UKH

Ever paused to wonder what particular EU regulations have been 'forced upon' the UK, and which the UK will be free to flaunt come the Glorious 29th?

This wonderful Twitter thread tells all:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1087360379691380736.html

I think nearly everyone knows Brexit is the most stupid idea since that daft king thought he could turn back the tide but  come on John. You're borderline obsessive on the subject and at best you'll be a casual observer whilst the rest of us will have to deal.directly with the chaos heading our way. Your incessant posting on Brexit is irritating. Can't you post about your climbing exploits? They are much more interesting!

That "daft king" (Canute / Cnut Sveinnson) didn't think he could turn back the tide.

The whole point of the story, which is now so often misrepresented, is that he was showing his fawning courtiers that despite being king he didn't have supernatural powers. 

Ok. I'm mistaken. But the point remains that Brexit is stupid and stupidity isnt confined to this particular event. Thanks for the history lesson.

You mean nearly half of everyone surely?

Probably a lot more than half now. The only way to prove it one way or the other would be to have a second referendum.

Thanks for that John, I enjoyed in a morbid sort of way!

Thank you for standing up for Cnut! That's how we learned the story.  The other version is about as accurate as the Brexit bus

Could we not invite JRM and Nigel, Boris, Fox and Co to come climbing on the Eiger, N face, naturally.  I know a professor of fine arts who we could bring along to perform a sanction or two ...

Uncomfortable reading, was it?

Since wanderer voted remain, probably not that uncomfortable. 

It would be wonderful if it gave the actual reasons for objections rather than made up ones, and did not just constantly bash the UK.

yet another example of a remain post that plays to its own audience. Yet another example of the miserable negativity that pervades our national conversation.

Bashing the UK's stupid decision brought about by demagogues is not bashing the UK.  Accusing remainers of that is yet another untruth, being charitable.

Give us the good news then. Tell us about the new companies and new investments coming to the UK.

There isn’t a whole lot of good news, but playing to the gallery has proved to be remarkably unsuccessful at changing hearts and minds for the past three years. The linked article offers some facts, which is always good, but with an added dash of condescension. 

You're right.

A simple positive message is that staying in the EU would give us excellent access to EU markets and good access to lots of other markets.

Yes, I agree, I think brexit is a terrible idea, built on contradictions and bombast, but a lot of the criticism of it belittles the UK. This will not play well to the voters that you want to convince. 

Brexiters believe in british exceptionalism, but so do remainers. We think that only the English have a problem with the EU, but on the few occasions that people have been given a referendum, anti EU votes or close run votes have been common across much of Western Europe. 

Yet another example of a Brexiter dodging the issue. It quite clearly shows that the influence of the EU on UK law is not the iron thumb of Europe that the tabloids would have us believe.

Unless you mean something else? Please clarify

This is exactly the sort of info the Remain campaign should have been promoting to counter the view that the EU is telling us what to do, but they failed.

Dave

I think all the Brexiterr MPs that made statements about how easy leaving would be and how it would lead to a great new future should be made to appear on a TV programme and be challenged to support their statements and explain how easy leaving is going to be.

Dave

Worth pointing out as well that the UK would have been (or at least, had every opportunity to be*) represented in the various EU committees, forums or what-have-yous that drafted these rules (an obvious recent example would be GDPR, which the UK ICO was closely involved in drafting) - and which in the case of directives and regulations (and possibly other rules, I'd need to read up on that), would have been debated and voted on in the European Parliament to which the UK sends elected representatives, as well as in the Council of Minsters which includes ministerial representation from the UK.

This means two things:

1) The rules were not imposed on the UK without the UK having a say, or at least having an opportunity to have a say;

2) Once out of the EU, the UK will no longer have any chance of a say in any new rules, but organisations wishing to do business, collaborate on scientific projects etc will still be required to comply with them.  This is called 'taking back control'.  Apparently.

Now, some people may not like some of the rules which originated from the EU - but then plenty of people don't like plenty of the rules which originate from Westminster (e.g. bedroom tax, tuition fees, the implementation of universal credit, academy schools etc).  In both cases, opportunities do exist for deliberations and decisions to be influenced, lobbied on etc, as well as periodic recourse to the ballot box.

