Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Grays_1890]

Dragging more efficient businesses (such as mine and those outside the EU) down to the level of French and Spanish businesses is my best guess.

Add to that environmental regs the UK govt doesn't want, directives such as REACH, etc. Which, in my experience, do nothing to protect people but do a great job of restricting inbound parts early in the process - EU businesses don't traditionally import these parts so it's an easy directive for them to pass.

From understanding of some reports isnt that where the EU has been most effective? You stop certain nations getting too much of an advantage in certain industries so you drag them down to some of the lower denominators in order to not leave people behind?

From what I read the German contingency within the EU implemented regs that assisted the German car business etc?

 

[scaramanga]

From understanding of some reports isnt that where the EU has been most effective? You stop certain nations getting too much of an advantage in certain industries so you drag them down to some of the lower denominators in order to not leave people behind?

From what I read the German contingency within the EU implemented regs that assisted the German car business etc?

Yes, hence the protectionism with other markets.

It works all the time the Borg can keep assimilating economies further down the scale but falls apart when own tried to raise all to the same level.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Some of it is.

Some of it is about substances that are dangerous in one form when used but not further down The nickname that will never catch on or in the life of the product.

There are hugely inferior alternatives available, but that doesn't matter to the inferior EU market. The UK is trying to follow RoW standards under EU restrictions and it simply doesn't work. As with other legislation, a cynic might think it's the EU dragging us down to their level.

The legislation was proposed under dual reasoning: protection of human health and protection of the environment.

Using potentially toxic substances (such as phthalates or brominated flame retardants) is deemed undesirable and REACH will force the use of certain substances to be phased out. Using potentially toxic substances in products other than those ingested by humans (such as electronic devices) may seem to be safe, but there are several ways in which chemicals can enter the human body and the environment. Substances can leave particles during consumer use, for example into the air where they can be inhaled or ingested. Even where they might not do direct harm to humans, they can contaminate the air or water, and can enter the food chain through plants, fish or other animals. According to the European Commission, little safety information exists for 99 percent of the tens of thousands of chemicals placed on the market before 1981.[4] There were 100,106 chemicals in use in the EU in 1981, when the last survey was performed. Of these only 3,000 have been tested and over 800 are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction. These are listed in the Annex 1 of the Dangerous Substances Directive (now Annex VI of the CLP Regulation).

Continued use of many toxic chemicals is sometimes justified because "at very low levels they are not a concern to health".[14] However, many of these substances may bioaccumulate in the human body, thus reaching dangerous concentrations. They may also chemically react with one another,[15] producing new substances with new risks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regis...sation_and_Restriction_of_Chemicals#Rationale


Apparently, if you need to use these banned chemicals you can apply to do so, just have to show it is safe to. See the end of the Wiki article.

The headline statement is 'EU stops companies exporting'. Not really true is it. The EU has laws on dangerous chemicals that can be used on European soil and handled by European workers. It is not about exporting goods, as far as I can see. Maybe you can post a link to that bit or to one of the other areas you mentioned. Or is it all flim flam?

 

[Grays_1890]

Yes, hence the protectionism with other markets.

It works all the time the Borg can keep assimilating economies further down the scale but falls apart when own tried to raise all to the same level.

So you scale down rather than up to protect the weak and even then you bail them out rather than cut them off?

 

[Baleforce]

If the EU were abusing regulation to harm UK industries how come the City did so well for so long?

 

[Grays_1890]

If the EU were abusing regulation to harm UK industries how come the City did so well for so long?

Because the EU had a huge dependency on the City as a financial hub especially their dependency on us a access to capital markets

 

[scaramanga]

The legislation was proposed under dual reasoning: protection of human health and protection of the environment.

Using potentially toxic substances (such as phthalates or brominated flame retardants) is deemed undesirable and REACH will force the use of certain substances to be phased out. Using potentially toxic substances in products other than those ingested by humans (such as electronic devices) may seem to be safe, but there are several ways in which chemicals can enter the human body and the environment. Substances can leave particles during consumer use, for example into the air where they can be inhaled or ingested. Even where they might not do direct harm to humans, they can contaminate the air or water, and can enter the food chain through plants, fish or other animals. According to the European Commission, little safety information exists for 99 percent of the tens of thousands of chemicals placed on the market before 1981.[4] There were 100,106 chemicals in use in the EU in 1981, when the last survey was performed. Of these only 3,000 have been tested and over 800 are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction. These are listed in the Annex 1 of the Dangerous Substances Directive (now Annex VI of the CLP Regulation).

