|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 12, 2022 20:17:36 GMT
That will have contributed to the rapidly shrinking manufacturing output announced today. Brexit is an absolute unmitigated disaster. Apart from those who shorted the pound of course!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 12, 2022 22:13:33 GMT
I'm trying to think of one single thing from Brexit that has made me or the working classes any better off. I reckon that would apply to farmers, fishermen, and most small businesses. It has to be the biggest con and rip off in political history. OS. Why would it make you or the working classes better off. That wasn't its point, although it'd be a nice side bonus. Its point was to stop the Conservative party losing about 50-100 MPs to UKIP. And given the continuing chaos around Europe in the party and rumours of defections to Reform, it hasn't even done that. Probably the most damaging single event to happen to Britain since the second world war. In terms of harming our status in the world, probably only Suez comes close. It's amazing that there is no real acknowledgement of this. You won't get any current Tory MP admitting it, all the ones who thought it have quit and, of course, half the press in the country still pretend it was a good idea. Not a single benefit has resulted (sorry, blue passports and vacuum cleaners aside!) compared to a whole host of downsides and still the country is too immature to deal with the reality.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 13, 2022 6:51:58 GMT
Why is the NHS so squeezed? Is it because of EU migrants coming, like the leave campaign and the right wing press have said for years? No. Decade of underfunding says the government commissioned report: www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/12/decade-of-neglect-means-nhs-unable-to-tackle-care-backlog-report-saysLeave voters duped once more. Another key reason for brexit, the so called strain on public services from EU migrants is proven to be bollocks. What a disaster brexit and the tories are. Save for extremes, like Hitler, up there with the most damaging and terrible political parties ever in a so called advanced democracy.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 13, 2022 6:57:59 GMT
I'm trying to think of one single thing from Brexit that has made me or the working classes any better off. I reckon that would apply to farmers, fishermen, and most small businesses. It has to be the biggest con and rip off in political history. OS. Why would it make you or the working classes better off. That wasn't it's point, although it'd be a nice side bonus. It's point was to stop the Conservative party losing about 50-100 MPs to UKIP. And given the continuing chaos around Europe in the party and rumours of defections to Reform, it hasn't even done that. Probably the most damaging single event to happen to Britain since the second world war. In terms of harming our status in the world, probably only Suez comes close. It's amazing that there is no real acknowledgement of this. You won't get any current Tory MP admitting it, all the ones who thought it have quit and, of course, half the press in the country still pretend it was a good idea. Not a single benefit has resulted (sorry, blue passports and vacuum cleaners aside!) compared to a whole host of downsides and still the country is too immature to deal with the reality. We could have blue passports as an EU member. So it is vacuum cleaners and that’s it. And no brexiteers have come up with any other benefit yet. Except Mr Coke who keeps telling us our economy is booming as a result of brexit!!!
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 13, 2022 9:44:02 GMT
Why would it make you or the working classes better off. That wasn't it's point, although it'd be a nice side bonus. It's point was to stop the Conservative party losing about 50-100 MPs to UKIP. And given the continuing chaos around Europe in the party and rumours of defections to Reform, it hasn't even done that. Probably the most damaging single event to happen to Britain since the second world war. In terms of harming our status in the world, probably only Suez comes close. It's amazing that there is no real acknowledgement of this. You won't get any current Tory MP admitting it, all the ones who thought it have quit and, of course, half the press in the country still pretend it was a good idea. Not a single benefit has resulted (sorry, blue passports and vacuum cleaners aside!) compared to a whole host of downsides and still the country is too immature to deal with the reality. We could have blue passports as an EU member. So it is vacuum cleaners and that’s it. And no brexiteers have come up with any other benefit yet. Except Mr Coke who keeps telling us our economy is booming as a result of brexit!!! I take it you are not looking forward to my annual report on the second year of Brexit in the new year. I shall not only be reporting on the successes of post Brexit Britain, but laying the lie about Brexit contributing to food inflation. As for " It's amazing that there is no real acknowledgement of this", that's because Brexit has not caused any serious lasting harm. All the difficulties we face are largely due to the effects of the pandemic (which is still far more reaching than people realise), the incompetent governments (we are on our fourth post referendum and fifth PM), the war in Ukraine, and as my quarterly reports point out, in many aspects other countries are suffering worse from these effects than the UK. I haven't used words like "booming" or "swimmingly" but merely point out record GDP, record trade, record investments, lowest unemployment in over 40 years, etc. in post Brexit UK.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 13, 2022 12:14:58 GMT
