Brexit process

[Little John]

If you look back into history male physical power ruled so women mainly took a back seat except for a few very strong Queens and a few women elsewhere. Men did much of the physical labour, or thought that they did, and women did the more homely physical tasks. Men did the fighting and women were the receivers of much of that violence......

No they weren't. Or, at least not in the main. Though, this does vary depending on the severity of the patriarchal nature of a given society. All other thing being equal, men always were and still are vastly - and I do mean VASTLY - more likely to be at the receiving end of violence from ANY quarter than are women

[vtsnowedin]

If you look back into history male physical power ruled so women mainly took a back seat except for a few very strong Queens and a few women elsewhere. Men did much of the physical labour, or thought that they did, and women did the more homely physical tasks. Men did the fighting and women were the receivers of much of that violence......

No they weren't. Or, at least not in the main. Though, this does vary depending on the severity of the patriarchal nature of a given society. All other thing being equal, men always were and still are vastly - and I do mean VASTLY - more likely to be at the receiving end of violence from ANY quarter than are women

I beg to differ. Throughout history the winning side in a battle rapes the women from the losing side and that goes right up to the Russian capture of Berlin in WW2. Something they don't teach you in grade school but our history nonetheless.

[Mark]

R= doomsday book of substances ( periodic table 'aint that big)

Rubbish.
Periodic Table - 118 Elements
REACH Substance Registrations - 21,000+ and counting.....
Typical costs fall in the range of €50,000-100,000 per substance registration.....

E= A bunch of Bureaucrats scratch their collective chins in Helsinki who decide if you can place your substance on the market

Rubbish.
Dossier and Toxicology testing reviews isn't being done by Bureaucrats.....

A= The commission decides which German/French chemical company it wishes to monopolise certain substances. And then passes a law banning rest of the world chemical companies getting their substances onto the EU market.

Rubbish again.
Only Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) are banned....
The list of banned substances isn't massively long - I for one am happy to ban the very worst of the worst...

Its not that difficult. Even tho' it's morphed into the largest, most complex body of law in human history.

You may not like it, but that's the reality, and why it's so important....?

Well why wouldn't you pass a law that nicks the publicly available data base and use it to keep EU registered chemicals out? .

Rubbish yet again....
Appreciate you're trying to be a little provocative on here, but I wouldn't pay you in washers if this is the quality of your consultancy advice ??

Like the GHS?
http://www.hse.gov.uk/chemical-classifi ... es-ghs.htm .

The Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for chemical labelling is definitely a step in the right direction, however in practice it is currently neither Global, nor Harmonised.
As you will know, the EU work to CLP and the UK used to work to CHIP....

Yes, because its economy is mostly desert agriculture and only opened its first port in 1986. Your point is?

YOUR point was that the EU is only about cartels....., but one man's cartel is another man's Trade Deal....
In the bright new post-Brexit world, we're supposed to be signing great new Trade Deals with Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC) and all the rest....
Will you also consider these to be 'cartels', or will it be OK, because the it will be the UK signing them....???

[Little John]

If you look back into history male physical power ruled so women mainly took a back seat except for a few very strong Queens and a few women elsewhere. Men did much of the physical labour, or thought that they did, and women did the more homely physical tasks. Men did the fighting and women were the receivers of much of that violence......

No they weren't. Or, at least not in the main. Though, this does vary depending on the severity of the patriarchal nature of a given society. All other thing being equal, men always were and still are vastly - and I do mean VASTLY - more likely to be at the receiving end of violence from ANY quarter than are women

I beg to differ. Throughout history the winning side in a battle rapes the women from the losing side and that goes right up to the Russian capture of Berlin in WW2. Something they don't teach you in grade school but our history nonetheless.

I didn't say bad men do not do bad things to women at certain critical junctures. I said that men experience the vast majority of violence from any quarter as compared to women. Even in the domestic setting, in most Western countries, men are more likely to be assaulted by their female partner, than the other way around. This is quantifiablely and unarguably true. It is based on peer reviewed research. I know it does not fit the current dominant, insane narrative that masculinity, itself, is toxic. But, those are the facts.

[stumuz1]

R= doomsday book of substances ( periodic table 'aint that big)

Rubbish.
Periodic Table - 118 Elements
REACH Substance Registrations - 21,000+ and counting.....
Typical costs fall in the range of €50,000-100,000 per substance registration.....

