|
Post by Carl LaFong on Mar 18, 2024 11:36:26 GMT
Huzzah! Perhaps our government imagines bulldog spirit will protect us from the dangerous substances that Europe rules unsafe. It’s a benefit of Brexit – but only if you’re a manufacturer or distributor of toxic chemicals. For the rest of us, it’s another load we have to carry on behalf of the shysters and corner-cutters who lobbied for the UK to leave the EU. The government insisted on a separate regulatory system for chemicals. At first sight, it’s senseless: chemical regulation is extremely complicated and expensive. Why replicate an EU system that costs many millions of euros and employs a small army of scientists and administrators? Why not simply adopt as UK standards the decisions it makes? After all, common regulatory standards make trading with the rest of Europe easier. Well, now we know. A separate system allows the UK to become a dumping ground for the chemicals that Europe rules unsafe. … www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/18/britain-toxic-chemical-dump-brexit-europe
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 18, 2024 11:59:21 GMT
Just another victory for all those Brexiteers who cried tears of joy on ''independence day''. They keep on winning.
The EU might not be perfect but when it comes to environmental, food and chemicals regulations they are the best in the world in regulatory standards and scrutiny. Such a shame we've walked away from that.
|
|
|
Post by Nogbad on Mar 18, 2024 12:20:48 GMT
Mind your own business, foreigner.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 18, 2024 14:18:37 GMT
Why has Brexit prevented us from ruling as unsafe the same dangerous substances that the EU rules unsafe? Same question but asked a different way: why do we need an external agency to rule on our behalf which substances are unsafe or not? Another thought: why did the EU "long resist" the 'obvious' step of phasing out tetraethyl lead in aircraft fuel? Presumably there is a reason not to do this and it's not as 'obvious' a step as the Graun suggests. Has the US phased it out as well? If not, does that mean that they are also becoming a toxic dumping ground?
The whole article appears to the the usual Grauniad wail: "Waaah! We can't make any decisions on our own so we want a nanny agency to come and tell us what to do so we don't have to think for ourselves!" At what point did we become reduced to such a pathetically dependent child status? I blame this phenomenon on decades of brain-atrophying EU membership which enabled the government to just give up on all responsibility for governing the British people and delegate the job to an external committee instead.
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Mar 18, 2024 14:55:47 GMT
Why has Brexit prevented us from ruling as unsafe the same dangerous substances that the EU rules unsafe? Same question but asked a different way: why do we need an external agency to rule on our behalf which substances are unsafe or not? Another thought: why did the EU "long resist" the 'obvious' step of phasing out tetraethyl lead in aircraft fuel? Presumably there is a reason not to do this and it's not as 'obvious' a step as the Graun suggests. Has the US phased it out as well? If not, does that mean that they are also becoming a toxic dumping ground?
The whole article appears to the the usual Grauniad wail: "Waaah! We can't make any decisions on our own so we want a nanny agency to come and tell us what to do so we don't have to think for ourselves!" At what point did we become reduced to such a pathetically dependent child status? I blame this phenomenon on decades of brain-atrophying EU membership which enabled the government to just give up on all responsibility for governing the British people and delegate the job to an external committee instead.
We’ll see what happens if Labour gets in. The Tories hate this country and couldn’t give a shit about keeping chemicals safe … or our rivers, coasts etc. That much is abundantly clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 18, 2024 15:23:49 GMT
Well, now we know. A separate system allows the UK to become a dumping ground for the chemicals that Europe rules unsafe. Any proof that we are being using as a 'dumping ground' or is this just Guardian skirt-flapping at a hypothetical?
