PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Brexit process
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 82, 83, 84 ... 86, 87, 88  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 135
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:


The 'drill baby drill', free market approach has certainly given US farmer Jones economic benefits - the loser, as always is the climate, groundwater contamination, the local environment etc...

Agree, however all energy production is polluting and damaging in some way. It is all a matter of degree.

Mark wrote:

Meanwhile EU farmer Jones has certainly been constrained by all those pesky Environmental Directives, planning regulations, carbon taxes etc...., but on the up side, it's given space for a healthy and vibrant renewables sector to develop and grow...


No, all those Environmental Directives, planning regulations, carbon taxes, allow fracking. It is the people power that has stopped it. Germany has had a large fracking industry since 1975. It was a founding member of the EU (Then EC).

Mark wrote:
Which way for the UK in the future....?


Don't know. Discussion can be had. Personally I think domestic DC battery storage will be a game changer. When a house can home brew and keep its energy in a meaningful way, fossil fuels will take a nose dive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 964
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lords savage plans for post-Brexit chemical regulation:
https://www.endsreport.com/article/61366/lords-savage-plans-for-post-brexit-chemical-regulation

The government’s failure to lay out a credible plan to regulate chemicals after Brexit is “highly troubling”, according to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. In a brief, though deeply critical report released today, it urged Whitehall to get its act together urgently or face major disruption to the UK’s second largest manufacturing industry and the supply chains it heads. The government needs to set out how an independent regulatory framework would function, how it would collect information on chemicals, which agency would regulate chemicals and ensure that UK chemical businesses can still export after Brexit, said the committee. The report echoes many of the same criticisms levelled at DEFRA last week by the Chemical Business Association. There is unity between manufacturers, users and campaigners on the UK continuing to participate in the EU’s REACH regime, which has been reflected in the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels. But gaining this will not be easy: the regulation has no allowance for ‘associate membership’ as proposed by the prime minister. Brussels considers that leaving the single market automatically means leaving the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). “Although we welcome the government’s aim to remain part of the REACH system after Brexit, its negotiation red line on the UK's membership of the single market makes that highly unlikely. That means it urgently needs to be working on a Plan B, and that simply hasn't happened, which leaves the sector facing a huge cliff-edge on the day we leave the EU,” said committee chair Lord Teverson. Even if the associate membership was somehow obtained, the UK would only remain subject to REACH until the end of 2020. From then, or from April under a no-deal scenario, the UK would likely have to go it alone and how this would be handled remains unclear, according to the committee. “If associate membership of and ongoing participation in ECHA are not negotiated by exit day, a number of challenges arise,” the report said. As things stand, all REACH registrations will become invalid in the UK, alongside those made by UK companies in the EU-27, preventing trade and use of those chemicals.

DEFRA is drafting legislation to ensure that registrations for the UK market continue to be valid. However, DEFRA has not yet decided if it will automatically accept registrations made in the EU. Doing so without access to the underlying data on toxicity and other properties “could leave the UK open to legal challenges from companies wanting to use dangerous substances for which the government would not have full information to justify restrictions. If, instead, it requires chemical users to register substances here with equivalent levels of information to REACH, it could… be a massive financial and bureaucratic burden for UK companies,” the Green Alliance told the committee. DEFRA is currently building its own version of ECHA’s REACH database, at a cost of £5.8m. Populating it with the necessary data will not be straightforward. The committee has “serious doubts” that the government will be able to do so, partly as it depends on obtaining permission from the multiple parties that own the data. But when raised with the government, DEFRA permanent secretary Claire Moriarty told the committee: “That’s not something I am aware of.” DEFRA’s intention to ‘copy and paste’ ECHA’s REACH database, as laid out by environment minister Thérèse Coffey earlier this year, “is not credible”, the committee said. The plan is unlawful, as it would infringe copyright and database rights, even if done on a piecemeal basis. “In addition, we find it extremely concerning that it may not be possible to establish which of the existing REACH registrations originate from UK companies. We call on the government to set out the steps it is taking to resolve this issue,” the report added.

Coffey’s boss, environment secretary Michael Gove, advised the Lords that companies should take steps now to transfer their registrations to an only-representative or EU-based subsidiary. But Anita Lloyd, a director at law firm Squire Patton Boggs said that this was in fact legally impossible while the UK is a member state. Transfers after Brexit could take months to complete, with “serious ramifications down the supply chain and serious interruptions to the many billions of pounds’ worth of trade in chemicals between the UK and EU,” she added. Gabrielle Edwards, deputy director for chemicals, pesticides and hazardous waste at DEFRA acknowledged that there has been some suggestion that “some sort of mechanism” is needed to enable transfers but that it had not yet been put in place. She said that the UK has “very detailed plans” to set up a new chemicals regulation capacity to replace ECHA from March 2019. But to the Lords’ alarm, these have not been activated and there has been no clarification on which body will take on ECHA’s role. The way that chemical risk assessment would be conducted, alongside the transparency of its decision-making, is also unclear, the report noted.