Continued use of many toxic chemicals is sometimes justified because "at very low levels they are not a concern to health".[14] However, many of these substances may bioaccumulate in the human body, thus reaching dangerous concentrations. They may also chemically react with one another,[15] producing new substances with new risks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regis...sation_and_Restriction_of_Chemicals#Rationale


Apparently, if you need to use these banned chemicals you can apply to do so, just have to show it is safe to. See the end of the Wiki article.

The headline statement is 'EU stops companies exporting'. Not really true is it. The EU has laws on dangerous chemicals that can be used on European soil and handled by European workers. It is not about exporting goods, as far as I can see. Maybe you can post a link to that bit or to one of the other areas you mentioned. Or is it all flim flam?

Thanks but I've got a fairly in depth understanding of REACH, having worked against it for a few years now.

We are not able to use chemicals that were unsafe further down the line (outside of the EU) within the EU. Because we can't use the correct source materials, we can't export to anywhere but the EU.

Our industry bodies have fought for years over this and the EU are not budging. Legal teams, lobby groups, the UK govt have all tried and been refused because there's a safer alternative. Nevermind that the method used in the UK and RoW is measurably 6-7x better and far lower risk of failure in process. Doesn't matter to the EU as they work to significantly lower standards than the rest of us.

So yes, with their protectionist methods designed to suit their own manufacturers, they stop the UK being able to export anywhere.

 

[scaramanga]

If the EU were abusing regulation to harm UK industries how come the City did so well for so long?

Because, despite the EU's rhetoric, London is the only sensible place to have the world's financial services.

So there's no point in hampering it as it would never move to the EU anyway.

 

[scaramanga]

So you scale down rather than up to protect the weak and even then you bail them out rather than cut them off?

I think the idea is that the founder countries get to keep selling to other EU countries further down the economic chain. In return, they give the founder countries cheap labour and source materials.

That fails when those newer countries start increasing their living standards (as in CZ, for example) and they get nearer to an even footing. If you can keep assimilating new countries that's fine, but they're pretty much out of them.

 

[SpurMeUp]

We are not able to use chemicals that were unsafe further down the line (outside of the EU) within the EU.

Good if these chemicals are on a banned list, and have been shown to cause cancer, birth defects etc.

Because we can't use the correct source materials, we can't export to anywhere but the EU.

You'll need to explain a little more.

Our industry bodies have fought for years over this and the EU are not budging. Legal teams, lobby groups, the UK govt have all tried and been refused because there's a safer alternative. Nevermind that the method used in the UK and RoW is measurably 6-7x better and far lower risk of failure in process. Doesn't matter to the EU as they work to significantly lower standards than the rest of us.

This doesn't really make sense. I thought the EU outlawed this, yet its been used in the UK? Why would the EU not accept safer and better for its people? As I understand it, the EU is leading the way in ensuing harmful chemicals are not getting into humans or nature. Others around the world are trying to emulate.

So yes, with their protectionist methods designed to suit their own manufacturers, they stop the UK being able to export anywhere.

The UK has been part of the EU, so it didn't suit its own manufacturers?

Seems rather vague and not really backing up the headline that the EU stops exports.

 

[scaramanga]

Good if these chemicals are on a banned list, and have been shown to cause cancer, birth defects etc.

When used unsafely, yes.

Water can kill if used unsafely. Cars, electricity, gas, etc too. These chemicals have been used safely for decades. It was easy for the EU to ban them as they're not required for their low standards. Everyone else needs them.

You'll need to explain a little more.

The UK and RoW require quality standards that cannot be achieved with the EU safe 'equivalent' - certain chemical reactions can only be produced with the correct chemicals, no substitute will do the same.

This doesn't really make sense. I thought the EU outlawed this, yet its been used in the UK? Why would the EU not accept safer and better for its people? As I understand it, the EU is leading the way in ensuing harmful chemicals are not getting into humans or nature. Others around the world are trying to emulate.

It's being phased out in stages. There are currently heavy limitations on use, these will be absolute within a few years.