* One might cite the example of a certain Nigel currently-still-drawing-an-MEP's-salary Farage, who attended precisely one of 42 meetings of the European Parliament Fisheries Committee in the three years that he was a member, and failed to vote in favour of three major reforms aimed improving the legislation during that time despite the fact that he was in the building at the time.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/09/nigel-farage-fisherme...

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/press-releases/farages-voting-record-on-fishi...

Remainer as it happens, I just feel it’s a not all that wonderful as a contribution to the debate. By making up the reasons for the UK’s objections and being so negative in its tone, it defeats its own purpose.

I’m criticising the article, which I think is gash. I agree with the objective of its poster  just not the methods.

And more broadly the negativity of most political discourse in the U.K., on all subjects.

In the context of Brexit (I don’t think there is very much) or more generally?

In the context of Brexit (I don’t think there is very much) or more generally?

John might have even ben on a European Working Group when BS EN 12572 was first written (this is the BS EN that relates to climbing walls, holds and mats). I was on the WG when the review took place that lead to the 2007 version f the Standards.

I am a faceless Eurocrat

To be honest I didnt read it. I could guess it's tone and it wouldn't be any different from any other piece of journalism about the perils of Brexit. As I've said already, Brexit is a stupid idea but if you ask the general public a stupid question don't be surprised when you get a stupid answer.

from comments over several years I think several regular posters have been/are involved in various EU expert groups, although in my case on environmental issues rather than climbing

Ahem: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-wors...

"Polling by the Centre for Social Investigation revealed that remain voters significantly underestimated the importance that leave voters attached to sovereignty.  The UK making its own rules came a close second out of four (immigration was first) in the reasons why people voted leave."

Just sayin'...

So they polled remain voters about their perception of motivations of leave voters?

What a tragic waste of time and money!

How does that relate to the link in the OP on which I was commenting?

The general comment is that it significantly easier to fix bad UK law (ultimately, we can address such issues via an election) than it is to fix bad EU law (where we might have to persuade 27 other countries of our case.)

This is true and entirely reasonable, one of the few concerns about the EU that I can agree with.

It's worth noting that the same would tend to apply to making bad law, though - it's just harder to change things (for better or worse) when you need more parties to agree.

Yes Tim, understanding is always a tragic waste!

This consensus is what actually makes bad laws less likely within the EU, less vested interests, it’s this that allows an organisation that is essentially a trade organisation apply things like the working time directives against Britain wishes ( my own industry fought it tooth and claw ) Ban certain pesticides, and antibiotics in foodstuff, any one country might see an advantage in getting ahead by cutting corners in the game, but collectively an even playing field of good law is better.

Fair point. It is just that one of the reasons given to me by others was to do with EU law.

Conversely EU employment law has often been used to the benefit of workers in Tribunals

The crucial part of this argument depends on what you define with "we".

If this is the people of the UK, then yes.

If this is the people of europe, then no and EU is better suited.

If this is the people of Bristol, then the city council of Bristol should have the lawmaking ability.

By 'we' I did mean 'the citizens of the UK' - but the same consideration equally applies to the citizens of any of the 27 other nations which are members of the EU.

The important ones are the rules on state aid and the banking regulation. 

The first explains the few businesses pro Brexit. Large companies, privately owned, who's accounts are less subject to scrutiny.

The second explains Farrage's 30+ year crusade.

It's a bit like indy ref for Scotland. It's not about the people, it's about how to the politicians in charge of the oil money would have been.

In all cases, person greed over what would be best for the people/country/planet.

Experts and helping the EU oppress us with rules...? The traitorous bastards...

Joke of the week?

Whilst it was higher CAP is still 40% of the eu budget. Sharing resources when it suits, ie fisheries, the proposed Franco-german military force, the euro, failed refugee policy, Strasbourg ... not overly trade related? And certainly not essential for trade and also don't exist in any other global trade agreement. 

If the eu was just a trade organisation and it's future aspirations were just trade related I imagine the referendum, if it even happened, would have been 90%+ remain. 

Ps. The eu is doing nothing to limit the use of antibiotics on farms. Southern Europe's record is horrendous, one or two others in the north aren't much better. 