We could have blue passports as an EU member. So it is vacuum cleaners and that’s it. And no brexiteers have come up with any other benefit yet. Except Mr Coke who keeps telling us our economy is booming as a result of brexit!!! I take it you are not looking forward to my annual report on the second year of Brexit in the new year. I shall not only be reporting on the successes of post Brexit Britain, but laying the lie about Brexit contributing to food inflation. As for " It's amazing that there is no real acknowledgement of this", that's because Brexit has not caused any serious lasting harm. All the difficulties we face are largely due to the effects of the pandemic (which is still far more reaching than people realise), the incompetent governments (we are on our fourth post referendum and fifth PM), the war in Ukraine, and as my quarterly reports point out, in many aspects other countries are suffering worse from these effects than the UK. I haven't used words like "booming" or "swimmingly" but merely point out record GDP, record trade, record investments, lowest unemployment in over 40 years, etc. in post Brexit UK. Record lows of trade with Germany you mean? Will you account for inflation and devalued pound in your calculations this time? Will you comment on the fact one third of businesses who used to trade with the EU don’t anymore? Or will you focus again only on the large trading volumes of the massive companies who can meet the extra costs as their smaller competitors who can’t, fail. If may be good for the biggest companies, awful for all others. It’s strange how businesses blame brexit for the extra costly bureaucracy to trade with our biggest trading partner, but you blame that on Putin!? Or was it covid that created the Northern Ireland protocol. Putin is definitely responsible for food not being picked and restaurants not being staffed, is he!? And remember, we are too scared to even fully implement the post brexit trading arrangements with the EU! They are that bad! Will you address the huge drop in manufacturing output, made worse by fewer orders from the EU? Will you address the massive shortage of doctors and nurses caused by brexit that i have linked to? Will you finally explain how a devalued pound and extra bureaucracy and therefore costs to businesses to trade could possibly lead to lower food prices for Uk consumers buying food imported from theEU?
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Dec 13, 2022 12:32:14 GMT
We could have blue passports as an EU member. So it is vacuum cleaners and that’s it. And no brexiteers have come up with any other benefit yet. Except Mr Coke who keeps telling us our economy is booming as a result of brexit!!! I take it you are not looking forward to my annual report on the second year of Brexit in the new year. I shall not only be reporting on the successes of post Brexit Britain, but laying the lie about Brexit contributing to food inflation. As for " It's amazing that there is no real acknowledgement of this", that's because Brexit has not caused any serious lasting harm. All the difficulties we face are largely due to the effects of the pandemic (which is still far more reaching than people realise), the incompetent governments (we are on our fourth post referendum and fifth PM), the war in Ukraine, and as my quarterly reports point out, in many aspects other countries are suffering worse from these effects than the UK. I haven't used words like "booming" or "swimmingly" but merely point out record GDP, record trade, record investments, lowest unemployment in over 40 years, etc. in post Brexit UK. Brexit is making most people poorer and is making the UK, s global standing worse. It is recognised by all but those who refuse to accept the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 13, 2022 12:38:51 GMT
We could have blue passports as an EU member. So it is vacuum cleaners and that’s it. And no brexiteers have come up with any other benefit yet. Except Mr Coke who keeps telling us our economy is booming as a result of brexit!!! I take it you are not looking forward to my annual report on the second year of Brexit in the new year. I shall not only be reporting on the successes of post Brexit Britain, but laying the lie about Brexit contributing to food inflation. As for " It's amazing that there is no real acknowledgement of this", that's because Brexit has not caused any serious lasting harm. All the difficulties we face are largely due to the effects of the pandemic (which is still far more reaching than people realise), the incompetent governments (we are on our fourth post referendum and fifth PM), the war in Ukraine, and as my quarterly reports point out, in many aspects other countries are suffering worse from these effects than the UK. I haven't used words like "booming" or "swimmingly" but merely point out record GDP, record trade, record investments, lowest unemployment in over 40 years, etc. in post Brexit UK. And yet, almost everyone else who isn't a non-expert in economics with lots of time on their hands, agrees that Brexit will be far more damaging to the country than Covid, go figure! I appreciate that you do have time on your hands and your reports may be how you choose to fill it. If so, fair enough. But if you wanted to save yourself all that time you could do so. I say that not because I'm not prepared to read stuff that doesn't chime with what I think, but because you've been called out so often for presenting erroneous or misleading information, no-one really takes any of it seriously any more.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 14, 2022 7:17:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 14, 2022 9:04:29 GMT
The New Cumbria Coal Plant should be a big hit then
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 17, 2022 0:34:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 17, 2022 11:47:43 GMT
More post-Brexit deregulation.
