of an 11 billion pound industry and its thousands of British jobs, but also the other sectors it supplies, including autos, aerospace and pharmaceuticals.
The chemicals sector’s quandary is more acute than most industries’ because of its dense web of regulations, but it is also emblematic of problems facing several other trades that rely on some kind of “passporting” system to operate across the EU, like financial services and haulage.
Prime Minister Theresa May has said she wants Britain to remain under European oversight for certain sectors including chemicals but be allowed to diverge from the EU in others, a position dismissed as pure illusion by Brussels so far.
On top of the regulatory uncertainty, the prospect of tariffs or border delays remains while any Brexit deal may not come until late in the talks, leaving firms with little clarity.
As a result, the bigger chemical makers are preparing for all outcomes. Germany’s BASF, worth 76 billion euros, estimates that a British return to World Trade Organization rules could cost it an additional 60 million euros a year.
“At the moment you really get the impression of two high-speed trains on a collision course with no constructive solution to be found,” BASF Chief Executive Kurt Bock said of his fears about tariffs. “Something must happen very quickly.”
Of immediate concern is Reach, a regulatory regime so complex it has taken 11 years to be introduced.
Designed to manage risk while protecting health and the environment, it operates across the 28 EU member states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein that make up the European Economic Area (EEA).
Standing for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, Reach requires companies to register the substances they use, creating a vast central database that is managed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki.
According to the ECHA, Britain becomes a “third country” after March 29, 2019, making Reach registrations held by British companies invalid. A transition deal should postpone that until the end of 2020, if a future trade deal with the EU is agreed before Brexit.
“This is a big deal,” said Elizabeth Shepherd, environment partner at corporate law firm Eversheds Sutherland who is facing mounting questions from clients.
“If companies have to comply with two sets of rules then they run the risk of being less competitive.”
Zanos’ Sarkar said he decided to act after May said at the start of 2017 that Britain would leave the EU single market and customs union after Brexit.
May’s government argues that being outside the EU will give Britain the freedom to strike trade deals with fastergrowing emerging markets, and that although the economy may suffer in the short term it will flourish later on.
But for now, Sarkar cannot see beyond the disruption.
AT STAKE IS NOT JUST THE FUTURE OF AN 11 BILLION POUND INDUSTRY AND ITS THOUSANDS OF BRITISH JOBS, BUT ALSO THE OTHER SECTORS IT SUPPLIES, INCLUDING AUTOS, AEROSPACE AND PHARMACEUTICALS