Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM

I see mr shaw's last contribution is way off topic and you blame me for distraction!


“He thinks the sun comes up just to hear him crow.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:13 AM

But if you have another referendum that excludes the possibility of remaining you are immediately excluding the opinions of at least a very large minority, or even a small majority, of the electorate... Suppose the choice was between May's deal and no deal, and the turnout was slashed because millions of disgusted remainers refrained from voting (there's no way I'd vote for either of those and I wouldn't be on my own, would I?) How would any result based on that serve democracy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:59 AM

I'm pretty sure that the brexiteers will say that remain has already been ruled out. In answer to that I would say that the leave that they were promised, easy, no downside etc. is a very different leave to the leave they are likely to get!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:52 AM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:24 AM

I think someone said earlier that the choices now are May's deal, no deal or withdraw article 50. I would agree with that. There is no time to negotiate another option. Given that that is true, and I would be happy to be corrected if it is not, then how would parliament go about voting for one of them? Votes have always been binary so will they just use the Noel Edmonds option of deal or no deal, ignoring the elephant in the room of staying put? Or will they do, as I and others have suggested, and try to stay in while saving face?

I think it would be provident to stay put and sell that to the country as a temporary measure until the complex issues are sorted out. The reasoning being that once we leave, that's it but if we stay we can always invoke A50 at a later stage. If that involves another referendum in, say, 2 years then so be it. I disagree with referendums but if it gets us out of the mess we are in, so be it.

Chris Evans on the radio, not noted for deep political analysis but bear with me, said something interesting the other day. It is not so much brexit that is the issue now but that brexit had broken the existing political system. I think he could be right! Maybe David Cameron did do us a favour after all. The system is deeply flawed if one administration can ruin the country for generations to come. Maybe, just maybe, something better will arise from the ashes of May's crash and burn.

Yes, I know, pigs may fly too. I am a glass half full person :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:14 PM

"Teaching science to school children does not make one a scientist it makes one a teacher."

Well, in this country you have to be a science graduate in order to teach science. In fact, I taught children, not science, to 'A' Level for many years, and was an assistant chief examiner for 'A' Level biology for the University of London examinations board. My job entailed moderating the marking of the chief examiner team as well as that of my own team of assistant examiners, and I marked thousands of overseas scripts and adjudicated on grade challenges. Accuracy and close attention to detail were the order of the day. My degree was from Imperial College. Why I'm telling a confounded idiot all this is beyond me, actually. I could also tell you, uselessly no doubt in your case, that it's inadvisable to pay too much heed to the ramblings of a chap whose main aim appears to be to try to blind us with arcane references to many an off-topic enterprise of his that we only have his word for his involvement with. His science, and his understanding of the scientific method, is so shaky that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the companies foolish enough to employ him haven't all gone bust. Or maybe the fact that they haven't is testament to the fact that he was a mere minion within their employ, definitely no leader of men. It can't be both. Still, bobad, your call, me old son.

Anyway, sod all that. I see that May has promised MPs a vote in the dim and distant future as to whether we should enter the backstop. Quite simply, this is a promise she can't make. There's nothing unilateral about the backstop. She's given up control on that one so she's lying to MPs. I'd love to say that her days are numbered, but I can't think who would want to inherit the poisoned chalice. Not any Tory grandee, and not, I suspect, in spite of the bold talk, Jeremy Corbyn. The national interest is well and truly buried. If you have tears, prepare to shed them soon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:39 PM

I know this Brexit stuff feels like it’s been going on for ever, and it can be tempting to switch to something else, but I suggest that it,s better to do that by switching to another thread, and keep this one on target. Things are moving quite quickly, and it's quite handy to have a thread about the issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 04:53 PM

We now have two links to the Guardian article which don't work.

However, thank you to the poster who confirmed that the link which does work is to the correct article.


Just for the record, I never said that the article didn't exist.

And thank you again, Nigel, for the link which does work. Posting it is, as I said, a good way to deal with Ians' nonsense, as it does not say what he appears to understand thinks that it says. I have explained once what it does say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 03:35 PM

He merely reported the results reasonably objectively. This may be construed as heresy by some!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 02:54 PM

Only 20% favour a second referendum.
Only 20% favour leaving with no deal.