More post-Brexit loosening of standards and protection.
DT: Water quality left out of eco targets.
The government has been criticised for failing to include a target to improve overall water quality in England and Wales.
Meanwhile, the EU's water framework directive, to which the UK is no longer beholden, continues to do just that in its member countries.
Coke will be along shortly to say why its all the CAP's fault really and why loosening environmental protection post-Brexit, as entirely predicted pre-Brexit, is nothing to do with Brexit, or its inevitable need to save money as a result.
Expect more shit pumped into our rivers and seas. On the plus side, if you don't have targets, all our rivers will, by default, be excellent quality! An approach to standards and regulation which is increasingly likely elsewhere too.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 17, 2022 13:43:11 GMT
More post-Brexit deregulation. More post-Brexit loosening of standards and protection. DT: Water quality left out of eco targets. The government has been criticised for failing to include a target to improve overall water quality in England and Wales. Meanwhile, the EU's water framework directive, to which the UK is no longer beholden, continues to do just that in its member countries. Coke will be along shortly to say why its all the CAP's fault really and why loosening environmental protection post-Brexit, as entirely predicted pre-Brexit, is nothing to do with Brexit, or its inevitable need to save money as a result. Expect more shit pumped into our rivers and seas. On the plus side, if you don't have targets, all our rivers will, by default, be excellent quality! An approach to standards and regulation which is increasingly likely elsewhere too. It's actually post restoring sovereignty deregulation. We are now free to elect a government to enact or repeal laws in Britain and not be subjected to EU regulations. The British people can elect whatever government is wishes; a green government, or even a government to rejoin the EU if the people want to hand law making back to the EU. The only thing CAP has to do with the environment is damage it by intensive farming, resulting in water pollution throughout Europe due to fertilisers and pesticides, etc. into Europe's waterways. I have posted at length on the subject as you are clearly aware. Toxic chemicals are the main cause of river pollution, not sewage, which is a natural product. As usual you are critical of government. That's good. We are probably the most self critical nation in the world, which is also good, as it pushes our authorities in the right direction. As a consequence for example the UK is ranked second best in the world this year's environmental performance index. epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epiThere are other environmental comparison systems of course, but whichever one you choose the UK is up there near the top of over 150 countries worldwide. On one of them New Zealand is the best in the world. I don't think they need membership of the EU to keep them right. Their agriculture policy is about as far away from CAP as you can get! The solution to all our problems like environmental controls, poverty, NHS, education, welfare, etc. is to create greater national wealth. Outside the EU we are far better placed to do that by managing our own affairs like trade and ending , or at least drastically reducing, the massive trade deficit with the EU. What is the sense in the UK having a positive trade balance with the rest of the world, simply to hand over £70billion per year trade deficit to the EU? We are earning revenue from the rest of the world to hand it over to the EU buying food, cars, white goods, etc. There are some who argue for greater deregulation, I don't agree with them. I want to see regulation customised to UK needs not what Brussels thinks is in the best interest of the European Union. I have worked closely with the Environment Agency in my time and have great respect for their professional competence. They are best at judging what controls are necessary for the UK; they just need backing from responsible politicians.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 17, 2022 13:55:50 GMT
More post-Brexit deregulation. More post-Brexit loosening of standards and protection. DT: Water quality left out of eco targets. The government has been criticised for failing to include a target to improve overall water quality in England and Wales. Meanwhile, the EU's water framework directive, to which the UK is no longer beholden, continues to do just that in its member countries. Coke will be along shortly to say why its all the CAP's fault really and why loosening environmental protection post-Brexit, as entirely predicted pre-Brexit, is nothing to do with Brexit, or its inevitable need to save money as a result. Expect more shit pumped into our rivers and seas. On the plus side, if you don't have targets, all our rivers will, by default, be excellent quality! An approach to standards and regulation which is increasingly likely elsewhere too. Another thought just struck me. You are not wrong to criticise government relaxing "loosening standards" if in fact it leads to worse pollutiion. But where were we 3 years ago? www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/06/uk-near-bottom-of-european-bathing-waters-league-table47 years of EEC/EU membership was hardly a resounding success was it? We can do better outside the EU.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 17, 2022 16:40:36 GMT