Would you like me to use the word registration instead of doomsday? OK, in 1066 William came over and ordered all the land to be " registered in a book"

A substance is a chemical element and its compounds in the natural state or obtained by any manufacturing process, including any additive necessary to preserve its stability and any impurity deriving from the process used.

I think you have answered your own question there! 118 elements, 21000 registrations. Hmm

E= A bunch of Bureaucrats scratch their collective chins in Helsinki who decide if you can place your substance on the market

Rubbish.
Dossier and Toxicology testing reviews isn't being done by Bureaucrats.....

Who said they were?

A= The commission decides which German/French chemical company it wishes to monopolise certain substances. And then passes a law banning rest of the world chemical companies getting their substances onto the EU market.

Rubbish again.
Only Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) are banned....
The list of banned substances isn't massively long - I for one am happy to ban the very worst of the worst...

Again, who said anything about SHVC's? If you don't get your substance registered, the law states its banned. Simple. No registration=no market.

Its not that difficult. Even tho' it's morphed into the largest, most complex body of law in human history.

You may not like it, but that's the reality, and why it's so important....? .

I love it!! It's a very fruitful source of income

Well why wouldn't you pass a law that nicks the publicly available data base and use it to keep EU registered chemicals out? .

Rubbish yet again....
Appreciate you're trying to be a little provocative on here, but I wouldn't pay you in washers if this is the quality of your consultancy advice ??.

I've got some shocking news for you Mark. China, Korea, Russia, USA etc, manipulated their legal systems to benefit their domestic industries. If you wish to believe the EU does not, well, bless.

You might want to look up EU law that states a banana is not a fruit. In the EU a banana is an easily transported food group particularly favoured by the old and young..... but it's not a fruit. Commission v United Brands.

Like the GHS?
http://www.hse.gov.uk/chemical-classifi ... es-ghs.htm .

The Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for chemical labelling is definitely a step in the right direction, however in practice it is currently neither Global, nor Harmonised.
As you will know, the EU work to CLP and the UK used to work to CHIP....

CLP is how the EU implement GHS. geddit? As for CHIP.... Reagon's been shot.

Yes, because its economy is mostly desert agriculture and only opened its first port in 1986. Your point is?

YOUR point was that the EU is only about cartels....., but one man's cartel is another man's Trade Deal....
In the bright new post-Brexit world, we're supposed to be signing great new Trade Deals with Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC) and all the rest....
Will you also consider these to be 'cartels', or will it be OK, because the it will be the UK signing them....???

Yes, because our trade deals will prefer UK centered business. Simple

[vtsnowedin]

In the bright new post-Brexit world, we're supposed to be signing great new Trade Deals with Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC) and all the rest....
Will you also consider these to be 'cartels', or will it be OK, because the it will be the UK signing them....???

Yes, because our trade deals will prefer UK centered business. Simple[/quote]
You are assuming the UK trade negotiators are competent and have their wits about them."Peace in our time" comes to mind.

[stumuz1]

We won't get any better until we start trying and failing.

At its very basic, I want to live in a Nation state. Not a member state.

[Mark]

Yes, because our trade deals will prefer UK centered business. Simple

You are assuming the UK trade negotiators are competent and have their wits about them."Peace in our time" comes to mind.

Stumuz seems to think that the UK has some great domestic chemical industry ready to conquer the world like we were still living in 1900. The reality is that the majority of chemical plants in the UK are part of wider foreign owned groups.....

REACH is a good thing - we should all want chemicals to be Registered, Evaluated and Authorised. The outcome is a more comprehensive Safety Data Sheet for end users, where as before, producers could just use phrases like 'data not available'.

If the UK leaves the EU with a Hard Brexit, our plan is to set up a UK 'mirror' of REACH - ie exactly the same outcome, but twice the bureaucracy, cost, animal testing etc. etc. One of the many prices we will have to pay for 'regaining control'.....

I'm not saying the EU is perfect - and of course it will favour domestic industries (including UK ones). However some of the criticism is just stupid - Stumuz seems very vexed about the EU's position on bananas, when as far as I'm aware, it has no banana industry to protect (straight, bent, or otherwise)....,

World trade is interconnected....., many businesses are transnational....., pulling up the drawbridge will be an economic disaster....