I wonder which Guido will concentrate on?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 12:14 PM

Time for a little sanity from Guido

https://order-order.com/2018/12/07/20-back-second-referendum-deal-voted/
cannot link to the next one
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-may-feels-to-win-backing-for-her-deal-as-more-than-half-of-brits-reject-pms-a4011266.html
Note the survey source ipsosmori

Theresa May's efforts to win public backing for her Brexit deal have failed, according to a poll that will pile pressure on her to delay a potentially crushing defeat in the Commons.

More than 60 per cent think leaving the European Union on her terms would be a bad outcome for Britain, including 47 per cent of Conservatives, Ipsos MORI said. Only 25 per cent think the deal would be good.

Seven in 10 are not confident she obtained a good agreement from the EU, including more than half of Conservative supporters. Half of the public say the deal is “worse” than they expected.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:37 AM

So what are the scientific qualifications of the yellow jackets? Or indeed M. Macron for that matter, though he probably does indeed listen to those with scientific qualifications.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:24 AM

Righty-O
Off to hear some great music tonight anyway (forgotten it was Willie Clancy's 100th anniversary)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:14 AM

We have started, Jim. Just waiting for you to join us :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 10:58 AM

I think many here confuse the very rigorous science of collecting data and the less vigorous means available to interpret it. This is further complicated by having to adopt proxies to derive measurements for which no actual techniques exist.
https://www.clim-past.net/13/629/2017/cp-13-629-2017.pdf
There is also a problem potentially when combining terrestrial and satellite data sets and believing satellite data replicating that from ground stations.
Had we relied on satellite data exclusively who knows how big the ozone hole would be. However the exceedingly antique Dobsons photometer saved the day and embarrassed NASA.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/joe-farman-scientist-who-first-uncovered-the-hole-in-the-ozone-layer-8624438.html

Blind belief in the consensus of the IPCC leads to all sorts of problems = just ask mr macron.(if you can find him among the yellow jackets)

I have collected, collated, and interpreted data all my working life. All is not always what it seems.I have learnt to trust nothing and question everything.

If you insist on being led by the nose by the pontificating of the guardian that is up to you. I know better.





Dobson

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 10:19 AM

"The game will never be over until you stop responding, Jim."
Has to be a team effort Dave
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 09:31 AM

The game will never be over until you stop responding, Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 09:13 AM

Your Guardian link doesn't work (again) and you've disparaged Wiki enough to show you only use it when it says the right things
You really are a Trumpite when it comes to global warming, aren't you?
We are allowing the pursuit of profit to destroy our planet - as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather listen to David Attenborough than those who would make a quick buck out of turning about homeland into an uninhabitable desert
Even the rightest of right are now concerned about putting things right - I'll go with them rather than someone who is more interested in winning arguments, if it's ok with you (or if it's not)

All this is very revealing and I am sure you are grateful for the chance to bod us down in irrelevant arguments
Brexit is a fuck up that is destroying our society and stands to destroy our economy
Try that for size and answer some points or at least make some of your own rather than constantly hiding behing predatory and very predictable "Gurus"
Game over o this shit, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:57 AM

A good way to deal with Ians' nonsense, replace his
no-links with a real link to an article

I hate to disappoint people. The article most definitely exists and thank you Nigel for relinking.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-te

There seems to be confusion over consensus.

Scientific
consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
It does not ensure validity either. There are many Christians believe in God. Is there a proof of his existence?


The page you link to does not exist, pretty much like all the claims you have made
I cannot be bothered to go back to the original articles and link them so here is a wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:20 AM

Ha ha Nigel.

A good way to deal with Ians' nonsense, replace his
no-links with a real link to an article written by those who believe in man-made climate change which explains that many Americans fail to realise that the scientific consensus in favour of believing in man-made climate change is over 90%, and which also deals with some attempts to rubbish the idea and dismisses them. The article also explains that some politicians (US Republican ones linked to the fossil fuel industry) have said that a good way to combat public concern about climate change is to convince them that the scientific community is heavily divided on the issue, because if people realised how many scientists believed in it they would be more likely to believe in it too.

Some, of course, go further down the line and just seek to discredit science as a whole. My understanding is that this may be easier in the US because a lot of religious people prefer what a book called 'The Bible' says to what science says on a number of issues.


It cannot be a coincidence that so many people who object on ideological to regulations and controls on big industry and multinationals also seek to argue that stuff like pollution and climate change don't exist.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:18 AM

For someone that professes to be a well trained scientist you appear to know precious little about the scientific method.

