Brexit process

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Feb 2019, 12:05

The EU is split glyphosate....., UK politicians are also split on glyphosate.....
I don't see the outcome/debate being very different whether we're 'in' or 'out'....

That's because, as a consequence of your ideologically driven agenda for the UK to remain a member of the EU, you either don't understand or don't care about democracy. If the pro glyphosate lobby in the EU win the day, there is absolutely no democratic recourse whatsoever for either the UK parliament or, more importantly, the UK people to be able to do a damned thing about it.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 14 Feb 2019, 13:22

Little John wrote:That's because, as a consequence of your ideologically driven agenda for the UK to remain a member of the EU.

Wrong - I didn't vote

Little John wrote:you either don't understand or don't care about democracy.

Wrong & wrong

Little John wrote:If the pro glyphosate lobby in the EU win the day, there is absolutely no democratic recourse whatsoever for either the UK parliament or, more importantly, the UK people to be able to do a damned thing about it.

IMO there's a much greater chance of it being restricted by the EU, than it does by our Environment Minister, ThÃ©rÃ¨se Coffey.....

stumuz1 · Post by **stumuz1** » 14 Feb 2019, 15:17

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 .

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 14 Feb 2019, 15:56

stumuz1 wrote:Glyphosate is regulated by BPR not REACH.

If we're being pedantic, it's actually regulated under the Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPP):
https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate
Apologies, I've edited my previous post.

The wider point, however, is that I believe the EU has a (relatively) good record on environmental regulation.
Remember, before we joined the EU, we were known as the dirty man of Europe and were dragged through the courts many times....

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Feb 2019, 16:16

Mark wrote:
stumuz1 wrote:Glyphosate is regulated by BPR not REACH.
If we're being pedantic, it's actually regulated under the Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPP):
https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate
Apologies, I've edited my previous post.

The wider point, however, is that I believe the EU has a (relatively) good record on environmental regulation.
Remember, before we joined the EU, we were known as the dirty man of Europe and were dragged through the courts many times....

Meanwhile, you continue to completely skirt around/ignore the issue of the demonstrable democratic deficit.

As usual.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 14 Feb 2019, 16:30

stumuz1 wrote: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.

I've variously quoted DEFRA/HSE/CIA/CBA/ENDS.....
All wrong?

stumuz1 · Post by **stumuz1** » 14 Feb 2019, 17:52

Mark wrote: If we're being pedantic, it's actually regulated under the Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPP):
https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate
Apologies, I've edited my previous post.

Glyphosate, dual use, First regulated by COPR then legal tests as in BPR.

Mark wrote: The wider point, however, is that I believe the EU has a (relatively) good record on environmental regulation.
Remember, before we joined the EU, we were known as the dirty man of Europe and were dragged through the courts many times....

Well, the evidence speaks for itself. Air quality, worse. Species loss, worse. Attempting to control food supply through IP regs on seed supply. All pretty shabby.

stumuz1 · Post by **stumuz1** » 14 Feb 2019, 17:56

Mark wrote:
stumuz1 wrote: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.
I've variously quoted DEFRA/HSE/CIA/CBA/ENDS.....
All wrong?

Just because you posted an HSE press release does not mean you understood it.

CIA/ENDS/CBA lobbyists, vested interest groups.

I prefer to read what you, Mark, think. Posting half the internet says exactly, nothing.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Feb 2019, 19:38

So, May has suffered another (non binding) defeat. This time on a statement of negotiation strategy by May to effectively rule out No Deal in negotiations.

Good.

Earlier, a Labour amendment calling for the final, meaningful vote to be held before 27 February was also defeated.

Also good.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 15 Feb 2019, 10:09

stumuz1 wrote:Well, the evidence speaks for itself. Air quality, worse. Species loss, worse. Attempting to control food supply through IP regs on seed supply. All pretty shabby.

Air quality is better than it was in some respects, and worse in others - many coal powered stations are now closed/closing..., but there are still plenty of issues.
River quality is much, much better - just look at the Mersey - again, still not perfect though...
Waste disposal - we were landfilling liquid chemical wastes and dumping human effluent and nuclear waste in the sea prior to the EU....
Species loss is terrible - but is it clear that any replacement for the CAP would be better ?
Seed supply - don't know much about that, but is the IP issue the fault of the EU or Bayer/Monsanto etc. ?

Will we have stronger or weaker environmental regulation outside the EU ?
Only time will tell....

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 15 Feb 2019, 10:14

stumuz1 wrote:Just because you posted an HSE press release does not mean you understood it.

CIA/ENDS/CBA lobbyists, vested interest groups.

I prefer to read what you, Mark, think. Posting half the internet says exactly, nothing.

I've expressed plenty of opinions - particularly wrt the costs involved (I know you disagree on that)
The links I provide are as reference - other people can then also read and make their own minds up.
You very rarely reference your opinions.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 18 Feb 2019, 10:47

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 .

UKâ€™s chemical Catch-22:
https://www.politico.eu/article/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 ECHAâ€™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 â€” 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. Thatâ€™s really the position."

stumuz1 · Post by **stumuz1** » 18 Feb 2019, 14:12

Politico.eu!!

A comment from Politico

Sniggers!

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 18 Feb 2019, 15:33

stumuz1 wrote:Politico.eu!!

A comment from Politico

Sniggers!

Thought you might say that

https://www.politico.eu/about-us/
All fake news....., no grain of truth ?

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 18 Feb 2019, 19:26

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.