Again, for a change, WRONG.

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/meps-laud-new-antibiotic...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maisieganzler/2018/11/01/europes-move-on-antib...

But it is not law yet. It's 3 years away at best. It doesn't ban their use, at best it limits who can presume (currently anyone) and it only covers certain biotics. 

If the eu meant business. The ban would be immediate and cover all antibiotics unless presumed by a vet for a specific animal.

But it's not surprising. Many of the countries which do all whole herds mass antibiotic treatments as prevention, not treatment, are where you can also buy human antibiotics without a prescription over the counter. 

I'm afraid where you live is one of the worst offenders in Europe for over use. 

Prescribe/prescribed 

Predictive text fail!!! 

Either way Cyprus's antibiotic use in animals is about 8 or 9 times that of most of northern Europe. It should be an outright ban. 

Since virtually all antibiotic resistance in humans is due to antibiotic use in...erm humans - then that is the Sector that needs urgently addressing - and you are quite right that standards in some parts of Southern Europe are shocking. I think advocating an outright ban on antibiotic use in people who live in Cyprus is harsh however.

I'm not a Brexiter, but what started as a very good list of directives that no-one could object to, (that I'd be more than happy to quote to my Brexiteer aquaintances - they're no longer friends), rapidly turned into something that a petulant 12 year old would post.

I think the author either got bored or pissed.

There are also shops in the eu where you can buy human antibiotics over the counter without a prescription. 

The bigger problem is 99% of folk don't grasp how different life would be if our current range antibiotics became useless. 

Great film and book. Can't figure out how Clint can be a trump supporter when he's such a great talent  

Is your problem that there's too much EU-wide regulation or that there's not enough?

Never complained about eu regs have I, many countries have better or higher standards, the eu waters them down then fails to enforce effectively. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjuqeK...

The EU is not an enforcement body for national (albeit harmonised) laws. Can you imagine the Brexiter outrage at the idea of an EU constabulary?

Again, WRONG.

EU countries are free to have tougher regulations if they want.
The EU is not responsible for enforcement, the members are. You don't even understand what the EU is or does.
In most cases as for antibiotics the EU is way ahead of the pack in terms of regulations.

WORST OF ALL: Everything indicates that a post brexit UK would be poised to adopt a light touch approach on antibiotics use in farms:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/27/uk-could-use-brexit-to-....

"The government is coming under pressure from potential trade partners not to adhere to stringent EU animal welfare standards after Britain leaves the EU, in order to open up the UK market to imports from countries with weaker regulations."

I find it amazing that you a have a such knack for bringing up topics that destroy your own arguments even in you whatabouteries.

No. The eu isn't. Norway and Sweden use way less than the rest of Europe. Dare to link a graph to show how great the eu is? Or better still how truly appalling animal antibiotic use in southern Europe is by comparison?  One or two individual countries have led the way for over a decade, the eu is reluctantly dragging it's heels with half hearted measure that doesn't even start until 2022 at the earliest. .

Of course what the eu will do is it's usual classic of averaging to make it look better overall when it should be force the big offenders to change. It does exactly the same with carbon emissions.

Ps. So what's the point of the eu , it's way ahead in issuing directives it can't enforce? Wow... 

Over prescribe antibiotics to animsls, zero CAP funding sent from Brussels. It's pretty easy to do something meaningful if they wanted to. 

But it's also a remain argument..  without the eu there wouldn't be better work place regulations, standards etc..  when really it's up to each country and not the eu? 

Ps  there is actually an eu veterinary dept. It's been sent to Poland to investigate problems in abbatoirs there.

So it already exists. 

Yes, BRAVO, you have realised, as pointed out, that there is nothing preventing EU countries from having tougher regulation if they wish to.

The EU provides a baseline regulation, which is already well advanced by world standards, and is set to become even tougher. As pointed out in the article above the regulations are tougher than in most other trading blocs.

Then you'd be saying, whats the point of any international treaty ? Point is directives have force of law, it's up to member states to enforce the law. The EU courts however can fine member states if they don't comply.

Then you can argue EU law is too slow, or not enough (I agree), but you propose NOTHING to replace it, in fact you advocate less regulation and a race to the bottom that promises to make things far worse.