Teaching science to school children does not make one a scientist it makes one a teacher.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:12 AM

Thanks Nigel
So - someone has put up another theory
As things stand at present it would be totally insane to take any chances
Go with what we know, (or trust) as far as I'm concerned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:01 AM

The page you link to does not exist, pretty much like all the claims you have made
Jim Carroll

The page does exist, even if Iain's link is faulty: Here: The Guardian

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:55 AM

Raggy - :-D

Jim. Just don't respond at all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:21 AM

The impact of Global warming is happening now and those involved have given their verdict as to its causes
Waiting for it to happen is somewhat like ignoring all the warning signs of Brexit until they come to fruition
Tending to the future of the planet and managing the economy doesn't work like that - both depend entirely on planning for the future
Even the most stupid know that, bar some, it would appear

"Even the gruniard gets in on the act."
The page you link to does not exist, pretty much like all the claims you have made
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:13 AM

"On the other hand if you are saying you can find a tiny group who believe pretty much anything .................."

I think that neatly describes the Brexiteers on here !

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:07 AM

Flat earthers believed it was absolutely settled science. 

That really is a wind up, surely? Science has never claimed the earth was flat, nor did the ancient Greeks etc, well before science existed as a discipline. On the other hand if you are saying you can find a tiny group who believe pretty much anything and are prepared to assert science agrees with them whether it does or not, well, that may be true.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:57 AM

Even the gruniard gets in on the act.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-te

My take is that human activity makes a partial contribution to global warming. The true impact of that is as yet unresolved. Their are many models, many theories many publications but not 100% agreement as to what it all means.
What is goldplated this week may well be a pile of rust by next week!
Just look at the change over the last 50 years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:49 AM

Climate change is absolutely settled science, and the rest of your post is unfocussed waffle. I don't know why you bother.

Flat earthers believed it was absolutely settled science. Here are a few other gems.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/

scientific method
noun
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

    a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Is unfocused the new word of the moment when the idea box is empty?
For someone that professes to be a well trained scientist you appear to know precious little about the scientific method.

Freezing in the 70's, warming in the 90's changing today.
A perfect example that the science is not consistent over time.
I wonder what the consensus will be in 20 years?
and as you have been wont to say consensus is not SCIENCE

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:06 AM

ANOTHER CLOUD ON THE HORIZON
Should add a few years on to the estimated time for Britain to recover from Brexit

"I don't know why you bother. "
It's us that don't need to bother Steve
This feller serves only to show how low society can sink if we take our eye of the ball
His behavior makes him unfit to be let out without a keeper
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 05:58 AM

Steve, he is just a wind up merchant. I suggest you just don't respond at all.

Jim - Same goes for you. Don't do it!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 05:53 AM

Climate change is absolutely settled science, and the rest of your post is unfocussed waffle. I don't know why you bother.

What's lamentable is that the Norway option has been bandied around forever by certain softie-brexiteers as an alternative, whilst Norway has been telling us since the referendum that it's impossible (and if Norway sez it's impossible, it's impossible). The fact that it's still been on the table until now in the minds of some brexiteers is yet another example of the brainless hubris of leavers who think that we can cut ourselves adrift and still call any shots.

Stand by for Canuckistan plus plus plus plus plus plus...minus...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 05:37 AM

"Britain stands to lose what little environmental protection it has if the extremest Brexiters have their way at a time when cleaning up the planet has become a life-or-death."
Did that come out of a christmas cracker, or was it from Podge and Rodge's scare at bedtime?
Britain started the industrial revolution and also led the world in legislation to protect workers.(e.g. The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act in 1802, followed by the cotton millsand Factories Act 1819. If you seriously think this and all subsequent protection will unravel because of brexit you are away with fairies.
Your problem is that you think you know what you are talking about whereas I have been at the "coalface". You have been festering in a bog, whereas I was doing the science in Borneo on my 65th birthday. Do you think workers in the nuclear industry will no longer be monitored for personal dosages, that people will enter hazardous areas without PPE. Even in Ireland if a farmer wants to use any spraying equipment he needs to be trained. To ignore such requirements risks part of their payments. The latter is a typical example of very recent legislation.
I am afraid you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
In Syria, Iraq, the Yemen. Angola and many other places I have worked the safety regime has been practically identical when using potential chemical pollutants. If you were conversant with the measures companies such as BP put in place to protect their workers in places like Iraq your view of multinationals would change.
Was it not the EU that reduced the distance required to read a number plate from 75ft to 20m?
Your knowledge is stuck in a timewarp and influenced by mickey mouse outfits such as greenpeace and ludicrous scare stories from lefty rags like the guardian. If you were in the real world and had some slight familiarity with the subject matter I might consider your opinions, but you jump around the dartboard like a demented dervish pulling bits of this and bits of that in order to construct you fallacious arguments. How can anyone take your ramblings seriously? You started your rant babbling about a victorian legacy of pollution and carrying on as though it happened yesterday. The march of progress is littered with errors. Newspapers threatened an ice age in the 70's, global warming in the 90's and climate change today. All based on "impeccable" science! As was thalidomide and the indiscriminate use of asbestos.
Early cigarette advertising enthused about the benefits, today the only benefit would be perceived as a limited cull. You conveniently overlook the fact that much cutting edge science is not settled. There are both proponents and opponents. Climate change is a prime example.
Much of the data is obtained by the use of proxies. How reliable is that? The understanding of Carbon dating today is a multiple morphed beastie compared to when first introduced. Study the history of that and then look closely at those climate proxies.Just because something is mainstream it by no means guarantees it's validity. Your superiors just luv it being mainstream because the bulk of the sheeple will accept whatever it is. There is no need for a Goebbels, the age of spin has constructed his alter egos in the mainstream and in cyber space. You Jim are a prime example of one led by the nose.

