Brexit Penny Dropping?

[La Colombe]

 

[manxman1980]

Another Brexit benefit...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/19/revealed-far-higher-pesticide-residues-allowed-on-food-since-brexit 

[woolley]

On 9/19/2024 at 12:44 PM, manxman1980 said:

Another Brexit benefit...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/19/revealed-far-higher-pesticide-residues-allowed-on-food-since-brexit 

Shock, horror. Protectionist EU is over-regulated. Yet, if anything, incidence of cancer mortality is greater in the EU than in the US, even after taking the older EU population into account. Again, you are saying you prefer the UK to be dictated to by Brussels than to run its affairs as it sees fit. A curious stance.

[manxman1980]

18 minutes ago, woolley said:

Shock, horror. Protectionist EU is over-regulated. Yet, if anything, incidence of cancer mortality is greater in the EU than in the US, even after taking the older EU population into account. Again, you are saying you prefer the UK to be dictated to by Brussels than to run its affairs as it sees fit. A curious stance.

I am saying I don't agree with the deregulation of dangerous pesticides.  If the EU's standards are not good enough then should the UK not be increasing them not relaxing them?  

Have you taken a look at the report on Grenfell?  The "bonfire of red tape" promised by Cameron led to that horrific night and Brexiteers often cite further culling of 'red tape' without ever considering what its purpose is.  

[woolley]

25 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I am saying I don't agree with the deregulation of dangerous pesticides.  If the EU's standards are not good enough then should the UK not be increasing them not relaxing them?  

Have you taken a look at the report on Grenfell?  The "bonfire of red tape" promised by Cameron led to that horrific night and Brexiteers often cite further culling of 'red tape' without ever considering what its purpose is.  

Then it is incumbent on government to get it right. Note - this does not mean to over-regulate everything. There are many reasons for regulation, not all of them are to do with health or safety. Often they are introduced for economic or political purposes and certainly in the EU, for instance, to protect French farmers from competition.

The rot on fire regulations started when they took responsibility for issuing building fire safety certificates away from fire brigades. Stupid idea. I think it happened under Blair and things got worse under the Tories. Does this mean we should appoint a bureaucracy in Brussels to organise UK regulation? Of course it doesn't.

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Then it is incumbent on government to get it right.

I won't disagree with that statement.  

1 hour ago, woolley said:

There are many reasons for regulation, not all of them are to do with health or safety. Often they are introduced for economic or political purposes and certainly in the EU, for instance, to protect French farmers from competition.

Possibly, but equally some of the deregulation has been to allow post-Brexit Trade Deals to be trumpeted as successes when there economic value is minimal and in order to secure them the UK had to drop standards.  Personally, I don't see that as a benefit.  It just means poorer quality and higher risk especially when it comes to food.

1 hour ago, woolley said:

The rot on fire regulations started when they took responsibility for issuing building fire safety certificates away from fire brigades. Stupid idea. I think it happened under Blair and things got worse under the Tories. Does this mean we should appoint a bureaucracy in Brussels to organise UK regulation? Of course it doesn't.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, that hero of brexit, amongst others called for far greater deregulation.  Well Grenfell is a sad tale of what happens when this idea is put into place.  Rees-Mogg and others would prefer to rip up legislation designed to protect citizens and instead allow companies (preferably ones that give him money) to do what they wish in the vague hope that the market would regulate itself.

What the EU did was safeguard against such acts of stupidity and whilst it was and is far from perfect it did mean that idiots could not run completely rampant.  Just look at the "leaders" who have risen to power post Brexit in the UK.  Johnson, Truss, Sunak ably supported by JRM, Patel, etc etc.  Hardly any competence in the ranks of Government because all those who were sensible did not believe that Brexit was the right thing to do. 

