|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 17, 2021 11:09:28 GMT
He always does when you disagree with him. Meanwhile, some rumblings of discontent around the Australia UK trade deal - the first one that isn't simply a roll over of previous EU conditions... Landmark Brexit trade deal with Australia must be secured or UK should 'throw in towel' Daniel Hannan, a prominent Brexiteer who served as a Tory MEP for 21 years, urged the Prime Minister to “exercise” the freedom leaving the EU has given Britain. He pointed to a hotly-anticipated free trade agreement (FTA) with Australia which many hope will conclude next month. Mr Hannan, who campaigned for a soft Brexit but accepts he “lost the argument”, warned that the deal is under threat by a combination of Remoaners and campaigners who do not want the UK to diverge from EU rules. Sticking “wherever possible, to the status quo” would hamper the Prime Minister’s vision of a “global Britain”. Mr Hannan urged Mr Johnson scrap this in favour of pursuing free trade deals with the world’s emerging economies - where much of the predicted future economic growth is due to take place. Writing in the Telegraph, he said that “if we can't do a proper trade deal even with our kinsmen Down Under, we might as well throw in the towel”. He added: “We shouldn't be satisfied with preservation. We should be winning new markets. “Beef sells here for around half the price it fetches in Japan or South Korea.” Mr Hannan went on to argue that we would be “mad” not to use the autonomy that Brexit handed the UK. He added: “There were arguments for staying in the EU and there were arguments for leaving. “There is no argument at all for abandoning the advantages of membership and then ignoring the opportunities of withdrawal.” Negotiation of trade deals is about just that negotiation. That negotiation goes on behind closed doors and I doubt Mr Hannan is in the know on the details of negotiations. Since he was a "soft Brexiteer" I doubt he was a true Brexiteer and prepared to accept EU Commission and ECOJ decisions. His comments sound like "sour grapes" to me. The EU have generally only achieved trade deals with countries they could easily bully. It took them many years to do a deal with Japan and Canada, and have failed to make agreements with Australia and India who are tougher nuts to crack and not going to roll over easily without clear benefits for their countries. It takes a long time to get to a win- win situation. Your second sentence above is wrong. The UK - Japan trade deal is not a "roll over", it has improved terms on the EU - Japan trade deal. The UK also has a joint commitment with Canada for an enhanced trade deal. There was little point in delaying a roll over as the deal between Canada and the EU had only been agreed quite recently. When debating trade deals it should be remembered that countries' governments doing trade deals and organising trade fairs etc. does not in itself actually increase trade. Increased trade is done by the business community and it incumbent on them to take advantage of improved terms, reduced tariffs and quotas, etc. for any actual benefits to flow. This is something that British business are actually very good at. Governments are pretty useless at doing business deals as we have seen in the last 18 months with the UK government's ppe and track and trace deals, and the EU Commission's vaccine deals. We don't know what the future will bring to the world in terms of pandemics, other natural disasters, wars, and politics/politicians policies, but we can be sure of climate change (and the need for mankind to respond), pollution (and the need for abatement), increased population, technological advancement, and rising wealth (in monetary terms) and increased leisure time. These are things we can be sure will happen and are things the UK are very good at exploiting, and coupled with our national resources will mean the UK can look forward to a prosperous future. Now the UK is no longer locked inside the customs union of the EU and treaty regulations, it will find it far more advantageous to make faster progress. The whole point of Brexit for many of us that the UK is now free to make our own laws and judicial decisions, trade deals, etc. and not have to abide my decisions made in Brussels, Luxembourg etc. We'll have to see. I'm glad you think the UK will tackle those threats you quite rightly mention. So far, the only direction we've moved in environmentally is to reduce and lower standards, and we've also signalled a 'bonfire of regulation' when it comes to the financial sector too, which, given our recent history of effectively allowing the City boys to regulate themselves with disastrous results, doesn't fill me with glee. Perhaps they will have learned their lesson? I can't see that aligning with the EU's financial sector rules will provide the competitive advantage and attract the business that the UK seeks. In which case, which way are the standards likely to move to provide it? Make things tougher and more exacting for financial institutions or make things easier? If the environment is anything to go by, I think the answer is obvious, especially in light of the importance to the UK of the financial sector, compared to environmental matters, farming and fishing. Regarding the roll-overs, I was quoting Hannan, so he could well be wrong. He also said this: "Don’t let narrow-minded protectionists squander our great Brexit opportunity. A UK-Australia trade deal should be the easiest in the world to complete, but it could well be derailed over farming". I'm not quite sure who that's actually addressed to, given that it's his preferred government which is doing the deal. Perhaps it's those shadowy people who really run the country, thus absolving the Tory party of any actual responsibility for 70% of the last four decades!