Nobody else in the world considers it harmful, everyone else considers it essential. The EU doesn't require high product standards, so doesn't.

The chemicals are entirely safe as imported, safe as exported and for the rest of its life. Yet the EU wishes it's control to extend far past its borders and so bans the use even under these conditions.

The UK has been part of the EU, so it didn't suit its own manufacturers?

The UK has actively campaigned against it. But the EU just classifies anything it doesn't want the UK to have a veto on as essential to H&S so we lose it.

Seems rather vague and not really backing up the headline that the EU stops exports.

It's as specific as I can be, but it absolutely stops exports for us and all in our industry.

Within a year the UK will wind back some of REACH so that it only applies when supplying to countries that require it. That's how it should be.

 

[SpurMeUp]

When used unsafely, yes.

Water can kill if used unsafely. Cars, electricity, gas, etc too. These chemicals have been used safely for decades. It was easy for the EU to ban them as they're not required for their low standards. Everyone else needs them.


The UK and RoW require quality standards that cannot be achieved with the EU safe 'equivalent' - certain chemical reactions can only be produced with the correct chemicals, no substitute will do the same.


It's being phased out in stages. There are currently heavy limitations on use, these will be absolute within a few years.

Nobody else in the world considers it harmful, everyone else considers it essential. The EU doesn't require high product standards, so doesn't.

The chemicals are entirely safe as imported, safe as exported and for the rest of its life. Yet the EU wishes it's control to extend far past its borders and so bans the use even under these conditions.


The UK has actively campaigned against it. But the EU just classifies anything it doesn't want the UK to have a veto on as essential to H&S so we lose it.


It's as specific as I can be, but it absolutely stops exports for us and all in our industry.

Within a year the UK will wind back some of REACH so that it only applies when supplying to countries that require it. That's how it should be.

So tantalising. I thought we had something which was a tangible positive of leaving the EU. But you're unable to tell us what it is! You don't have a link or anything?

To me REACH sounds like a world-leading piece of legislation ensuring companies don't put profit before health. That's impossible to do if others in your market are able to - everyone has to manufacture to the cheapest common denominator to compete - so continent-wide legislation makes sense. Stopping carcinogenic chemicals and other nefarious toxins being used in manufacture has to be a good thing. Maybe the detail is not always perfect, but the logic of it seems sound does it not?

 

[scaramanga]

So tantalising. I thought we had something which was a tangible positive of leaving the EU. But you're unable to tell us what it is! You don't have a link or anything?

To me REACH sounds like a world-leading piece of legislation ensuring companies don't put profit before health. That's impossible to do if others in your market are able to - everyone has to manufacture to the cheapest common denominator to compete - so continent-wide legislation makes sense. Stopping carcinogenic chemicals and other nefarious toxins being used in manufacture has to be a good thing. Maybe the detail is not always perfect, but the logic of it seems sound does it not?

REACH is useful in some regards, terrible in others far too much has been included in one piece of legislation.

It's one of the problems with overly centralised governance, like the EU. It can't be made to suit regionally, and the attraction towards bureaucracy will always bloat legislation.

 

[SpurMeUp]

REACH is useful in some regards, terrible in others far too much has been included in one piece of legislation.

It's one of the problems with overly centralised governance, like the EU. It can't be made to suit regionally, and the attraction towards bureaucracy will always bloat legislation.

If humans in Spain were different to humans in Wales and they had a different tolerance of chemicals I would agree. But a toxin is a toxin is a toxin, no?

 

[scaramanga]

If humans in Spain were different to humans in Wales and they had a different tolerance of chemicals I would agree. But a toxin is a toxin is a toxin, no?

Those toxins may be required for production in Spain but not in Wales.

A blanket ban is not the answer.

 

[Grays_1890]

Those toxins may be required for production in Spain but not in Wales.

A blanket ban is not the answer.

Abit like food, some think its ok to eat beefed up beef but it not for everyone

 

[SteveAWOL]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316413351539494912

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316419097685565440

 

[LutonSpurs]

BCG are rinsing them.

 

[markysimmo]

Disgusting when Nurses get £20k a year !!

 

[P.D.]

BCG are rinsing them.

That will be partner rates I'd imagine, depending on the scale of the project there will be 5-10 max on it.