More post-Brexit deregulation. More post-Brexit loosening of standards and protection. DT: Water quality left out of eco targets. The government has been criticised for failing to include a target to improve overall water quality in England and Wales. Meanwhile, the EU's water framework directive, to which the UK is no longer beholden, continues to do just that in its member countries. Coke will be along shortly to say why its all the CAP's fault really and why loosening environmental protection post-Brexit, as entirely predicted pre-Brexit, is nothing to do with Brexit, or its inevitable need to save money as a result. Expect more shit pumped into our rivers and seas. On the plus side, if you don't have targets, all our rivers will, by default, be excellent quality! An approach to standards and regulation which is increasingly likely elsewhere too. It's actually post restoring sovereignty deregulation. We are now free to elect a government to enact or repeal laws in Britain and not be subjected to EU regulations. The British people can elect whatever government is wishes; a green government, or even a government to rejoin the EU if the people want to hand law making back to the EU. The only thing CAP has to do with the environment is damage it by intensive farming, resulting in water pollution throughout Europe due to fertilisers and pesticides, etc. into Europe's waterways. I have posted at length on the subject as you are clearly aware. Toxic chemicals are the main cause of river pollution, not sewage, which is a natural product. As usual you are critical of government. That's good. We are probably the most self critical nation in the world, which is also good, as it pushes our authorities in the right direction. As a consequence for example the UK is ranked second best in the world this year's environmental performance index. epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epiThere are other environmental comparison systems of course, but whichever one you choose the UK is up there near the top of over 150 countries worldwide. On one of them New Zealand is the best in the world. I don't think they need membership of the EU to keep them right. Their agriculture policy is about as far away from CAP as you can get! The solution to all our problems like environmental controls, poverty, NHS, education, welfare, etc. is to create greater national wealth. Outside the EU we are far better placed to do that by managing our own affairs like trade and ending , or at least drastically reducing, the massive trade deficit with the EU. What is the sense in the UK having a positive trade balance with the rest of the world, simply to hand over £70billion per year trade deficit to the EU? We are earning revenue from the rest of the world to hand it over to the EU buying food, cars, white goods, etc. There are some who argue for greater deregulation, I don't agree with them. I want to see regulation customised to UK needs not what Brussels thinks is in the best interest of the European Union. I have worked closely with the Environment Agency in my time and have great respect for their professional competence. They are best at judging what controls are necessary for the UK; they just need backing from responsible politicians. In Cornish Dialect the name for a Social Circular Dance is called a Troyl. And so it begins again with you on another such whirl. You do know that EU Regulations are merely minimum Standards and Countries can and do exceed them. There was absolutely nothing to stop when UK were in EU to set higher Standards, what convinces you they will do so now? After EU you next blame Government for carrying out the wrong policies, you may well be right and then finally, we can change Government every 5 years. Rinse and repeat Your single source reference is EPI which measures aspirations not outcomes We all know know this Government is Long on Promises and Short on delivery You then say Trade and resulting increased wealth will be the solution (it has been done to death why Brexit has reduced Trade) You have pinned your hopes on an India Trade Deal as a game changer in several posts EPI place India last of 180 Countries in the Report you quote. In any case why use external references now we have "regained " Sovereignty Why not look at what the House of Commons Committee has to say about Water Quality