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 17, 2021 12:02:15 GMT
Negotiation of trade deals is about just that negotiation. That negotiation goes on behind closed doors and I doubt Mr Hannan is in the know on the details of negotiations. Since he was a "soft Brexiteer" I doubt he was a true Brexiteer and prepared to accept EU Commission and ECOJ decisions. His comments sound like "sour grapes" to me. The EU have generally only achieved trade deals with countries they could easily bully. It took them many years to do a deal with Japan and Canada, and have failed to make agreements with Australia and India who are tougher nuts to crack and not going to roll over easily without clear benefits for their countries. It takes a long time to get to a win- win situation. Your second sentence above is wrong. The UK - Japan trade deal is not a "roll over", it has improved terms on the EU - Japan trade deal. The UK also has a joint commitment with Canada for an enhanced trade deal. There was little point in delaying a roll over as the deal between Canada and the EU had only been agreed quite recently. When debating trade deals it should be remembered that countries' governments doing trade deals and organising trade fairs etc. does not in itself actually increase trade. Increased trade is done by the business community and it incumbent on them to take advantage of improved terms, reduced tariffs and quotas, etc. for any actual benefits to flow. This is something that British business are actually very good at. Governments are pretty useless at doing business deals as we have seen in the last 18 months with the UK government's ppe and track and trace deals, and the EU Commission's vaccine deals. We don't know what the future will bring to the world in terms of pandemics, other natural disasters, wars, and politics/politicians policies, but we can be sure of climate change (and the need for mankind to respond), pollution (and the need for abatement), increased population, technological advancement, and rising wealth (in monetary terms) and increased leisure time. These are things we can be sure will happen and are things the UK are very good at exploiting, and coupled with our national resources will mean the UK can look forward to a prosperous future. Now the UK is no longer locked inside the customs union of the EU and treaty regulations, it will find it far more advantageous to make faster progress. The whole point of Brexit for many of us that the UK is now free to make our own laws and judicial decisions, trade deals, etc. and not have to abide my decisions made in Brussels, Luxembourg etc. We'll have to see. I'm glad you think the UK will tackle those threats you quite rightly mention. So far, the only direction we've moved in environmentally is to reduce and lower standards, and we've also signalled a 'bonfire of regulation' when it comes to the financial sector too, which, given our recent history of effectively allowing the City boys to regulate themselves with disastrous results, doesn't fill me with glee. Perhaps they will have learned their lesson? I can't see that aligning with the EU's financial sector rules will provide the competitive advantage and attract the business that the UK seeks. In which case, which way are the standards likely to move to provide it? Make things tougher and more exacting for financial institutions or make things easier? If the environment is anything to go by, I think the answer is obvious, especially in light of the importance to the UK of the financial sector, compared to environmental matters, farming and fishing. Regarding the roll-overs, I was quoting Hannan, so he could well be wrong. He also said this: "Don’t let narrow-minded protectionists squander our great Brexit opportunity. A UK-Australia trade deal should be the easiest in the world to complete, but it could well be derailed over farming". I'm not quite sure who that's actually addressed to, given that it's his preferred government which is doing the deal. Perhaps it's those shadowy people who really run the country, thus absolving the Tory party of any actual responsibility for 70% of the last four decades! You repeatedly make critical references to the UK government and environmental performance. On 13th April page 1,364 I went to great lengths to spell out the UK record on environmental matters relative to the EU, and the legislation planned on petrol and diesel cars, burning coal and wet wood, moving away from the CAP, increased renewables, hydrogen technology, geothermal energy, etc. I'll not repeat it all. Please can you advise with references to facts, what action the UK government have taken, or not taken that you think is so damaging to the environment. We are not the best country in the world, and there is still an awful lot to be done, but I believe of all the world's major economies the UK leads the way on environmental issues and have done since the 1950s clean air acts, 1970 EPA, etc. Where the UK led (and dare I say Prince Charles spoke out, with his late father) the rest of the world followed.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 17, 2021 12:11:38 GMT
We'll have to see. I'm glad you think the UK will tackle those threats you quite rightly mention. So far, the only direction we've moved in environmentally is to reduce and lower standards, and we've also signalled a 'bonfire of regulation' when it comes to the financial sector too, which, given our recent history of effectively allowing the City boys to regulate themselves with disastrous results, doesn't fill me with glee. Perhaps they will have learned their lesson? I can't see that aligning with the EU's financial sector rules will provide the competitive advantage and attract the business that the UK seeks. In which case, which way are the standards likely to move to provide it? Make things tougher and more exacting for financial institutions or make things easier? If the environment is anything to go by, I think the answer is obvious, especially in light of the importance to the UK of the financial sector, compared to environmental matters, farming and fishing. Regarding the roll-overs, I was quoting Hannan, so he could well be wrong. He also said this: "Don’t let narrow-minded protectionists squander our great Brexit opportunity. A UK-Australia trade deal should be the easiest in the world to complete, but it could well be derailed over farming". I'm not quite sure who that's actually addressed to, given that it's his preferred government which is doing the deal. Perhaps it's those shadowy people who really run the country, thus absolving the Tory party of any actual responsibility for 70% of the last four decades! You repeatedly make critical references to the UK government and environmental performance. On 13th April page 1,364 I went to great lengths to spell out the UK record on environmental matters relative to the EU, and the legislation planned on petrol and diesel cars, burning coal and wet wood, moving away from the CAP, increased renewables, hydrogen technology, geothermal energy, etc. I'll not repeat it all. Please can you advise with references to facts, what action the UK government have taken, or not taken that you think is so damaging to the environment. We are not the best country in the world, and there is still an awful lot to be done, but I believe of all the world's major economies the UK leads the way on environmental issues and have done since the 1950s clean air acts, 1970 EPA, etc. Where the UK led (and dare I say Prince Charles spoke out, with his late father) the rest of the world followed. I know you believe that and it's very