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 ... 139, 140, 141 ... 226, 227, 228  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1053
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stumuz1 wrote:
Mark.

I think I have shown that you don't understand REACH. What you do very well is cut and paste half the internet on what some other person, lobbyist, vested interest has said.

Glyphosate is regulated by BPR not REACH. Never mind we will move on to the democracy point.

My local MP has a majority of about 800. All I have to do is persuade about 801 people that glyphosate is a bad thing and my MP will support a ban.

To get the EU to support a ban I have to:

1/ Persuade the UK government to support the ban
2/ Get the commission to implement legislation to promote the ban
3/ Get the European Parliament to vote for a ban
4/ Get the council of ministers to ignore Bayers huge financial clout and political donations and soft power, black mailing techniques etc and not overturn the Parliaments decision.

Much easier to get 330 MP's to vote to ban it .


UK’s chemical Catch-22:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-chemical-regulation-brexit-catch-22/

The U.K. is notoriously cautious in banning or restricting access to harmful chemicals without taking into account the impact on industry.

Take discussions on how to classify the common whitening chemical titanium dioxide as carcinogenic, where the U.K. suggested a narrower classification than ECHA’s scientific committees after industry protested the original recommendation. Or the fight over how many substances should be exempted from a looming ban on hormone-disrupting substances in pesticides, where the U.K. led a backdoor push to weaken the measure. Or the committee at ECHA that has to reach unanimous agreement for a chemical to be identified as "of high concern" and thus set on track to be phased out of use — the U.K. representative opposed identification for seven of the nine substances for which unanimous agreement was not reached.

"They push back on every single decision," said a person sitting in on meetings in ECHA, who asked for anonymity as the discussions are confidential. They added that British members of committees in ECHA and in the Commission "are the ones that are always trying to avoid regulation. That’s really the position."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 330
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Politico.eu!!

A comment from Politico Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

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



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1053
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stumuz1 wrote:
Politico.eu!!

A comment from Politico Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Sniggers!


Thought you might say that Very Happy

https://www.politico.eu/about-us/
All fake news....., no grain of truth ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 867
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titanium dioxide doesn't seem a great example of a carcinogen. Hasn't it been in toothpaste, yellow mustard etc for decades?

The EU has a good record of imposing what big business lobbyists like: CE, EMC, ROHS, compact flourescents etc. Just like the UK gov with industry trade regs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 330
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fuzzy wrote:
Titanium dioxide doesn't seem a great example of a carcinogen.


Agreed.

I've got better examples.

Talc

Flour

Diesel

Sudan red ( gives the oven baked colour on microwavable ready meals)

London Purple ( prolongs the flavour on your apples)

fuzzy wrote:

The EU has a good record of imposing what big business lobbyists like:


Yes, the working groups that Mark referred to are obliquely political. National interests and all that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 330
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:

All fake news....., no grain of truth ?


On the chemical front, it was mere puff.

"They push back on every single decision," said a person sitting in on meetings in ECHA, who asked for anonymity as the discussions are confidential"

I'm all for these meetings to be made public. Why are they not?..... Lobbyists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1053
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fuzzy wrote:
Titanium dioxide doesn't seem a great example of a carcinogen. Hasn't it been in toothpaste, yellow mustard etc for decades?

The EU has a good record of imposing what big business lobbyists like: CE, EMC, ROHS, compact flourescents etc. Just like the UK gov with industry trade regs.


ECHA links titanium dioxide to cancer:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/european-chemicals-body-links-titanium-dioxide-to-cancer/3007557.article

It's nanoparticles that cause the problem - so the impact will be on companies that either manufacture titanium dioxide or use it to make other products (paints, toothpaste etc.).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1053
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stumuz1 wrote:
Mark wrote:

All fake news....., no grain of truth ?


On the chemical front, it was mere puff.

"They push back on every single decision," said a person sitting in on meetings in ECHA, who asked for anonymity as the discussions are confidential"

I'm all for these meetings to be made public. Why are they not?..... Lobbyists.


I would venture that REACH is the major global driver for assessing the toxicology of chemicals (happy for stumuz to automatically disagree)
Every (registered) substance is going to be assessed at some point - many have never been looked at before, including some very common ones - surely a good thing ?
A very few will be assigned as a SVHC, which has major implications - UK industry will still need to take note of this when we're out of the EU....

Do I agree that the ECHA meetings should be public - of course, I'm all for openness
If we get a Hard Brexit and end up with a virtually mirror image UK version of ECHA, do I think their meetings would be held in public......, who knows ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10996
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why should we not cooperate with our neighbours, post Brexit, Mark? We did before we joined the EC so why not in future?
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6667
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Get ready for some serious hand waving and whataboutary Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10996
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm fed up with the naivety of Remainers on Facebook so I'm withdrawing and hiding most of their posts on my page, Steve.