The committee also addressed the cost to business of leaving REACH. The Chemicals Industry Association has put the bill in the UK and EU at £450m. Transferring or re-registering substances with ECHA could cost £200-1,500 per registration, according to the Green Alliance. The cost of administration would add to the bill, especially for some businesses that have hundreds of registrations. The government has still not said whether or not UK or EU-27 companies would be charged for registering with the new UK system, which the committee wants it to clarify urgently. If the UK ends up outside the REACH system, Coffey has pledged that the country would continue to be “pretty much aligned to REACH” – a “worryingly imprecise” term that could indicate lowered protections, said the Green Alliance. Manufacturing industry association EEF said that this offered little economic value. EEF’s head of climate and environment policy Roz Bulleid commented: “Government is making progress on preparing a post-Brexit regulatory regime and has listened to industry and other stakeholders calls for continuing close alignment with the EU. However, we would very much agree with the committee on the significance of this issue and would urge government to step up communication with its stakeholders around a no deal Brexit. Companies need more detail now on what that would entail and how they should be preparing.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 135
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only read the first paragraph then stopped reading, because of two fundamental mistakes.

Mark, you keep posting this guff.

I truly believe that you believe that chemical industry is stuffed under a no deal.

I truly believe it will not be.

May, i suggest that you contact Lisa Nandy MP. She spouts a lot of nonsense about planes not flying, Brexit morons not getting their fortnight in Benidorm yardy yardy.

The chemical industry is highly regulated. Will always be highly regulated.

Anyway off to France next week for preliminary meetings with French chemical firm at their expense for post brexit planning. I'll précis the meeting now.

"Nothing will change, the compounds you import from the UK are already REACH registered, you don't need an OR"

Thank you for your purchase order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 964
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I believe isn't important.

However, here's some more 'guff' from the Chemical Business Association, which represents 1,000s of jobs.....

Brexit plans for REACH unworkable, unsustainable and damaging, says industry:
https://www.endsreport.com/article/61332/brexit-plans-for-reach-unworkable-unsustainable-and-damaging-says-industry

The government has no viable plan to regulate the chemicals industry following a no-deal Brexit, according to the Chemical Business Association (CBA). Its current proposals for would be hugely damaging, according to a letter sent by chief executive Peter Newport to DEFRA minister Thérèse Coffey on Wednesday. Newman wrote that the CBA “wholeheartedly supports” the government’s intention to gain a form of associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency. Negotiating this would allow UK registrants to maintain access to the toxicity data contained in the EU REACH database. The proposal was rejected firmly by the EU’s Brexit negotiators in June, although the final decision lies with the member states and MEPs. “However, we believe the government’s current intention to transpose the European Union’s REACH provisions into UK law in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit is unworkable, unsustainable, and will damage the chemical supply sector and many downstream UK manufacturing industries relying on chemicals for their products and processes,” he wrote. Three fifths of the UK’s chemical exports go to the EU, says the letter. It forms the largest export industry after the automotive sector, so any disruption to trade will have huge implications for the economy as a whole. Forcing companies to register the chemicals they manufacture or import under a wholly-domestic version of REACH will have huge ramifications for the sector, Newport argued. Although DEFRA is working on the creation of a UK chemicals database, the majority of British registrants do not own or have access to the data that would be needed to populate it. Most market participants pay to obtain data via substance information exchange forums (SIEFs). These band registrants of the same substance together, allowing them to avoid duplicating tests (particularly animal studies), prepare a joint lead registration dossier and agree on classification and labelling.

Most of the information is owned by European firms, the letter noted. Selling access to data to a third country is purely a commercial matter for the owners. Whatever deal is reached, or not, with the EU, they cannot be forced to disclose it, said Newport. The issue, “pointed out in several meetings with ministers and officials,” renders the government’s plan unworkable, the letter to Coffey states. If existing test data cannot be obtained, then “significantly higher levels of animal testing should be anticipated,” Newport warned. Alternative forms of testing may be appropriate in some cases, he noted. According to the European Chemicals Agency, UK companies have made 12,449 REACH registrations, 13% of the total and the second largest proportion after the German industry. They cover 5,749 substances. The combined cost of registration fees and data-sharing contributions already reaches into many millions of pounds. “Yet, in recent meetings, ministers have appeared indifferent to the further costs faced by chemical firms as a consequence of establishing the proposed UK REACH regime. Business simply cannot sustain the additional costs implicit in the government’s current hard brexit REACH proposals,” Coffey was told.