touching, but as I showed you previously, experts in their environmental fields were of a different opinion: that membership of the EU brought about greater environmental benefits than if we had not been a member. No-one is disputing your preference to continue to have had enough of experts, but I'm more inclined to trust their views. As reported in the Telegraph and per my post a few posts back: "Michael Gove promised a "green Brexit" when he was environment secretary in 2018. So far, the only* practical policy decision the current environment secretary, George Eustice, has made has been to announce the scrapping of EU "greening measures" in England from the beginning of this year. Greening measures required farmers to maintain 5% of their land as "ecological focus areas" by planting cover crops or buffer strips around the headlands of intensively farmed fields. Eustice's decision to free English farmers from the greening measures has completely disconnected farmers from having to engage in conservation work in order to receive the subsidies that will not be completely phased out until 2027. Little wonder that a report from Greener UK, representing the likes of RSPB and FoE among others, highlighted "massive gaps in environmental regulation" post-Brexit and the outlook for agriculture - in terms of biodiversity and pollution - as uncertain at best. *Not quite right - we have also allowed the re-use of previously banned neonicotinoid pesticides (as has the EU to an extent, but since we've left, we can do what we like, which would include choosing not to use these bee-killing pesticides if we were serious about the environment). Edit: not quite the rosy picture of environmental virtue, you'd have us believe, Coke ukandeu.ac.uk/long-read/brexits-implications-for-environmental-policy/ The "dirty man of Europe" indeed. (Although it is a piece written by a university professor, so undoubtedly biased and woke, etc)
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 17, 2021 12:22:43 GMT
You are quite right. My apologies. It’s just that, in these terrible days of war and pestilence (not to mention Tory government and Brexit), it is too easy to get carried away witnessing a beautiful romance develop. I wish you and Huddy all the best for the future. You make a lovely couple. Oh, lighten up, partick, stop being so prissy I think you, as usual, misunderstand the situation. I’m overjoyed for you and Huddy. You have provided a ray of sunshine in a time of darkness. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 17, 2021 12:46:28 GMT
Oh, lighten up, partick, stop being so prissy I think you, as usual, misunderstand the situation. I’m overjoyed for you and Huddy. You have provided a ray of sunshine in a time of darkness. Thank you. Let it go, lighten up a bit
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 17, 2021 14:37:13 GMT
You repeatedly make critical references to the UK government and environmental performance. On 13th April page 1,364 I went to great lengths to spell out the UK record on environmental matters relative to the EU, and the legislation planned on petrol and diesel cars, burning coal and wet wood, moving away from the CAP, increased renewables, hydrogen technology, geothermal energy, etc. I'll not repeat it all. Please can you advise with references to facts, what action the UK government have taken, or not taken that you think is so damaging to the environment. We are not the best country in the world, and there is still an awful lot to be done, but I believe of all the world's major economies the UK leads the way on environmental issues and have done since the 1950s clean air acts, 1970 EPA, etc. Where the UK led (and dare I say Prince Charles spoke out, with his late father) the rest of the world followed. I know you believe that and it's very touching, but as I showed you previously, experts in their environmental fields were of a different opinion: that membership of the EU brought about greater environmental benefits than if we had not been a member. No-one is disputing your preference to continue to have had enough of experts, but I'm more inclined to trust their views. As reported in the Telegraph and per my post a few posts back: "Michael Gove promised a "green Brexit" when he was environment secretary in 2018. So far, the only* practical policy decision the current environment secretary, George Eustice, has made has been to announce the scrapping of EU "greening measures" in England from the beginning of this year. Greening measures required farmers to maintain 5% of their land as "ecological focus areas" by planting cover crops or buffer strips around the headlands of intensively farmed fields. Eustice's decision to free English farmers from the greening measures has completely disconnected farmers from having to engage in conservation work in order to receive the subsidies that will not be completely phased out until 2027. Little wonder that a report from Greener UK, representing the likes of RSPB and FoE among others, highlighted "massive gaps in environmental regulation" post-Brexit and the outlook for agriculture - in terms of biodiversity and pollution - as uncertain at best. *Not quite right - we have also allowed the re-use of previously banned neonicotinoid pesticides (as has the EU to an extent, but since we've left, we can do what we like, which would include choosing not to use these bee-killing pesticides if we were serious about the environment). Edit: not quite the rosy picture of environmental virtue, you'd have us believe, Coke ukandeu.ac.uk/long-read/brexits-implications-for-environmental-policy/ The "dirty man of Europe" indeed. (Although it is a piece written by a university professor, so undoubtedly biased and woke, etc) I stand by what I have said. The government have proposed extensive measures to "green" farming/agriculture in the UK that will take decades to deliver after 40 years of CAP. I'm afraid a 5% green border round intensively farmed fields is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is the intensive farming driven by the CAP that is the problem that needs addressing. The rule about leaving a border round fields has only led to farmers ripping out hedgerows to make fields bigger ; something that is now prohibited. The "massive gaps" are the lack of independant regulatory control that the greens call for, but I prefer to vote for governments to exercise control not pressure groups; it's what is called democracy. As for that old epithet "the dirty man of Europe" that does undermine the credibility of everything the professor professes, most of which was opinions not facts. It is a tag that the UK was given (supposedly in Europe but no one really knows as it predates www) because in the early 70s the UK pumped out more sulphur dioxide than anyone else. It was a feature of the UK's high sulphur coals and lack of desulphurisation in coal fired power stations. That was at a time when acid rain was one of the world's major concerns, like the depleting ozone layer. That picture has totally changed, sulphur emissions were largely eradicated as were CFCs resulting in acid rain being no longer the major concern and the ozone layer is repairing itself. But the tag stuck and was used extensively by surfers against sewage*, as the UK was responsible for most untreated sewage* at that time. A FoE Director (I forget his name, Porritt I think) reviewed whether the term was justified or just a piece of slander used by green activists, notably British ones criticising their own country. His assessment back in the 80s was that it was a 70s term that seriously upset environment professionals