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

 

Jacob Rees-Mogg, that hero of brexit, amongst others called for far greater deregulation.  Well Grenfell is a sad tale of what happens when this idea is put into place.  Rees-Mogg and others would prefer to rip up legislation designed to protect citizens and instead allow companies (preferably ones that give him money) to do what they wish in the vague hope that the market would regulate itself.

What the EU did was safeguard against such acts of stupidity and whilst it was and is far from perfect it did mean that idiots could not run completely rampant.  Just look at the "leaders" who have risen to power post Brexit in the UK.  Johnson, Truss, Sunak ably supported by JRM, Patel, etc etc.  Hardly any competence in the ranks of Government because all those who were sensible did not believe that Brexit was the right thing to do. 

It’s a bit disingenuous, well I would say outrageous to try and link, or even suggest some association between the Grenfell disaster and Brexit.

Brexit was not about “ ripping up legislation designed to protect citizens “

Such posts demonstrate the lengths to which Remainers will sink to prosecute their argument. Disgusting.

[The Voice of Reason]

Not much “EU safeguarding” here

”ON FEBRUARY 22 [2024] a fire swept through a 14-story apartment block in the Campanar neighborhood of Valencia, Spain. Ten people died in the blaze. Smartphone footage showed an awning on a seventh-floor balcony catching fire at around 5:30 pm CET, before the flames rushed upwards. Within 15 minutes, the entire building was engulfed, aided by 40-mph winds.

The inferno quickly drew comparisons to London’s Grenfell Tower fire, which killed 72 people in 2017. While what drove the blaze in Valencia is unclear, attention immediately turned to the building’s cladding—material added to the outside of high-rise blocks to improve insulation and aesthetics, and which helped the Grenfell fire spread so quickly. Until 2019, Spain, like many nations, permitted flammable materials to be included in cladding on new high-rises. While the law has changed, hundreds if not thousands of existing Spanish buildings are likely encased in non-flame-retardant panels.

The same danger lurks internationally. Many countries still allow highly flammable cladding to be used in construction. Others, despite banning dangerous materials on new buildings, still have older ones encased in layers of materials highly vulnerable to fire. “Valencia will not be the last one,” says Guillermo Rein, professor of fire science at the Department of Mechanical Engineering of Imperial College London. “Not in Spain, nor anywhere else.””

[manxman1980]

12 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

It’s a bit disingenuous, well I would say outrageous to try and link, or even suggest some association between the Grenfell disaster and Brexit.

I didn't say Grenfell was the result of Brexit.  I even stated that it was Cameron's Government that were responsible for the deregulation that allowed the circumstances to exist. 

If you want me to be more specific it was the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition that were responsible. 

Clearly pre-brexit.

 

12 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Brexit was not about “ ripping up legislation designed to protect citizens “

Such posts demonstrate the lengths to which Remainers will sink to prosecute their argument. Disgusting.

During the lead up to the Bread referendum, and even now, we hear about getting rid of EU rules and red tape.

Very few people can give examples of which rules they wanted abolished beyond statements about bendy bananas, kipper pillows and immigration. 

You are the one who is disgusting trying to justify your view by linking to a fire in Spain.

[The Voice of Reason]

5 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I didn't say Grenfell was the result of Brexit.  I even stated that it was Cameron's Government that were responsible for the deregulation that allowed the circumstances to exist. 

If you want me to be more specific it was the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition that were responsible. 

Clearly pre-brexit.

 

During the lead up to the Bread referendum, and even now, we hear about getting rid of EU rules and red tape.

Very few people can give examples of which rules they wanted abolished beyond statements about bendy bananas, kipper pillows and immigration. 

You are the one who is disgusting trying to justify your view by linking to a fire in Spain.

Yes my link to the Spanish fire was to demonstrate that such incidents are nothing to do with Brexit ( or specific to the Brutish Government of whatever hue if you prefer.)  Not even as a result of Rees -Moggs self interest.

Merely pointing out that what happened at Grenfell has happened in other countries (EU and non EU). Was that also a result of deregulation in those countries that allowed the circumstances to exist?