Furthermore, the two-year timescale for setting up a UK REACH system, gathering all the relevant testing data and studies is “unrealistic”, especially given the potential requirement for new testing to be undertaken. That alone could take 15 months, Newport said – and the EU REACH system has taken a decade to implement fully. Meanwhile, British industry is preparing for the worst by activating emergency plans, with some opening substantive operations in Ireland or the continent. European-owned firms are also repatriating products. Newport sent a separate letter to Lord Teverson, the chair of the House of Lords’ European Union Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, thanking him for pressing the issue of access to chemicals data. Coffey revealed the government’s intention to simply download ECHA’s database before the committee in the summer – a plan described as unlawful by its executive director Bjorn Hansen and the Chemicals Industry Association. Doing so would need to be agreed as part of a withdrawal agreement, they noted. The letters came a week after chemical consumers and manufacturers and campaigners were told that DEFRA’s technical notices for Brexit could be revised. Officials told a meeting of the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum that they could be changed in response to the identification of gaps, such as not mentioning SIEFs or how regulatory decisions would be reached. The two-year timeline was far too short, the forum heard, echoing Newport’s comments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 135
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark.

You have posted all this a couple of pages back.

Nothings changed!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 964
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stumuz1 wrote:
Mark.

You have posted all this a couple of pages back.

Nothings changed!


No I haven't...., but as you don't read them how would you know ?
Anyway.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 135
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Go back a few pages.

Ends report, we're all doomed

CBA, we're all doomed

Same whining different day.

REACH is being transposed into UK law. It is not changing. Simples!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 776
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any chemo dudes explain why meths is such a rip-off?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 6777
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fuzzy wrote:
Any chemo dudes explain why meths is such a rip-off?


As in methylated sprits ?
I paid only about £2 a liter which did not seem excessive.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8862
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So we have an agreement. It will keep NI in the CU and SM, and the UK in the CU, with no power to escape. Full Vassal State. Breaks all sorts of tory manifesto pledges, and direct promises from TM. Crosses the DUP's red lines and will be totally unacceptable to the ERG.

If I had known this travesty would be what brexit looked like, there's no way I would have voted for it. This is not brexit; it is a joke.

Presumably her plan is try repeatedly to get it through parliament while attempting to make sure no other options are possible, until enough MPs on all sides cave in because they are scared of the No Deal she won't let happen.

If it gets through, the tory party will be torn apart and UKIP support will skyrocket. This is not over. She must not be allowed to get away with this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6123
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, if you had known that your political class would have betrayed you, you would have just shuffled off and remembered your place and not bothered voting for what you believed to be right?

If this passes, God help this country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 4290
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't seen the details of the agreement yet but the signs are that this is unacceptable to many Leavers.

I would prefer a mitigated no deal Brexit. But I will await the final details to come through this week.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3739

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lots of options on ebay here is an example
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8862
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Beria3 wrote:
I haven't seen the details of the agreement yet but the signs are that this is unacceptable to many Leavers.


No deal is clearly better. Remain is better. In fact, among Theresa May's long list of serious problems, she is now going to have to worry about leavers swinging behind a second referendum in order to avoid this deal, because they think it is worse than remaining on current terms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8862
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see a path opening up to Lexit.

It will soon be clear that at least a third of the tory MPs and half the membership want a no deal. Theresa May isn't going to let that happen, so to get her deal through the HoC she does a deal with Labour to get it through. We leave the EU at the end of March next year, trapped in a customs union until we do a trade deal with the EU which makes a border in Ireland unneccesary, or find a new arrangement for NI.

TM is toppled in April, and replaced by Raab, who calls a general election later in 2019. Labour manifesto promises a border poll in northern ireland, with some sweeteners to make sure the Irish agree to unification, both sides of the border. Tories lose 100 seats at the election, and we end up either with a labour majority, or a hung parliament with Corbyn in Downing Street. Irish reunification follows, Corbyn wins the Nobel Peace Prize and Labour gets at a second term in office to implement Lexit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 82, 83, 84 ... 86, 87, 88  Next
Page 83 of 88

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group