and had been largely addressed in the context originally used. He stated that environmental professionals were proud of the UK's record on legislation, much of which EEC copied. His conclusion was as you might expect of a FoE Director, yes the UK is a "dirty man one of many in Europe"! He was hardly likely to complement the UK was he? I have not used the term "rosy". I have said in fact there is much to be done. What upsets me as someone who achieved a world first in environmental control and a model for Europe and RoW, the constant knocking of the UK , which has an excellent record on environmental issues, and by any measure better than the EU mean and only bettered by a few countries on a few individual aspects. We must not rest on our laurels and need to press on to match smaller countries like Sweden. * The issue of releasing untreated sewage reminds me of when I was driving to work one day in the late 90s and the minister responsible was being lambasted on Radio 4 about a European report that damned the UK's performance on beach standards. He defended the UK saying the data was years out of date and huge amounts had been spent to treat effluent and beaches were now much improved. He was still pilloried for UK being the worst in Europe, to which he replied it was not the worst. The interviewer said how can you say that the UK is bottom of the list. The minister pointed out that the UK was worst of those reported, a lot of European countries had not reported on their beach standards!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 17, 2021 14:48:09 GMT
You are quite right. My apologies. It’s just that, in these terrible days of war and pestilence (not to mention Tory government and Brexit), it is too easy to get carried away witnessing a beautiful romance develop. I wish you and Huddy all the best for the future. You make a lovely couple. Oh, lighten up, partick, stop being so prissy PP has some serious issues.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 17, 2021 14:50:30 GMT
We'll have to see. I'm glad you think the UK will tackle those threats you quite rightly mention. So far, the only direction we've moved in environmentally is to reduce and lower standards, and we've also signalled a 'bonfire of regulation' when it comes to the financial sector too, which, given our recent history of effectively allowing the City boys to regulate themselves with disastrous results, doesn't fill me with glee. Perhaps they will have learned their lesson? I can't see that aligning with the EU's financial sector rules will provide the competitive advantage and attract the business that the UK seeks. In which case, which way are the standards likely to move to provide it? Make things tougher and more exacting for financial institutions or make things easier? If the environment is anything to go by, I think the answer is obvious, especially in light of the importance to the UK of the financial sector, compared to environmental matters, farming and fishing. Regarding the roll-overs, I was quoting Hannan, so he could well be wrong. He also said this: "Don’t let narrow-minded protectionists squander our great Brexit opportunity. A UK-Australia trade deal should be the easiest in the world to complete, but it could well be derailed over farming". I'm not quite sure who that's actually addressed to, given that it's his preferred government which is doing the deal. Perhaps it's those shadowy people who really run the country, thus absolving the Tory party of any actual responsibility for 70% of the last four decades! You repeatedly make critical references to the UK government and environmental performance. On 13th April page 1,364 I went to great lengths to spell out the UK record on environmental matters relative to the EU, and the legislation planned on petrol and diesel cars, burning coal and wet wood, moving away from the CAP, increased renewables, hydrogen technology, geothermal energy, etc. I'll not repeat it all. Please can you advise with references to facts, what action the UK government have taken, or not taken that you think is so damaging to the environment. We are not the best country in the world, and there is still an awful lot to be done, but I believe of all the world's major economies the UK leads the way on environmental issues and have done since the 1950s clean air acts, 1970 EPA, etc. Where the UK led (and dare I say Prince Charles spoke out, with his late father) the rest of the world followed. Weren't the Tories seriously talking about opening up a coal mine? Remember the fracking fiasco?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on May 17, 2021 15:32:36 GMT
You repeatedly make critical references to the UK government and environmental performance. On 13th April page 1,364 I went to great lengths to spell out the UK record on environmental matters relative to the EU, and the legislation planned on petrol and diesel cars, burning coal and wet wood, moving away from the CAP, increased renewables, hydrogen technology, geothermal energy, etc. I'll not repeat it all. Please can you advise with references to facts, what action the UK government have taken, or not taken that you think is so damaging to the environment. We are not the best country in the world, and there is still an awful lot to be done, but I believe of all the world's major economies the UK leads the way on environmental issues and have done since the 1950s clean air acts, 1970 EPA, etc. Where the UK led (and dare I say Prince Charles spoke out, with his late father) the rest of the world followed. Weren't the Tories seriously talking about opening up a coal mine? Remember the fracking fiasco? Yes in Cumbria And it should still happen it would be far better to mine coal using the most modern methods in this country Rather than importing coal from around the world using far less environmentally friendly methods
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 17, 2021 15:47:11 GMT
Weren't the Tories seriously talking about opening up a coal mine? Remember the fracking fiasco? Yes in Cumbria And it should still happen it would be far better to mine coal using the most modern methods in this country Rather than importing coal from around the world using far less environmentally friendly methods That's just a zero sum game, though, isn't it? Even better would be to massively invest in renewables and sack fossil fuels off as much as possible. Which developing a new coal mine clearly doesn't do.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 17, 2021 15:53:43 GMT