Why you introduce Assad into the conversation escapes me. You are floundering again. I think Teribus demonstrated very clearly the fallacy of your argument. I am very glad you did not have the opportunity to submit any scientific reports to me. I would have had no hesitation in firing you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 04:34 AM

Norway rejects Norway+

Yet another example, I fear, of the UK assuming it can have whatever it wants without realising others have their interests too.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 04:00 AM

"I think we are going to have to differ."
What you do is unimportant - the point remains
Britain stands to lose what little environmental protection it has if the extremest Brexiters have their way at a time when cleaning up the planet has become a life-or-death issue
May not concern you, I can only hope you are in the minority - I read some of your views on Global warming, so your attitude hardly comes as a surprise
None of this is an "issue of the past" - it is what is happening now and what is likely to happen in the immediate future
If/when Britain leaves Europe things issues like the environment and human rights will be thrown into doubt

Britain is already a human rights abuser, by proxy - we fill our shops with goods produced in appalling, near-slave conditions - that can only accelerate after Brexit
We sell weapons to some of the world's worst oppressors - on the eve of the Arab Spring protests the British Prime Minister opened a huge Arms Fair aimed at the very people being protested against
When British, French and U.S. troops went into Libya to remove a dictator who had been put into place with the support of these nations (contradiction enough) they were fired on by shells licensed by the British Government
One of the great torturers and mass murderers today, Bashir al Assad, was supplied with riot equipment and sniper rifle ammunition which was used to suppress human rights protesters in Syria
It later transpired that we had supplied chemicals that may have been used to produce the weapons that were illegally used against the Syrian people.
Britain sold fighter plane to the Saudis that were almost certainly used against the Yemeni people at a time when the Brexiteers were taking steps to ascertain that refugees such as those fleeing the Yemen would not be given shelter in Britain

Brexit goes far beyond the future of the Britain economically and politically; it puts blood on all our hands by making us accomplices in State Terrorism - as if we weren't wading in that blood already
We have yet to see he full effects of the rise of the Neo-Nazi Genii that the Populism used to win Brexit has let out of the bottle - it has already put in appearance on British streets
We ain't seen nothing yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 03:01 AM

The problem is the British producers don't produce a lot of the stuff we need and want. We rely on imports, as does every country in the world, which is why all this nonsense about a trade deficit with a particular part of the world is just that, nonsense. Trump spouts this, so do some on here. Trade tariffs are a direct tax on your own consumers. The point of trade is to enable you to get the stuff which isn't made locally.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 11:41 PM

It's a perfect example of the kind of false equivalence nonsense the Brexit Banana-Bunch used to bamboozle people into voting Leave. Another being the assertion that, by leaving the EU, 'we will be free to negotiate our own trade deals' - on the face of it fair enough, but who can guarantee that those deals will materialise quickly, or at all, or that, even if they do, they will be better than the deals already in place via our membership of the EU?

Up there for thinkin', down there for dancin'!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 09:47 PM

"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."