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 18, 2024 15:33:39 GMT
... why do we need an external agency to rule on our behalf which substances are unsafe or not? 1) you don't need an external agency if You do your homework 2) but regarding the myriad of chemicals that have to be tested it is more cost efficient to do it by sharing expertise with others - if you trust them (bc you have your own experts working with them) Sometimes you have to make difficult trade-offs. For example: what other materials are available that have similar technical properties. How expensive is the changeover? How safe is the toxicity? (long debates about neonicotins, glyphosat, ...) Obvious is that every usage of chemicals that contain lead is a bad thing. And the reduction of lead in fuel for cars had been one of the most important steps towards healthier food and healthier nature in my youth. Again: You are able to think for yourself now but then you have to take the responsibility to do something for it and invest in legal framework, regulators, experts, agencies, ... But exactly the opposite happens Damn, even Dominic Cummings thought that leaving EURATOM would be ridiculously insane! And it's not only about protecting your own population . It's also about being able to sell stuff to other nations! They want to know what they buy and whether it is usable in their products. Living near a big chemical giant in Germany I do know experts. I have talked to producers of pet food who had to do a lot of certification training and planning production lines for REACH. When I asked them "What do You think about the UK wanting to do their own REACH?" they just shook their heads in disbelief and uttered words so harsh that I won't reproduce them here. I have looked into this topic some years ago in the old B thread. Initially the British Chemical Industry was not keen on putting work into REACH (costs, costs, costs). That must have been the moment Daniel Hannan had talked to them. Then the Industry invested and did profit from the Brussels effect, meaning that European wide regulations are a standard that does not get accepted in the EU only, but also other regions of the world. Then they tried to influence Brexiteers to keep common sense and forget the idea of UK REACH over several years! But trickster Dan Hannan claimed on conhome in one of his shitteries he was "surprised" to "suddenly" hear from the British industry that they didn't want UK REACH. I smelled that from over the Channel and wondered why the British public was betrayed in having an open discussion about it. As I did prove in the old thread - all the important information for being able to make key decisions was available for the public! (If they were ready to do some research for themselves)
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Mar 18, 2024 15:34:36 GMT
Well, now we know. A separate system allows the UK to become a dumping ground for the chemicals that Europe rules unsafe. Any proof that we are being using as a 'dumping ground' or is this just Guardian skirt-flapping at a hypothetical? Dumping ground in that we’ll still be using that crap and they won’t, unless things change.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 18, 2024 15:35:47 GMT
The Tories hate this country and couldn’t give a shit about keeping chemicals safe … or our rivers, coasts etc. That much is abundantly clear to me. That's a ridiculous thing to say, a bit like some retarded teenage adolescent saying "My parents hate me and don't care if I die!" If they hated this country, they wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Mar 18, 2024 15:37:14 GMT
The Tories hate this country and couldn’t give a shit about keeping chemicals safe … or our rivers, coasts etc. That much is abundantly clear to me. That's a ridiculous thing to say, a bit like some retarded teenage adolescent saying "My parents hate me and don't care if I die!" If they hated this country, they wouldn't have been elected in the first place. Nothing ridiculous about it … it’s true. Just look at trash like Theresa Coffey.
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 18, 2024 15:46:45 GMT
If they hated this country, they wouldn't have been elected in the first place. An argument a Putin will also use... What they really think about the country and the population is in secret. There was a short moment of honesty about it in "Britannia Unchained" though. Sad truth is that they do not need to love the country to get elected, they just have to document the intention to do something. I think it is quite obvious that the initial idea of UK REACH was to be able to declare stuff as safe others regard as unsafe to be able to use opportunities others can not use.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 18, 2024 15:52:46 GMT
Any proof that we are being using as a 'dumping ground' or is this just Guardian skirt-flapping at a hypothetical? Dumping ground in that we’ll still be using that crap and they won’t, unless things change. Ah, so dumping ground as in not a dumping ground. Good journalism.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 18, 2024 16:35:04 GMT
An argument a Putin will also use... What a bloody stupid comment. Putin had all his opponents killed, jailed or disbarred but as far as I am aware, Keir Starmer and all the other opposition party leaders are alive and standing in the next election and we are all free to vote for them if we want. So which party should I vote for? The one who hates this country and wants to do lasting damage, or one of the others? Oooohhh, it's too hard for me to decide, I can't make up my mind up, I need an expert from Brussels to vote on my behalf instead....
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Mar 20, 2024 9:34:53 GMT
Garbage is a growing industry.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Mar 20, 2024 9:37:50 GMT
Here’s one of Scotland’s toxic waste dumps.
|
|