I know you believe that and it's very touching, but as I showed you previously, experts in their environmental fields were of a different opinion: that membership of the EU brought about greater environmental benefits than if we had not been a member. No-one is disputing your preference to continue to have had enough of experts, but I'm more inclined to trust their views. As reported in the Telegraph and per my post a few posts back: "Michael Gove promised a "green Brexit" when he was environment secretary in 2018. So far, the only* practical policy decision the current environment secretary, George Eustice, has made has been to announce the scrapping of EU "greening measures" in England from the beginning of this year. Greening measures required farmers to maintain 5% of their land as "ecological focus areas" by planting cover crops or buffer strips around the headlands of intensively farmed fields. Eustice's decision to free English farmers from the greening measures has completely disconnected farmers from having to engage in conservation work in order to receive the subsidies that will not be completely phased out until 2027. Little wonder that a report from Greener UK, representing the likes of RSPB and FoE among others, highlighted "massive gaps in environmental regulation" post-Brexit and the outlook for agriculture - in terms of biodiversity and pollution - as uncertain at best. *Not quite right - we have also allowed the re-use of previously banned neonicotinoid pesticides (as has the EU to an extent, but since we've left, we can do what we like, which would include choosing not to use these bee-killing pesticides if we were serious about the environment). Edit: not quite the rosy picture of environmental virtue, you'd have us believe, Coke ukandeu.ac.uk/long-read/brexits-implications-for-environmental-policy/ The "dirty man of Europe" indeed. (Although it is a piece written by a university professor, so undoubtedly biased and woke, etc) I stand by what I have said. The government have proposed extensive measures to "green" farming/agriculture in the UK that will take decades to deliver after 40 years of CAP. I'm afraid a 5% green border round intensively farmed fields is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is the intensive farming driven by the CAP that is the problem that needs addressing. The rule about leaving a border round fields has only led to farmers ripping out hedgerows to make fields bigger ; something that is now prohibited. The "massive gaps" are the lack of independant regulatory control that the greens call for, but I prefer to vote for governments to exercise control not pressure groups; it's what is called democracy. As for that old epithet "the dirty man of Europe" that does undermine the credibility of everything the professor professes, most of which was opinions not facts. It is a tag that the UK was given (supposedly in Europe but no one really knows as it predates www) because in the early 70s the UK pumped out more sulphur dioxide than anyone else. It was a feature of the UK's high sulphur coals and lack of desulphurisation in coal fired power stations. That was at a time when acid rain was one of the world's major concerns, like the depleting ozone layer. That picture has totally changed, sulphur emissions were largely eradicated as were CFCs resulting in acid rain being no longer the major concern and the ozone layer is repairing itself. But the tag stuck and was used extensively by surfers against sewage*, as the UK was responsible for most untreated sewage* at that time. A FoE Director (I forget his name, Porritt I think) reviewed whether the term was justified or just a piece of slander used by green activists, notably British ones criticising their own country. His assessment back in the 80s was that it was a 70s term that seriously upset environment professionals and had been largely addressed in the context originally used. He stated that environmental professionals were proud of the UK's record on legislation, much of which EEC copied. His conclusion was as you might expect of a FoE Director, yes the UK is a "dirty man one of many in Europe"! He was hardly likely to complement the UK was he? I have not used the term "rosy". I have said in fact there is much to be done. What upsets me as someone who achieved a world first in environmental control and a model for Europe and RoW, the constant knocking of the UK , which has an excellent record on environmental issues, and by any measure better than the EU mean and only bettered by a few countries on a few individual aspects. We must not rest on our laurels and need to press on to match smaller countries like Sweden. * The issue of releasing untreated sewage reminds me of when I was driving to work one day in the late 90s and the minister responsible was being lambasted on Radio 4 about a European report that damned the UK's performance on beach standards. He defended the UK saying the data was years out of date and huge amounts had been spent to treat effluent and beaches were now much improved. He was still pilloried for UK being the worst in Europe, to which he replied it was not the worst. The interviewer said how can you say that the UK is bottom of the list. The minister pointed out that the UK was worst of those reported, a lot of European countries had not reported on their beach standards! Yeah, so basically, you've just confirmed that we were known as the dirty man of Europe for all the SO2 and all the raw sewage we were pumping out. And that, during membership of the EU, our environmental performance improved dramatically. My guess is that the two are not unconnected, but I assume you think we'd have done at least as much and probably even more without EU Directives requiring us to legislate to do so, despite the fact that prior to membership our environmental record was pretty poor. We'll find out in the next few years. So far, all the regulatory standards signals are pointing in the opposite direction, the same applying to the financial sector, but the government might surprise us yet.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 17, 2021 16:55:04 GMT
Yes in Cumbria And it should still happen it would be far better to mine coal using the most modern methods in this country Rather than importing coal from around the world using far less environmentally friendly methods That's just a zero sum game, though, isn't it? Even better would be to massively invest in renewables and sack fossil fuels off as much as possible. Which developing a new coal mine clearly doesn't do. We've been through this on another thread. The proposed Cumbria coal mine is for metallurgical coal used in coke ovens to produce coke, mainly for blast furnaces. It is not for power generation. Currently all the metallurgical coke used in the UK is brought here from Russia, USA, and Australia. Canada has been a main provider in the past but not currently. Some coal is used a fuel injected into blast furnaces to supplement the coke, reduce coke consumption, and increase the furnace efficiency. Some furnaces use oil and some gas but that is far less common due to their costs. The function of the coke in a blast furnace is three fold. Ultimately it burns and is therefore a fuel, but its main function is to act as a reducing agent and to support the burden in the blast furnace. It is possible to use natural gas (methane) as a reducing agent but despite many decades of trying it has not proved commercially successful. The latest idea is to use hydrogen as the reducing agent and some experimental plants are trying this. The problem though is that gases cannot support the burden. The burden comprises of many constituents: iron ore in the form of rubble, sinter, or pellets and limestone to act as a fluxing agent to remove siliceous impurities. It is essential to separate the iron produced from reducing iron oxide from the various contaminants in the ore. We could of course do what we have been doing for the last 50 years and shut our blast furnaces down and import all our steel requirements. The UK imports over 6 m tonnes p.a. and exports 8 m tonnes of scrap, mainly to China and India to be made into steel. Metallurgical coal is relatively scarce. It was mined extensively in Co Durham and the Wolstanton colliery, one of the deepest in the world did produce metallurgical coal as North Staffordshire had some seams. One of the reasons Durham metallurgical coal stopped being used in preference for foreign imports is it contains high levels of sulphur.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 17, 2021 17:14:56 GMT