Nothing straightforward in that, even if it might be true. The implication in that sentence would appear to be that the less to the EU and the more to the UK and the world would balance out, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 04:01 PM

I think we are going to have to differ. The areas you are talking about are historical sites originating before adequate legislation existed.
Legislation in itself does not cure past mistakes and omissions. You would find that when redevelopment occurs on brownfield sites,a vast swathe of regulations come into play. The initial procedure is covered by BS 5930:2015, "the code of practice for site investigations", a UK code of practice which came into effect on 31 July 2015 by the British Standards Institution. This establishes the type and degree of pollutants and the consulting engineers would outline recommended remedialmeasure. .Even though it is nearly20 years since I had any involvement I know the regulations always become more onerous when updated.
Highlighting past "malpractise" as being the fault of modern industrial practice is blatant dishonesty. Even moving uncontaminated topsoil in the uk requires a license. There is contaminated land in the UK stretching back beyond roman times to the birth of smelting. Humans create waste on an epic scale, dealing with it in an environmentally sensitive fashion is a recent process still under development.
Interestingly China hhas legislation about pollutants also. Here is a gem from Al Jazeera We can no longer export our plastic rubbish to pollute someone else's backyard.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 02:49 PM

"You make a mistake holding up the EU as the goldstandard for chemicals and their control, distribution and removal"
And you make the mistake of believing that a quick shufti though the net will will wipe ot concerns that have been covered thoroughly in the international press and which are now prominent of the concerns of the environmental bodies - doesn't work like that
I suggest you look up exactly how effective international regulations are on pollution
Two of your linked articles are around a quarter of a century old, during which time environmental pollution has reached "doomsday point" - international regulations, be damned
European countries are Capitalism controlled and as such, as prone as anywhere to breach laws in order to make money - however, Europe gets off pretty lightly as far as major pollution by dumping is concerned
This is immaterial
The concern is that Brexit Britain will seek the slackening of regulations in order to increase trade with some of the world's worst polluters - China and India feature prominently in this endeavour
As far as your own experiences are concerned, which I am sure are first carefully filtered through your desire to protect the status quo and the establishment
I spent large parts of my life in areas that were severely effected by pollution cased by large-scale industrial dumping, despite all the regulations.
I have friends and family whose lives are still effected by it - rivers, waste land, woods and forests....   
THIS APOLIGIST DOCUMENT FROM THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY SAYS IT ALL   

We seem to have moved on from "Your huge chemical dumping grounds are a figment of your imagination" to "it's a figment of everybody else's imagination" apart from yours. of course
Denial and stonewalling seem to come natural to some people
As I said, no apology and no withdrawal - just more obfuscation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 01:30 PM

https://chemicalwatch.com/69212/no-deal-brexit-could-make-uk-chemicals-dumping-ground
Chemical watch is an online publishing outfit formed in 2007. They are simply scaremongering. It is the season of goodwill so Greenpeace need to go out and get their begging tins out.

You make a mistake holding up the EU as the goldstandard for chemicals and their control, distribution and removal

International treaties have existed for decades: A link somewhat out of date but gives the basics.
https://archive.epa.gov/oswer/international/web/html/200610-international-chemical-hazards.html#multilateral
Having worked internationally using various chemicals I hsve seen a progressive tightening of the regulations over time concurrent with the growth of the role of safety officers to police their implementation.
http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2016/09/06/ghs-classifying-chemical-substances/
I have also worked on landfill hazardous waste cell construction and contaminated sites. From my own experience I know that over time regulations become ever more stringent. The international aspect of many regulations makes the thought of their relaxation after brexit risible.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/894/contents/made
In a nutshell many of the regulations are subject to International treaty, EU regulations are a subset.
To suggest that brexit will lead to relaxation of legislation in my view is ludicrous. It takes a couple of minutes on the internet to determine the hazmat classification and hence handling instructions for any chemical. Who in their right mind would volunteer to ignore them?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 01:13 PM

Here's something to debate from the Independent today

"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."


I would debate it, Karen, but I suspect we are pretty much in agreement. The sentence is a mass of assumptions and dubious claims - I wonder exactly why the British producers will sell more to the UK for example. If the demand is there now, why are they not selling at home already? If it is so, it needs far more explanation than a simple throw-away line.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 12:31 PM

FOR THE MORE LITERATE AMONG US

AND ANOTHER POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF BREXIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 12:27 PM

"The decline of industry since the 70/s is well documented, as are the causes. "
The decline of industry is not at issue here, what is is what are these "feet" that Britain are going to stand on when it leaves Europe
It's already been established that the system we live under is in decline - "going it alone" while at the same time blaming immigration for a natural decline in a moribund system only acts as a diversion (pretty well as your irrelevant points are acting as a diversion to this discussion).
The E.U. is a gathering of States living under a dying system - together the fall might just be a soft one when it comes, as it inevitably will
We can already see what "going it alone" is likely to produce
We already have a sharp rise in racism, Trump's flag waving militaristic threats have moved the atomic clock nearer midnight in the short time he has been in power
The ultra-right are on the move again, it is no accident that, in Europe they are aiming to destroy the E.U.

