Would it even matter if they don't? Like okay you don't have to have USB-C in the UK but you do for the entire rest of Europe so it'll all be USB-C anyway.
A lot of very cheap chinese made stuff still uses micro-usb for charging, technically I imagine that stuff is illegal in the EU, though I doubt it's that well enforced.
If you visit any store in the EU selling new phones or tablets you will find only USB-C devices for sale. No enforcement required.
What the Chinese do with cheap products sold on AliExpress isn't important. Obliging big manufacturers to adopt common standards reduces environmental waste and helps cut down on gratuitous exploitation of consumers.
You can find plenty of 2nd hand devices for sale with non-USB-C connectors and no, the police, aren't arresting people for selling them, nor is their sale illegal.
Dumping things that aren't up to standard for sale in the EU is routine since the UK left the EU single market. The EU implemented full customs controls and goods inspections on day 1 after the UK left. To date the British still don't have either the infrastructure or the staff to do the same. As result it has become a magnet for substandard goods, both originating in the EU and passing through it (e.g. from Rotterdam).
The estimated cost for the UK to implement full controls amounts to more than the entire sum of the UK's near 50 year contributions to the EU budget. And that's only one of dozens of areas where the EU saves money by agreeing common standards.
I think it makes sense. Law making has become the main diplomatic tool inside the EU. If your civil servants view making law as the main way to wield influence inside the block, it’s only normal that they start seeing it as a tool of foreign influence too. It’s effectively “when all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail” applied to a global power.
You don't appear well informed about the EU or about the consequences of Brexit for British manufacturers. If you're implying some kind of EU civil servant driven influence over decisions in the UK I suggest you acquaint yourself with happened with the UK's UKCA mark.
Very simply, maintaining two production lines or trying to engage in pointless differentiation from the standards of your largest export market is costly and potentially futile.
No need for any EU-bashing conspiracy theory nonsense. It's an association of democracies with a democratically elected parliament that approves EU legislation.
I don't think my comment implied anything nefarious about EU influence in the UK. Why would you think so?
I'm saying that the EU uses law making as in EU law making as both a political tool and a diplomatic tool which is, well, undeniable. You just have to take a quick glance at think like the EU green taxonomy or the CSRD to understand how it works.
> Very simply, maintaining two production lines or trying to engage in pointless differentiation from the standards of your largest export market is costly and potentially futile.
See, that's what I'm talking about. That's using law making as a diplomatic power.
Your apparent implication that the EU is coercive is false. Very simply, if you want to do business in the EU you have to comply with the mandated market standards. No hammers are involved.
The EU is the greatest peace project in history not, as many (including Donald Trump and many right wing libertarians eg) characterize it, as an oppressive entity. It's why countries are keen to join it and to adopt common (shared) EU standards. It's simply better than having multiple competing national standards.
Market power and diplomatic power are different. No EU diplomacy whatever was involved in the UK's sovereign decision on the UKCA mark or USB C and related matters. The EU does have diplomatic representation in London and uses it to, e.g., let the British govt know it will face trade sanctions if they violate the terms of the UK Withdrawal Agreement (threats to break international law were made repeatedly by the last UK govt).