in English Rivers (I must warn you it's not easy reading) The Report was Published in January of this year and the Government had two months to reply, to my knowledge it hasn't done so. Mind you they have been somewhat busy rearranging the deckchairs It's a very long Report which shouldn't be a challenge to you but let me quote just a few extracts 9. Only 14% of rivers in England can currently claim to have good ecological status.11 The Government is not on track to meet the Water Framework Directive requirement—subsequently transposed into UK law—for all rivers to reach good status by 2027.12 Wildlife and Countryside Link has warned that the water quality of rivers in England is the worst in Europe.13Good ecological status (GES) is a metric for assessing the health of the water environment. It is assigned using various water flow, habitat and biological quality tests. Failure to meet any one individual test means that the whole water body fails to achieve good ecological status. This indicator, and the statutory framework that supports it, have been retained in UK law after the UK’s departure from the EU.19.The water and effluent quality monitoring currently undertaken by the Environment Agency and water companies is mainly focused on the levels of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and ammonia.29 A variety of other substances—metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and plastics—also contribute to poor water quality, yet many of these are simply not monitored routinely. Gathering data on the full range of pollutants requires sampling and laboratory analysis: given the resources currently made available for systematic monitoring both regionally and nationally, some consider that the levels of such pollutants are unlikely to be monitored. Levels of many legacy and emerging pollutants, including microplastics, narcotics and so called ‘forever chemicals’, are therefore simply not being routinely measured.30 Few inland sites are monitored for the kinds of bacterial pollution that can cause gastroenteritis.3120. We received evidence raising serious concerns about the robustness of the Environment Agency’s systems of water quality spot sampling32 and the system of operator self-monitoring it relies on to regulate sewage treatment works. We examine these issues in more detail in Chapter Four below.35. The latest progress report against the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan shows that indicators for wild salmon rivers indicators are moving in the wrong direction.68 The percentage of principal salmon rivers at risk in England has risen by 10 percentage points, from 48% in 2004 to 58% in 2019. Over the same time frame the percentage of rivers in the ‘probably at risk’ category has increased by 15 percentage points, from 21% to 36%. The percentage of rivers in the ‘not at risk’ category has fallen by 24 percentage points to zero between 2004 and 2019, and while the percentage of rivers in the ‘probably not at risk’ category has fluctuated in the intervening years, it is the same in 2019 as it was in 2004.69 Salmon and Trout Conservation warned that:we have 42 main salmon rivers in England. In 39 of the 42 the populations are categorised as being at risk or probably at risk. No rivers are categorised as not at risk at all. The salmon population is in a bit of a mess. There are other threats other than pollution facing salmon but pollution of the rivers, where they spawn, is a serious one.70The situation in the UK mirrors this concerning global picture. In June 2021 we published a report on biodiversity in the UK which highlighted the poor record of successive governments in protecting biodiversity at home.76 The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world with the lowest level of biodiversity remaining of any G7 country. In that report we argued that action to protect biodiversity needed to be stepped up in scale, ambition, pace, and detail in order to halt the decline of species.77 In this inquiry we have examined the measures needed to improve water quality in rivers in order to protect the biodiversity of freshwater bodies in England.I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment that Chemical pollution especially Phosphorous is a real scourge but hardly limited to EU Here the Committee examine a case study on River Wye 106 Intensive livestock and poultry farming appears to be putting enormous pressure on particular catchments, such as those feeding the river Wye running through Wales and the south-west Midlands. The number of chickens being reared there appears to have increased significantly, and pollution from their waste appears to be finding its way into river waters. The potential impact of intensive agricultural practices on river water quality must be fully acknowledged and the risks mitigated. One means of doing this is through farming which is as sensitive as possible to its effect on water quality in catchments.