Add to this mix the Oil Wars that have established the poorer nations, not only incited by West, but armed by them, which is leading to a rise in religious fundamentalism
If Global warming wasn't enough, ll this is leading to a planet unfit for Human habitation
This is the level we need to discuss - not crappy blogs by a career blogger who has turned blogging into a self-serving cottage industry

"Your huge chemical dumping grounds are a figment of your imagination."
I don't expect either a withdrawal (not your thing apparently) but

https://chemicalwatch.com/69212/no-deal-brexit-could-make-uk-chemicals-dumping-ground

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 10:05 AM

"Recent events have clearly shown that the UK needs a written constitution. We may well be in a no mans land for British government in the near future. Possibly even a constitutional crisis."

IF this is a case, I is a manufactured state of affairs that lies squarely at the feet of Cameron. If the referendum hadn't of been held in the first place.......

The real question is who should be paying the price? I would argue that should be 100% down to the electorate of Witney who were stupid enough to elect him in the first place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 10:05 AM

The decline of industry since the 70/s is well documented, as are the causes. Were this a feature unique to Britain it would be a major cause of concern. HOWEVER it is a decline shared by all advanced western economies. It is a fact of life. Meanwhile other fields of employment have been created. It is a reality, and is an ever changing dynamic. It started long before the common market was ever dreamed of. Industrialisation created both better agricultural machinery and lead to a dramatic decline in agricultural workers. In 1800 30+% of the labour force worked in agriculture, today it is roughly 1% with a consistent decline up until about 1980 when it slowed. Coal mining peaked in 1920 employing 1,191,000. By 2015 the number was 2000.
In 1971 the steel industry employed 350,000, 32000 today.
Constantly bringing up the decline of industry in a discussion about brexit is merely a red herring. It contributes nothing to the debate. It is pointless. You would be better off considering the impact of technology in the future rather than harping on about a mythical golden age that never existed.
You cannot cherry pick progress, it comes as a package.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 09:25 AM

Here's something to debate from the Independent today

"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."

What I noticed about this is that the focus is on what British producers sell, not on what we buy, which includes a great deal of our food. The economics of the deal has to be about more than what our producers sell. And what some people are interested in is what they can sell to us after we leave the EU and they want to be able to sell us stuff that does not meet EU standards.

I also noticed that it doesn't take into account our making of parts of things which can then move freely into Europe to be finished. And so on.

There is so much that this apparently short and 'to the point' statement does not take account of, including security, policing, scientific research, EURATOM, working conditions, and so on.

I am thinking that in any case 'Economics' is not an exact science and never has been. And that any economic predictions must be based upon 'assumptions' so criticisms of various analyses on the basis that they do contain 'assumptions' and a bit unfair.

Moreover, the situation regarding the island of Ireland is not directly an economic one, though plainly the problems relating to the 'backstop' do have potential economic consequences as having another big outbreak of sectarian or nationalist violence will cost both the British and the Irish governments.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 05:31 AM

"I think it is time just to ignore him, people. "
@bout right - we should have done this long ago
here's little point in being diverted by someone who denys facts and offers none of his own
Every single point I've made here is verifiable - including the Chemical dump, but there's little point of making the effort to dig up the link again for someone who will just ignore it and move on
This feller has no intention of entering into debate - his knee jerk reaction is to hurl abuse at anybody who presents something he can't deal with
Anybody will balls would counter it with information of his own instead of sprinting behind a mindless "GURU" - (I think that's the term you used Iains)
Let's move on
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 05:28 AM

"These are the people responsible for 100's of new laws each year to keep the rest of us in check!"

And the two old ladies in the Truro bus shelter, who think that MPs don't pay income tax and never use the NHS, and who think that "the Germans" are very dodgy, are, along with millions just like them, the people who are dragging us out of the EU. A bit weird, this democracy lark, innit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 05:11 AM

I was an early member of Charter88, which amongst other things sought a written constitution. Mrs Thatcher was very much against the idea and wrote a response - which was quite correct in this respect - that some of the countries with worst human rights and corruption have a written constitution. It is a useful tool in the armoury, but it is a very limited defence in itself.