That's just a zero sum game, though, isn't it? Even better would be to massively invest in renewables and sack fossil fuels off as much as possible. Which developing a new coal mine clearly doesn't do. We've been through this on another thread. The proposed Cumbria coal mine is for metallurgical coal used in coke ovens to produce coke, mainly for blast furnaces. It is not for power generation. Currently all the metallurgical coke used in the UK is brought here from Russia, USA, and Australia. Canada has been a main provider in the past but not currently. Some coal is used a fuel injected into blast furnaces to supplement the coke, reduce coke consumption, and increase the furnace efficiency. Some furnaces use oil and some gas but that is far less common due to their costs. The function of the coke in a blast furnace is three fold. Ultimately it burns and is therefore a fuel, but its main function is to act as a reducing agent and to support the burden in the blast furnace. It is possible to use natural gas (methane) as a reducing agent but despite many decades of trying it has not proved commercially successful. The latest idea is to use hydrogen as the reducing agent and some experimental plants are trying this. The problem though is that gases cannot support the burden. The burden comprises of many constituents: iron ore in the form of rubble, sinter, or pellets and limestone to act as a fluxing agent to remove siliceous impurities. It is essential to separate the iron produced from reducing iron oxide from the various contaminants in the ore. We could of course do what we have been doing for the last 50 years and shut our blast furnaces down and import all our steel requirements. The UK imports over 6 m tonnes p.a. and exports 8 m tonnes of scrap, mainly to China and India to be made into steel. Metallurgical coal is relatively scarce. It was mined extensively in Co Durham and the Wolstanton colliery, one of the deepest in the world did produce metallurgical coal as North Staffordshire had some seams. One of the reasons Durham metallurgical coal stopped being used in preference for foreign imports is it contains high levels of sulphur. Don’t expect rwb to 1) remember anything much from other threads or 2) understand any of the complexities of the realities of life. He likes everything nice and simple. Which may help explain his blossoming relationship with Huddy who, if not particularly nice compensates with a monumental level of simplicity.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 17, 2021 17:44:14 GMT
I stand by what I have said. The government have proposed extensive measures to "green" farming/agriculture in the UK that will take decades to deliver after 40 years of CAP. I'm afraid a 5% green border round intensively farmed fields is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is the intensive farming driven by the CAP that is the problem that needs addressing. The rule about leaving a border round fields has only led to farmers ripping out hedgerows to make fields bigger ; something that is now prohibited. The "massive gaps" are the lack of independant regulatory control that the greens call for, but I prefer to vote for governments to exercise control not pressure groups; it's what is called democracy. As for that old epithet "the dirty man of Europe" that does undermine the credibility of everything the professor professes, most of which was opinions not facts. It is a tag that the UK was given (supposedly in Europe but no one really knows as it predates www) because in the early 70s the UK pumped out more sulphur dioxide than anyone else. It was a feature of the UK's high sulphur coals and lack of desulphurisation in coal fired power stations. That was at a time when acid rain was one of the world's major concerns, like the depleting ozone layer. That picture has totally changed, sulphur emissions were largely eradicated as were CFCs resulting in acid rain being no longer the major concern and the ozone layer is repairing itself. But the tag stuck and was used extensively by surfers against sewage*, as the UK was responsible for most untreated sewage* at that time. A FoE Director (I forget his name, Porritt I think) reviewed whether the term was justified or just a piece of slander used by green activists, notably British ones criticising their own country. His assessment back in the 80s was that it was a 70s term that seriously upset environment professionals and had been largely addressed in the context originally used. He stated that environmental professionals were proud of the UK's record on legislation, much of which EEC copied. His conclusion was as you might expect of a FoE Director, yes the UK is a "dirty man one of many in Europe"! He was hardly likely to complement the UK was he? I have not used the term "rosy". I have said in fact there is much to be done. What upsets me as someone who achieved a world first in environmental control and a model for Europe and RoW, the constant knocking of the UK , which has an excellent record on environmental issues, and by any measure better than the EU mean and only bettered by a few countries on a few individual aspects. We must not rest on our laurels and need to press on to match smaller countries like Sweden. * The issue of releasing untreated sewage reminds me of when I was driving to work one day in the late 90s and the minister responsible was being lambasted on Radio 4 about a European report that damned the UK's performance on beach standards. He defended the UK saying the data was years out of date and huge amounts had been spent to treat effluent and beaches were now much improved. He was still pilloried for UK being the worst in Europe, to which he replied it was not the worst. The interviewer said how can you say that the UK is bottom of the list. The minister pointed out that the UK was worst of those reported, a lot of European countries had not reported on their beach standards! Yeah, so basically, you've just confirmed that we were known as the dirty man of Europe for all the SO2 and all the raw sewage we were pumping out. And that, during membership of the EU, our environmental performance improved dramatically. My guess is that the two are not unconnected, but I assume you think we'd have done at least as much and probably even more without EU Directives requiring us to legislate to do so, despite the fact that prior to membership our environmental record was pretty poor. We'll find out in the next few years. So far, all the regulatory standards signals are pointing in the opposite direction, the same applying to the financial sector, but the government might surprise us yet. Your first sentence above is correct, but in reality we were no dirtier than other countries who were worse on other emissions like CO2, NOX, etc. It's just that the tag was given for SO2 emissions causing acid rain. The legislation to stop SO2 emissions was passed in 1974 two years before we joined the common market and the ban on CFCs was worldwide action at the same time we joined in 1976. So your guess is wrong, they are unconnected. As I posted before the UK led environmental legislation with the Clean Air Acts and much European legislation was based on UK legislation - see my post in April. Many of the European countries had environmental legislation before joining the EEC. Are you crediting the EU with all the environmental legislation around the world including the USA the first country to have an environmental protection act? What about Canada and others? Some of the most impressive plant I have seen for environment protection was in India. Virtually all China's steelworks are built this century and the old plant demolished, while virtually all steel plants in Europe are 50 years old. Some of the worst polluting plants in the world are in Italy and Poland. Your obsession that all good thing come from the European Union is quite unbalanced. New Zealand has a far more advanced society than Europe for example. I cannot understand your obsession (and others on this MB) with constantly criticising the UK.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 17, 2021 17:53:32 GMT