In CAP 11 the EU have put in place a strategy to reduce Chemical Fertilisation linked to Payments in the "Farm to Fork" Plan. I guess we'll discover at some point what the UK Government Plan may be if they ever get around to replying to the Committees Report agriculture.ec.europa.eu/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/low-input-farming/nutrients_enThe FFCC argued that greater resources ought to be devoted to enforcement of existing water and farming regulations.223 Sir James Bevan conceded that funding reductions had reduced the Environment Agency’s ability to police the farming rules:
[… B]because of the reduction in our grant and because most farming is not regulated and, therefore, we do not get income from the cost of regulating farms in those cases, we have been able to do fewer and fewer farm inspections over the last several years. Right now, at least last year, we had sufficient resource that would allow us, in theory, to visit every farm in Britain less than once every 200 years. That is not a great disincentive to a farmer to stay on the right side of the line, so there is an issue about resourcing and about the overall regulatory framework for farmi publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmenvaud/74/report.htmlThe above extracts are from just the first 20% of the report and I won't continue as you get the picture The terrible state of English Rivers described above as the worst in Europe has nothing to do with EU or CAP. A Sovereign Government has the duty and ability to protect its own Environment and no impediments were placed upon it in EU Fine Words are great but they butter no parsnips The Truth is this Government has no interest in protecting the Environment but spouts a load of BS Action speaks louder thank words and the Environmental Agency Budget has been cut by 75% www.endsreport.com/article/1720062/funding-cuts-put-communities-environment-risk-ea-chair-tells-eusticeWhile DEFRAs Budget has been continuously reduced since 2010 and a further £500M or 10% cut in the November 2022 Autumn Statement www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/22/defra-facing-500m-real-terms-cut-after-autumn-statement
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 17, 2022 18:13:46 GMT
It's actually post restoring sovereignty deregulation. We are now free to elect a government to enact or repeal laws in Britain and not be subjected to EU regulations. The British people can elect whatever government is wishes; a green government, or even a government to rejoin the EU if the people want to hand law making back to the EU. The only thing CAP has to do with the environment is damage it by intensive farming, resulting in water pollution throughout Europe due to fertilisers and pesticides, etc. into Europe's waterways. I have posted at length on the subject as you are clearly aware. Toxic chemicals are the main cause of river pollution, not sewage, which is a natural product. As usual you are critical of government. That's good. We are probably the most self critical nation in the world, which is also good, as it pushes our authorities in the right direction. As a consequence for example the UK is ranked second best in the world this year's environmental performance index. epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epiThere are other environmental comparison systems of course, but whichever one you choose the UK is up there near the top of over 150 countries worldwide. On one of them New Zealand is the best in the world. I don't think they need membership of the EU to keep them right. Their agriculture policy is about as far away from CAP as you can get! The solution to all our problems like environmental controls, poverty, NHS, education, welfare, etc. is to create greater national wealth. Outside the EU we are far better placed to do that by managing our own affairs like trade and ending , or at least drastically reducing, the massive trade deficit with the EU. What is the sense in the UK having a positive trade balance with the rest of the world, simply to hand over £70billion per year trade deficit to the EU? We are earning revenue from the rest of the world to hand it over to the EU buying food, cars, white goods, etc. There are some who argue for greater deregulation, I don't agree with them. I want to see regulation customised to UK needs not what Brussels thinks is in the best interest of the European Union. I have worked closely with the Environment Agency in my time and have great respect for their professional competence. They are best at judging what controls are necessary for the UK; they just need backing from responsible politicians. In Cornish Dialect the name for a Social Circular Dance is called a Troyl. And so it begins again with you on another such whirl. You do know that EU Regulations are merely minimum Standards and Countries can and do exceed them. There was absolutely nothing to stop when UK were in EU to set higher Standards, what convinces you they will do so now? After EU you next blame Government for carrying out the wrong policies, you may well be right and then finally, we can change Government every 5 years. Rinse and repeat Your single source reference is EPI which measures aspirations not outcomes We all know know this Government is Long on Promises and Short on delivery You then say Trade and resulting