In the news today:

Sony to move Europe headquarters to avoid Brexit disruption:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46968720
Brexit uncertainty is a disgrace, says Airbus:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46984229

[fuzzy]

A spinning back kick from Tom:

https://tomluongo.me/2019/01/23/panic-t ... er-brexit/

[PS_RalphW]

- Stumuz seems very vexed about the EU's position on bananas, when as far as I'm aware, it has no banana industry to protect (straight, bent, or otherwise)....,

More than you ever wanted to know about importing bananas...

https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/ ... lie-ahead/

All the problems seem political, and some date back to colonial times

[kenneal - lagger]

Mark, you and all other Remainers seem to think that the EU will go sailing on into the future on the economists favourite trajectory of linearly ever upwards as economists have been saying since there start of the campaign. Fort a start those economists are people who believe in infinite growth in a finite environment; for seconds things don't increase linearly in economics they increase exponentially; and thirdly things regularly crash in economics and usually when economists are least expecting it! And you believe what economists tell you?

[Mark]

Mark, you and all other Remainers seem to think that the EU will go sailing on into the future on the economists favourite trajectory of linearly ever upwards as economists have been saying since there start of the campaign. Fort a start those economists are people who believe in infinite growth in a finite environment; for seconds things don't increase linearly in economics they increase exponentially; and thirdly things regularly crash in economics and usually when economists are least expecting it! And you believe what economists tell you?

1. I didn't vote 'Remain', see my post a couple of pages back. I just think that a cliff edge Hard Brexit is going to be an economic disaster. Somewhere there's a middle ground (better deal ?)
2. No, I certainly don't believe in infinite growth in a finite environment, we need to plan as best we can for a managed descent. All of us on here can probably agree on that one ?
3. Yes, we're heading for an economic crash as some point, but would Hard Brexit slow the inevitable or accelerate us towards it.....?

[stumuz1]

Stumuz seems to think that the UK has some great domestic chemical industry ready to conquer the world like we were still living in 1900. The reality is that the majority of chemical plants in the UK are part of wider foreign owned groups......

Do not presume to know what I think! You will be disappointed.

Our domestic chemical manufacturers moved to china/Asia donkeys years ago. What we do have is a fantastic speciality chemical industry. Very nimble and dynamic.

REACH is a good thing - we should all want chemicals to be Registered, Evaluated and Authorised. The outcome is a more comprehensive Safety Data Sheet for end users, where as before, producers could just use phrases like 'data not available'..

Completely agree, UK REACH will do the same.

If the UK leaves the EU with a Hard Brexit, our plan is to set up a UK 'mirror' of REACH - ie exactly the same outcome, but twice the bureaucracy, cost, animal testing etc. etc. One of the many prices we will have to pay for 'regaining control'.....

Absolute twaddle. Costs are already paid. only cost will be for EU based firms to pay for UK REACH. UK firms just need to appoint an only rep.

- and of course it will favour domestic industries (including UK ones). However some of the criticism is just stupid - Stumuz seems very vexed about the EU's position on bananas, when as far as I'm aware, it has no banana industry to protect (straight, bent, or otherwise)....,.

Ah, the banana thing went over your head.

Years ago an American company called united brands had a dominant position in the EU market supplying bananas. Eu types wanted an EU company to have the dominant position (ie controlled the market)
According to EU law at the time you only had a dominant position if it controlled X % of the market for fruit. United Brands ( a fruit exporter) had below this threshold. So the EU changed the law to say a banana was not a fruit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A banana is an easily transported food group favoured by the old and young!!!!
DON'T YER JUST LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was an example of how political the ECJ is at twisting facts to suit a EU member state (beneficial outcome was for France)

[Potemkin Villager]

A lot of pro Brexit stuff endlessly bemoans the fact that the UK has done so badly out of being a member of the EU from the get go. Apparently every treaty and deal ever done has somehow unfairly disadvantaged the UK compared to other EU members.

Surely there must be some occasions when facts have been twisted to advantage the UK or am I to believe that overall the UK has been a nett loser?

A lot of the disadvantage could be down to being piss poor negotiators who cannot take advantage with English as their first, and often only, language negotiating, in English, with people for whom it is their second or third language.

I now understand why the Aussies go on so much about whinging Poms!

[kenneal - lagger]

We have done so badly out of the EU because our idiot civil servants gold plate EU regulations when translating them into English. Out of the EU the silly sods won't get the chance to gold plate laws coming out of parliament.

Also as one of the stronger economies we have always had to pay to keep most of the others in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Also as one of the economies which pay into the Union we are having to subsidise the criminality of a system which hasn't been signed off by its auditors since it was conceived as far as I know. I would be happy to be put right on that though.