Face it, you've truly botched this and ended up destroying your own initial argument (AGAIN).

You are quite an exceptional poster on these forums, summo, in that almost everything you post is almost systematically wrong or misinformed. It is truly extraordinary.

Can you link the data staying the eu baseline? (Bet you can't, there isn't one).

If you posted a link to the eu stats country by country on antibiotic use you'd know this. 

Regulation.. what existing antibiotic regulation has it issued. Not future proposed, active now?

You call them directives now, are these the same as regulations? Which is it? 

A court, you said in your last post the eu couldn't enforce, now you say they can? 

There is plenty you replace eu law with, all countries have their own.

No. You said the eu was toothless, then you claim a country will lose it's teeth if it leaves the eu. Can't be both?

Still waiting for you to link existing eu antibiotic legislation and an eu country by country comparison chart............ go on I dare you. 

Yes, the medics love to blame use in animals for their own problem.

the UK food production system has dramatically cut down on antibiotic use in the last few years , especially for ‘critical’ ones vital to human health. This is brilliant for preserving the effectiveness of this agents within Animal healthcare, and might limit cross over to human healthcare.

the major reason it’s good though is because we are increasingly eliminating poor practice that could be masked by using antibiotics - which should in general mean better welfare for farmed species.

A good old democratic second vote! ha ha ha ha ha!

It would be undemocratic not to hold a second vote because the first one, as you should now be fully aware, was flawed being based on lies and untruths

not to mention based on faulty logic and so badly implemented as to have a catastrophic effect

Interestingly this article from 2016 might have warned us of problems and discusses the nature of the majority decision ....  What some of us were saying even before the Scottish Referendum of 2014 and again in 2016 and ever since, Hallelujah!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/05/greek-referendum-cata...

2016 was your second vote on the issue. Just saying.

Jk

Surely there are far better things that we should be seeking to understand?

How people who don’t agree with us think! That seems pretty high on the list to me.

Of course it's good to understand what people think, but surveys to understand how some people think that some other people might think seem pretty absurd to me.

It's a symptom of the whole dismal blame game that we appear to have sunk into.

That's not the point, th epoint was about regulations.

Now, they don't enforce. They arbitrate. There is no EU police, such as you have in the US with an FBI, SEC, EPA...

No, the EU imposes a minimum standard. Countries are free to be stricter. Outside of the EU they would be as free as being stricter as within, however they would have a lot less incentives to do so.

I've already posted an article from an expert in the field who said the EU regulation are leaving those of the US in the dust. You yourself said that some northern European countries had stringent regulation, showing there is no contradiction between membership fo the EU and strict regulations.

As usual you've destroyed yourself your own argument with your own examples...

This thread deserves some complimentary analysis on various contributing posters... obviously nobody will see this in themselves because they are right

"Why can some people never admit when they are wrong

The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak "psychological constitution," that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.

People who repeatedly exhibit this kind of behavior are, by definition, psychologically fragile. However, that assessment is often difficult for people to accept, because to the outside world, they look as if they’re confidently standing their ground and not backing down, things we associate with strength. But psychological rigidity is not a sign of strength, it is an indication of weakness. These people are not choosing to stand their ground; they’re compelled to do so in order to protect their fragile egos. Admitting we are wrong is unpleasant, it is bruising for any ego. It takes a certain amount of emotional strength and courage to deal with that reality and own up to our mistakes. Most of us sulk a bit when we have to admit we're wrong, but we get over it.

But when people are constitutionally unable to admit they’re wrong, when they cannot tolerate the very notion that they are capable of mistakes, it is because they suffer from an ego so fragile that they cannot sulk and get over it — they need to warp their very perception of reality and challenge obvious facts in order to defend their not being wrong in the first place.

How we respond to such people is up to us. The one mistake we should not make is to consider their persistent and rigid refusal to admit they’re wrong as a sign of strength or conviction, because it is the absolute opposite — psychological weakness and fragility."

It's certainly an interesting question but can I suggest you copy it across into separate thread? It's worth a discussion of its own.