Yeah, so basically, you've just confirmed that we were known as the dirty man of Europe for all the SO2 and all the raw sewage we were pumping out. And that, during membership of the EU, our environmental performance improved dramatically. My guess is that the two are not unconnected, but I assume you think we'd have done at least as much and probably even more without EU Directives requiring us to legislate to do so, despite the fact that prior to membership our environmental record was pretty poor. We'll find out in the next few years. So far, all the regulatory standards signals are pointing in the opposite direction, the same applying to the financial sector, but the government might surprise us yet. Your first sentence above is correct, but in reality we were no dirtier than other countries who were worse on other emissions like CO2, NOX, etc. It's just that the tag was given for SO2 emissions causing acid rain. The legislation to stop SO2 emissions was passed in 1974 two years before we joined the common market and the ban on CFCs was worldwide action at the same time we joined in 1976. So your guess is wrong, they are unconnected. As I posted before the UK led environmental legislation with the Clean Air Acts and much European legislation was based on UK legislation - see my post in April. Many of the European countries had environmental legislation before joining the EEC. Are you crediting the EU with all the environmental legislation around the world including the USA the first country to have an environmental protection act? What about Canada and others? Some of the most impressive plant I have seen for environment protection was in India. Virtually all China's steelworks are built this century and the old plant demolished, while virtually all steel plants in Europe are 50 years old. Some of the worst polluting plants in the world are in Italy and Poland. Your obsession that all good thing come from the European Union is quite unbalanced. New Zealand has a far more advanced society than Europe for example. I cannot understand your obsession (and others on this MB) with constantly criticising the UK. You just reminded me of that wonderful campaign New Zealand farmers launched 10+ years ago... Fight Against Ridiculous Taxation ( link).
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on May 17, 2021 18:06:46 GMT
We've been through this on another thread. The proposed Cumbria coal mine is for metallurgical coal used in coke ovens to produce coke, mainly for blast furnaces. It is not for power generation. Currently all the metallurgical coke used in the UK is brought here from Russia, USA, and Australia. Canada has been a main provider in the past but not currently. Some coal is used a fuel injected into blast furnaces to supplement the coke, reduce coke consumption, and increase the furnace efficiency. Some furnaces use oil and some gas but that is far less common due to their costs. The function of the coke in a blast furnace is three fold. Ultimately it burns and is therefore a fuel, but its main function is to act as a reducing agent and to support the burden in the blast furnace. It is possible to use natural gas (methane) as a reducing agent but despite many decades of trying it has not proved commercially successful. The latest idea is to use hydrogen as the reducing agent and some experimental plants are trying this. The problem though is that gases cannot support the burden. The burden comprises of many constituents: iron ore in the form of rubble, sinter, or pellets and limestone to act as a fluxing agent to remove siliceous impurities. It is essential to separate the iron produced from reducing iron oxide from the various contaminants in the ore. We could of course do what we have been doing for the last 50 years and shut our blast furnaces down and import all our steel requirements. The UK imports over 6 m tonnes p.a. and exports 8 m tonnes of scrap, mainly to China and India to be made into steel. Metallurgical coal is relatively scarce. It was mined extensively in Co Durham and the Wolstanton colliery, one of the deepest in the world did produce metallurgical coal as North Staffordshire had some seams. One of the reasons Durham metallurgical coal stopped being used in preference for foreign imports is it contains high levels of sulphur. Don’t expect rwb to 1) remember anything much from other threads or 2) understand any of the complexities of the realities of life. He likes everything nice and simple. Which may help explain his blossoming relationship with Huddy who, if not particularly nice compensates with a monumental level of simplicity. I'll have to correct you there. Bluers has excellent recall when it comes to threads and posts from yesteryear as long as it suits him and he's 'playing the man'- if you press him on anything that is less convenient, the memory tends to go a little hazy though! The fact that he was calling you out for being precious whilst buddying up with the most precious poster on here didn't go unnoticed either- it's amazing how malleable his high standards of messageboard etiquette are when it comes to Left Wing Club 😄
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 17, 2021 20:09:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on May 17, 2021 21:05:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on May 17, 2021 21:49:04 GMT
If it weren't for the EU we'd be making our own Flakes rather than importing them from Egypt. "The majority of the 99 Flakes sold in the UK are made in a factory in Egypt "
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 18, 2021 6:44:15 GMT
Yeah, so basically, you've just confirmed that we were known as the dirty man of Europe for all the SO2 and all the raw sewage we were pumping out. And that, during membership of the EU, our environmental performance improved dramatically. My guess is that the two are not unconnected, but I assume you think we'd have done at least as much and probably even more without EU Directives requiring us to legislate to do so, despite the fact that prior to membership our environmental record was pretty poor. We'll find out in the next few years. So far, all the regulatory standards signals are pointing in the opposite direction, the same applying to the financial sector, but the government might surprise us yet. Your first sentence above is correct, but in reality we were no dirtier than other countries who were worse on other emissions like CO2, NOX, etc. It's just that the tag was given for SO2 emissions causing acid rain. The legislation to stop SO2 emissions was passed in 1974 two years before we joined the common market and the ban on CFCs was worldwide action at the same time we joined in 1976. So your guess is wrong, they are unconnected. As I posted before the UK led environmental legislation with the Clean Air Acts and much European legislation was based on UK legislation - see my post in April. Many of the European countries had environmental legislation before joining the EEC. Are you crediting the EU with all the environmental legislation around the world including the USA the first country to have an environmental protection act? What about Canada and others? Some of the most impressive plant I have seen for environment protection