They completely ignore "Ever closer Union" and its implications: they completely ignore the fact that when we are forced into the Euro we will see austerity like we have not known; they tell me that the EU is directed by the people; they tell me that as LibDems they would vote against joining the Euro after I have told them that they would be given a treaty option of joining the Euro or leaving the EU - so why object to leaving the EU now? They are either naive, daft or disingenuous or all three at once.

Arguing with religious fanatics is never worthwhile. But then they would say the same thing about Brexiteers. That is why we have so much of a problem.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1053
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Why should we not cooperate with our neighbours, post Brexit, Mark? We did before we joined the EC so why not in future?


No reason at all - in fact it's absolutely essential
I'm all for negotiated, reasoned debate, leading to compromise based solutions
It's polarised, extreme views (often seen on this board) that lead to discord and confrontation.....

I struggle to see how setting up a mirror image of ECHA/REACH makes any sense - we'll just end up paying for another massive bureaucracy with identical (or very similar) outcomes, but we'll also still need to comply with the existing REACH system to trade with the EU.... I'm sure that trade will continue - but suspect we'll just become much less competitive.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10996
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm becoming ever more convinced that "competition" or Globalisation by another name and the "free" trade deals which result is something which we should avoid where possible. Globalisation and competition have reduced wages in the Uk to poverty levels while it has enabled companies to offshore profits and avoid paying taxes. True globalisation would also have reduced our accommodation costs which would have meant food prices would also have fallen and that the lower wages would have been affordable.

Globalisation and "competition" have allowed an increase in the share of profits going to senior managers, owners and shareholders by reducing the share of the workers and lower management. Globalisation has allowed the kleptocracy and their companies to avoid taxation and put the whole of this burden on the working and middle classes further reducing their spending power. There has been a worldwide, in the developed countries at least, hollowing out of the middle and working classes to such an extent that the whole capitalist system is now at risk. The EU has done nothing to stop this.

I am convinced that countries should be able to protect their own industry and workers as the living costs of workers vary from country to country. If this were formalised and renegotiated on a regular basis that could form the basis of an international trade agreement that could work more fairly. It would stop the wasteful practice of moving production from one low cost country to another even lower cost one every few years.

The current system, based on debt, will fold in the few years so the above will probably never come about.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1053
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
I'm becoming ever more convinced that "competition" or Globalisation by another name and the "free" trade deals which result is something which we should avoid where possible.

Isolationism ??

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Globalisation and competition have reduced wages in the Uk to poverty levels while it has enabled companies to offshore profits and avoid paying taxes. True globalisation would also have reduced our accommodation costs which would have meant food prices would also have fallen and that the lower wages would have been affordable.

Try the 'wages' paid in less developed countries.....,
Most UK workers still do relatively well...., average salary £27K ?
Agree that hiding profits offshore and tax avoidance need addressing....

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Globalisation and "competition" have allowed an increase in the share of profits going to senior managers, owners and shareholders by reducing the share of the workers and lower management. Globalisation has allowed the kleptocracy and their companies to avoid taxation and put the whole of this burden on the working and middle classes further reducing their spending power. There has been a worldwide, in the developed countries at least, hollowing out of the middle and working classes to such an extent that the whole capitalist system is now at risk. The EU has done nothing to stop this.

Probably true - all the fault of the EU though ?

kenneal - lagger wrote:
I am convinced that countries should be able to protect their own industry and workers as the living costs of workers vary from country to country. If this were formalised and renegotiated on a regular basis that could form the basis of an international trade agreement that could work more fairly. It would stop the wasteful practice of moving production from one low cost country to another even lower cost one every few years.

How much UK industry is actually UK owned.....?
Whether we like it or not, it's all inter-connected....
Plus, Maggie sold pretty much everything British that wasn't nailed down....
Look at the recent news from Nissan. Honda, Sony, Panasonic etc. The decisions aren't made in Sunderland or Swindon, they're being made in Japan....

kenneal - lagger wrote:
The current system, based on debt, will fold in the few years so the above will probably never come about.

Agree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6667
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
.... Most UK workers still do relatively well...., average salary £27K ?....


And there we have it, folks, in a nutshell.

You haven't got a f***ing clue have you mate.

27k is based on the mean, which is monstrously skewed by a few obscene salaries at the top end of the distribution. With such a non-Gaussian distribution, even the median will be skewed to some extent.

The only average that will give any kind of realistic picture of what most people, most of the time, earn in this country is the mode. Which for the sake of brevity, can be chunked into 5k blocks.

The modal average full time wage in this country is 15-20k. And that is before tax and national insurance have been deducted. In other words, the most commonly earned full time wage in this country is the minimum wage.

Though, of course, you will be hard pushed to find the modal average salary online in any of the official stats.

I wonder why?.....


Last edited by Little John on Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
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 ... 139, 140, 141 ... 226, 227, 228  Next
Page 140 of 228

 
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