Of all the thousands of brexit threads you could have dropped your pop psychology into this one seems less deserving than most.

jk

If you couldn't be bothered to post a link https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-its-so... you could at least have used speech marks. 

You're are correct I should have done, so will edit it...thx

Haha, correct! there are hundreds of threads, and that cut and paste would probably fit nicely into all of them  I guess this one just struck a chord for some reason with the playground "you are WRONG" again and again....it's all pretty pathetic...so some "pop psycology" to "pop" some egos seemed like a fun interlude. 

The way it seems to have killed this thread, maybe I should copy and paste it into every BREXIT thread that appears.... treat it as a civic duty

A certain someone is turning into shouty man as well.

But early you and John said they could not investigate, then you said they can fine? Who investigates? Who in the eu has fined some tech companies if they don't investigate things? 

Please link this minimum standard? Perhaps explain why countries like Cyprus are able to use 1000 or 2000% more than many northern European countries? What is this mystical standard? 

Why not prove your argument and post a Eurostat graph of eu antibiotic use by country then?

Then we can compare southern European meat to the USA?

You'd sound considerably less devious if you didn't put false and misleading words into my mouth.

Rom, can you please try to be more polite and less shouty? I generally agree with you, but recently you have become so angry that I'm skipping your posts like those of that recent &^$^ who shall not be named. If you want your posts to be read, LESS OF THE SHOUTING AND WRONG!?!?!?!S

You said.. I'm pretty sure you did that the eu doesn't enforce regulation.? But then rom said they can fine etc.. 

Yes, I did. Thank you for the correction. 

827 Sunday.

But then rom said they could fine for breach of regs/directives. Apologies if I'm misrepresenting you. But that's just the way I interpreted it. Although he does keeping changing his mind if the eu has teeth or not. 

No; it’s just that you still don’t understand it.

Let me explain again : “The EU” is nothing but an international treaty, its rules are binding to its signatories. The whole thing rests on the members applying the rule of law correctly.

And if a government don't they are fined.

from both sides from what I saw? No??

All the more reason for disregarding the complete and utterly flawed farce. You can't seriously believe that it's right to carry on when you admit this yourself?

I know you're never ever wrong Summo, but in this case you really should make an exception. I made no reference whatsoever to investigative roles, only to enforcement powers. So for you to claim that "you [Rom] and John said they could not investigate" is a very simple factual error. 

There is of course a reason for that. Cameron called the referendum to keep the Tory party together. Cameron and Osbourne wanted to be seen to be in charge of the Remain campaign but refused to effectively trash the arguments of Boris and other Tory Leavers for fear of splitting the party if they did. Having Cameron as the face of Remain simply antagonised large sections of the population suffering from austerity into voting Leave. Net result. Tory party still hopelessly split. A No Deal disaster now far too likely. Boris still in the Tory Party. Manufacturing jobs already being lost, disproportionately by Leave voters, as companies despair at ever seeing any certainty.

Martin

Am I reading this correctly. You are saying that the EU should force it's offending nations to change. But haven't I also read you complaining about EH interference in UK matters. Is it OK for the EU to tell every other EU country how to behave but not Britain for some reason?

Martin

Care to link me saying that. 

I have no issue with eu enforcement. It is the lack of that is the problem. The eu issues a directive on x and y. The same northern European nations will be fully compliant before the implementation date, a few will drag their heels and be 50% compliant, others will totally ignore it.

End result, the eu won't enforce, moves the deadline 2, 3, 5 years down the road. The compliant countries are at a competitive disadvantage having invested to meet the directive, whilst the eu hails the whole thing a success, by quoting the eu average. Completely ignoring the fact that the transgressors are being carried by the usual few nations, who are also generally the net contributors. This has happened across many sectors, being agriculture or even carbon emissions. 

As i said in my previous, I apologise if I misrepresented or misquoted you. 

OK, my mistake. I can't find a recent post where you used the standard Brexiteer "Take Back Control" argument so maybe you are OK with the UK being bound by EU enforced rules. Apologies.

Martin

I'd have no issue with a customs union and open borders. Just ditch CAP, fisheries, Strasbourg and so forth. Get back to a basic trading relationship and leave the federal agenda. 

Thank you for the apology, despite the 'if'.