increased wealth will be the solution (it has been done to death why Brexit has reduced Trade) You have pinned your hopes on an India Trade Deal as a game changer in several posts EPI place India last of 180 Countries in the Report you quote. In any case why use external references now we have "regained " Sovereignty Why not look at what the House of Commons Committee has to say about Water Quality in English Rivers (I must warn you it's not easy reading) The Report was Published in January of this year and the Government had two months to reply, to my knowledge it hasn't done so. Mind you they have been somewhat busy rearranging the deckchairs It's a very long Report which shouldn't be a challenge to you but let me quote just a few extracts 9. Only 14% of rivers in England can currently claim to have good ecological status.11 The Government is not on track to meet the Water Framework Directive requirement—subsequently transposed into UK law—for all rivers to reach good status by 2027.12 Wildlife and Countryside Link has warned that the water quality of rivers in England is the worst in Europe.13Good ecological status (GES) is a metric for assessing the health of the water environment. It is assigned using various water flow, habitat and biological quality tests. Failure to meet any one individual test means that the whole water body fails to achieve good ecological status. This indicator, and the statutory framework that supports it, have been retained in UK law after the UK’s departure from the EU.19.The water and effluent quality monitoring currently undertaken by the Environment Agency and water companies is mainly focused on the levels of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and ammonia.29 A variety of other substances—metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and plastics—also contribute to poor water quality, yet many of these are simply not monitored routinely. Gathering data on the full range of pollutants requires sampling and laboratory analysis: given the resources currently made available for systematic monitoring both regionally and nationally, some consider that the levels of such pollutants are unlikely to be monitored. Levels of many legacy and emerging pollutants, including microplastics, narcotics and so called ‘forever chemicals’, are therefore simply not being routinely measured.30 Few inland sites are monitored for the kinds of bacterial pollution that can cause gastroenteritis.3120. We received evidence raising serious concerns about the robustness of the Environment Agency’s systems of water quality spot sampling32 and the system of operator self-monitoring it relies on to regulate sewage treatment works. We examine these issues in more detail in Chapter Four below.35. The latest progress report against the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan shows that indicators for wild salmon rivers indicators are moving in the wrong direction.68 The percentage of principal salmon rivers at risk in England has risen by 10 percentage points, from 48% in 2004 to 58% in 2019. Over the same time frame the percentage of rivers in the ‘probably at risk’ category has increased by 15 percentage points, from 21% to 36%. The percentage of rivers in the ‘not at risk’ category has fallen by 24 percentage points to zero between 2004 and 2019, and while the percentage of rivers in the ‘probably not at risk’ category has fluctuated in the intervening years, it is the same in 2019 as it was in 2004.69 Salmon and Trout Conservation warned that:we have 42 main salmon rivers in England. In 39 of the 42 the populations are categorised as being at risk or probably at risk. No rivers are categorised as not at risk at all. The salmon population is in a bit of a mess. There are other threats other than pollution facing salmon but pollution of the rivers, where they spawn, is a serious one.70The situation in the UK mirrors this concerning global picture. In June 2021 we published a report on biodiversity in the UK which highlighted the poor record of successive governments in protecting biodiversity at home.76 The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world with the lowest level of biodiversity remaining of any G7 country. In that report we argued that action to protect biodiversity needed to be stepped up in scale, ambition, pace, and detail in order to halt the decline of species.77 In this inquiry we have examined the measures needed to improve water quality in rivers in order to protect the biodiversity of freshwater bodies in England.I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment that Chemical pollution especially Phosphorous is a real scourge but hardly limited to EU Here the Committee examine a case study on River Wye 106 Intensive livestock and poultry farming appears to be putting enormous pressure on particular catchments, such as those feeding the river Wye running through Wales and the south-west Midlands. The number of chickens being reared there appears to have increased significantly, and pollution from their waste appears to be finding its way into river waters. The potential impact of intensive agricultural practices on river water quality must be fully acknowledged and the risks mitigated. One means of doing this is through farming which is as sensitive as possible to its effect on water quality in catchments.