was in India. Virtually all China's steelworks are built this century and the old plant demolished, while virtually all steel plants in Europe are 50 years old. Some of the worst polluting plants in the world are in Italy and Poland. Your obsession that all good thing come from the European Union is quite unbalanced. New Zealand has a far more advanced society than Europe for example. I cannot understand your obsession (and others on this MB) with constantly criticising the UK. I've never actually said that all good things come from the EU, simply that I happen to agree with the environmental experts when their considered opinion is that membership brought about environmental improvements that wouldn't (in their opinions) have been the case outside of the EU. And that the UK started in a pretty poor environmental position. However, credit where it's due, todays news about legally binding environmental targets in the much delayed Environment Bill is excellent and the first sign that some serious thought is being given to this issue, post Brexit. www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57152169Of course, as with all govt pronouncements, having targets doesn't necessarily mean you'll put measures in place to achieve them, especially if, politically, it's low priority for people who are likely to vote for you. See the repeatedly broken air quality targets for an example. But at the very least if the laws are enacted it will allow the government to be held to account. How this will be squared with the impending relaxation of planning rules remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 18, 2021 6:52:33 GMT
We've been through this on another thread. The proposed Cumbria coal mine is for metallurgical coal used in coke ovens to produce coke, mainly for blast furnaces. It is not for power generation. Currently all the metallurgical coke used in the UK is brought here from Russia, USA, and Australia. Canada has been a main provider in the past but not currently. Some coal is used a fuel injected into blast furnaces to supplement the coke, reduce coke consumption, and increase the furnace efficiency. Some furnaces use oil and some gas but that is far less common due to their costs. The function of the coke in a blast furnace is three fold. Ultimately it burns and is therefore a fuel, but its main function is to act as a reducing agent and to support the burden in the blast furnace. It is possible to use natural gas (methane) as a reducing agent but despite many decades of trying it has not proved commercially successful. The latest idea is to use hydrogen as the reducing agent and some experimental plants are trying this. The problem though is that gases cannot support the burden. The burden comprises of many constituents: iron ore in the form of rubble, sinter, or pellets and limestone to act as a fluxing agent to remove siliceous impurities. It is essential to separate the iron produced from reducing iron oxide from the various contaminants in the ore. We could of course do what we have been doing for the last 50 years and shut our blast furnaces down and import all our steel requirements. The UK imports over 6 m tonnes p.a. and exports 8 m tonnes of scrap, mainly to China and India to be made into steel. Metallurgical coal is relatively scarce. It was mined extensively in Co Durham and the Wolstanton colliery, one of the deepest in the world did produce metallurgical coal as North Staffordshire had some seams. One of the reasons Durham metallurgical coal stopped being used in preference for foreign imports is it contains high levels of sulphur. Don’t expect rwb to 1) remember anything much from other threads or 2) understand any of the complexities of the realities of life. He likes everything nice and simple. Which may help explain his blossoming relationship with Huddy who, if not particularly nice compensates with a monumental level of simplicity. Gosh, you're spending a disturbing amount of time imagining all this, partick! Let it go, try to lighten up a bit, you'll probably feel better and look a little less childish too.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 18, 2021 7:30:13 GMT
If it weren't for the EU we'd be making our own Flakes rather than importing them from Egypt. "The majority of the 99 Flakes sold in the UK are made in a factory in Egypt " This quite disgraceful isn't it. We demand flake production is brought back to Birmingham along with this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-55938419It is also disgraceful that HP Sauce was moved away from Birmingham to The Netherlands. I remember a tall building in Brum that looked like a giant HP Sauce bottle. As with so many things, it was taken over, production moved to Europe, the factory demolished and a housing estate built.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 18, 2021 7:51:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on May 18, 2021 8:00:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on May 18, 2021 8:13:40 GMT
All this huffing and puffing over something out of your control. Seems like a waste of time to me. What's it achieving?
It isn't healthy.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 18, 2021 9:53:05 GMT
All this huffing and puffing over something out of your control. Seems like a waste of time to me. What's it achieving? It isn't healthy. Kills a few minutes whilst taking a dump or sat on a works conference call. You could say that about pretty much every thread though......
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on May 18, 2021 10:08:30 GMT
All this huffing and puffing over something out of your control. Seems like a waste of time to me. What's it achieving? It isn't healthy. Kills a few minutes whilst taking a dump or sat on a works conference call. You could say that about pretty much every thread though...... Did you catch Inside Number 9 last night? A big improvement.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 18, 2021 10:10:00 GMT
Kills a few minutes whilst taking a dump or sat on a works conference call. You could say that about pretty much every thread though...... Did you catch Inside Number 9 last night? A big improvement. No was working late, I will though.......
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on May 18, 2021 10:26:29 GMT
Did you catch Inside Number 9 last night? A big improvement. No was working late, I will though....... A return to form.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 18, 2021 12:48:53 GMT
It's McLeish that is propagating lies. He is mixing his drinks, there are no tariffs trading with the EU as the politicians correctly states. There is lots of red tape trading with the EU which is why in the future we will be able to grow our trade with non EU countries that have to face the same red tape, plus tariffs if they don't have a trade agreement. There are thousands of tariffs, over 13,000, many with countries the EU has trade agreements which are not "free" as the UK EU trade deal is. For example there is a tariff on shoes from the far east to protect the Italian shoe industry. Above all is tariff and quotas on food to protect the CAP from cheaper world food from third world countries. We have left the customs union and there are bound to be "casualties" that was always obvious. But cheese, milk, fish, musicians, don't figure in the top 80 exports of the UK and they have the option of selling to over 160 countries that are not in the EU. The EU now represents less than a 5th of the world's commerce, which we are now free to take advantage of without all the EU red trade which acts as a barrier to trade.
|
|