[manxman1980]

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes my link to the Spanish fire was to demonstrate that such incidents are nothing to do with Brexit ( or specific to the Brutish Government of whatever hue if you prefer.)  Not even as a result of Rees -Moggs self interest.

Merely pointing out that what happened at Grenfell has happened in other countries (EU and non EU). Was that also a result of deregulation in those countries that allowed the circumstances to exist?

Clearly not.  There are examples of poor regulation and corrupt behaviour everywhere including in the EU. I did also say it wasn't perfect. 

The "bonfire of red tape" that lots of Brexiteers and Liberterians want will only lead to more instances like Grenfell. 

Now back to an actual Brexit related instance of dropping standards...

Would you like to talk about the levels of pesticides being allowed in food in Great Britain? 

[The Voice of Reason]

42 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Clearly not.  There are examples of poor regulation and corrupt behaviour everywhere including in the EU. I did also say it wasn't perfect. 

The "bonfire of red tape" that lots of Brexiteers and Liberterians want will only lead to more instances like Grenfell. 

Now back to an actual Brexit related instance of dropping standards...

Would you like to talk about the levels of pesticides being allowed in food in Great Britain? 

Not really.I don’t know much about it. 

No doubt there are arguments and opinions on both sides as whether these levels are acceptable or right.
I’m no agricultural expert.

But, like you say in your first paragraph. “There are examples of poor regulation…..  ( if that’s what it is) everywhere, including in the EU”

 

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not really.I don’t know much about it. 

No doubt there are arguments and opinions on both sides as whether these levels are acceptable or right.
I’m no agricultural expert.

Are you happy with increased levels of carcinogenic chemicals in your food?

Is this really one of the benefits of leaving the EU?

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But, like you say in your first paragraph. “There are examples of poor regulation…..  ( if that’s what it is) everywhere, including in the EU”

The EU has introduced even stricter controls on carcinogenic pesticides but what does the EU know. 

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Are you happy with increased levels of carcinogenic chemicals in your food?

Is this really one of the benefits of leaving the EU?

The EU has introduced even stricter controls on carcinogenic pesticides but what does the EU know. 

Just for you I’ve done some research and read the stuff included in the link below.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/mrls/index.htm

There’s nothing in there that gives me cause for concern or suggests to me that the UK Government is trying to poison its population. UK MRL limits are set at levels where there is no risk to human health.

To be adopted as a GB MRL the following conditions must be met:

• Great Britain sets MRLs for the commodity in question
• the GB MRL is lower than the CXL
• no human health concerns are identified for UK consumers

The Guardian article you posted earlier on this subject may suggest differently, in order to scare the pants of it’s naive readership, given it’s anti Brexit agenda.

You ask if I’m happy with increased levels of carcinogenic chemicals in my food.

Well yes if the food remains perfectly safe which is  the case ( unless the HSE are lying)

You also ask if this really is one of the benefits of leaving the EU and what does the EU know? ( both questions with a degree of sarcasm)

My reply is that one of the benefits  ( the major benefit) of leaving the EU is that the UK can make its own mind up on what levels of MRL are appropriate. There is a word for an independent country being able to make such decisions but I won’t mention it, lest it sends you and PK into a frenzy and we end up going round the same arguments again

What does the EU know? Well what does the UK know? Both will have access to the same data I imagine and as with all research, will have looked at what other jurisdictions are doing in this field.

In some areas the EU and the UK have drawn different conclusions about what is appropriate. No doubt other countries differ again. There is no “right” or “wrong”. This applies to a whole raft of legislation, codes, guidance etc, not just in this field.

Some jurisdictions have decriminalized possession and/ or use of certain drugs. Who is to say what is the “right” approach.

You need to stop being in thrall  to the EU.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2024 by The Voice of Reason
Addition of third para

[manxman1980]

@The Voice of Reason I think I will trust scientists over you and the HSE.