In CAP 11 the EU have put in place a strategy to reduce Chemical Fertilisation linked to Payments in the "Farm to Fork" Plan. I guess we'll discover at some point what the UK Government Plan may be if they ever get around to replying to the Committees Report agriculture.ec.europa.eu/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/low-input-farming/nutrients_enThe FFCC argued that greater resources ought to be devoted to enforcement of existing water and farming regulations.223 Sir James Bevan conceded that funding reductions had reduced the Environment Agency’s ability to police the farming rules:
[… B]because of the reduction in our grant and because most farming is not regulated and, therefore, we do not get income from the cost of regulating farms in those cases, we have been able to do fewer and fewer farm inspections over the last several years. Right now, at least last year, we had sufficient resource that would allow us, in theory, to visit every farm in Britain less than once every 200 years. That is not a great disincentive to a farmer to stay on the right side of the line, so there is an issue about resourcing and about the overall regulatory framework for farmi publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmenvaud/74/report.htmlThe above extracts are from just the first 20% of the report and I won't continue as you get the picture The terrible state of English Rivers described above as the worst in Europe has nothing to do with EU or CAP. A Sovereign Government has the duty and ability to protect its own Environment and no impediments were placed upon it in EU Fine Words are great but they butter no parsnips The Truth is this Government has no interest in protecting the Environment but spouts a load of BS Action speaks louder thank words and the Environmental Agency Budget has been cut by 75% www.endsreport.com/article/1720062/funding-cuts-put-communities-environment-risk-ea-chair-tells-eusticeWhile DEFRAs Budget has been continuously reduced since 2010 and a further £500M or 10% cut in the November 2022 Autumn Statement www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/22/defra-facing-500m-real-terms-cut-after-autumn-statementI said we had problems didn't I? Most of what you are criticising is Tory policy, nothing to do with leaving the EU. We are not alone, look at Germany, Czech R, and Hungary: www.downtoearth.org.in/news/water/60-european-water-bodies-highly-polluted-study-61058We are where we are because of decades of EU membership and bad government, hamstrung by financial problems. But on environmental performance there are lots of league tables showing how much better the UK is than most of the world. The UK has done more on climate change than any other major economy. Here's 3 more to be going on with, read and enjoy how highly the UK is rated and be proud : www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/greenest-countriesecotogofoodpacks.co.uk/dream-destination-top-ten-most-eco-conscious-countries-around-the-world/theweek.com/feature/briefing/1017804/most-and-least-environmentally-friendly-countries
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 17, 2022 18:49:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 17, 2022 19:30:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 17, 2022 19:40:04 GMT
In Cornish Dialect the name for a Social Circular Dance is called a Troyl. And so it begins again with you on another such whirl. You do know that EU Regulations are merely minimum Standards and Countries can and do exceed them. There was absolutely nothing to stop when UK were in EU to set higher Standards, what convinces you they will do so now? After EU you next blame Government for carrying out the wrong policies, you may well be right and then finally, we can change Government every 5 years. Rinse and repeat Your single source reference is EPI which measures aspirations not outcomes We all know know this Government is Long on Promises and Short on delivery You then say Trade and resulting increased wealth will be the solution (it has been done to death why Brexit has reduced Trade) You have pinned your hopes on an India Trade Deal as a game changer in several posts EPI place India last of 180 Countries in the Report you quote. In any case why use external references now we have "regained " Sovereignty Why not look at what the House of Commons Committee has to say about Water Quality in English Rivers (I must warn you it's not easy reading) The Report was Published in January of this year and the Government had two months to reply, to my knowledge it hasn't done so. Mind you they have been somewhat busy rearranging the deckchairs It's a very long Report which shouldn't be a challenge to you but let me quote just a few extracts 9. Only 14% of rivers in England can currently claim to have good ecological status.11 The Government is not on track to meet the Water Framework Directive requirement—subsequently transposed into UK law—for all rivers to reach good status by 2027.12 Wildlife and Countryside Link has warned that the water quality of rivers in England is the worst in Europe.13Good ecological status (GES) is a metric for assessing the health of the water environment. It is assigned using various water flow, habitat and biological quality tests. Failure to meet any one individual test means that the whole water body fails to achieve good ecological status. This indicator, and the statutory framework that supports it, have been retained in UK law after the UK’s departure from the EU.19.The water and effluent quality monitoring currently undertaken by the Environment Agency and water companies is mainly focused on the levels of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and ammonia.29 A variety of other substances—metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and plastics—also contribute to poor water quality, yet many of these are simply not monitored routinely. Gathering data on the full range of pollutants requires sampling and laboratory analysis: given the resources currently made available for systematic monitoring both regionally and nationally, some consider that the levels of such pollutants are unlikely to be monitored. Levels of many legacy and emerging pollutants, including microplastics, narcotics and so called ‘forever chemicals’, are therefore simply not being routinely measured.30 Few inland sites are monitored for the kinds of bacterial pollution that can cause gastroenteritis.3120. We received evidence raising serious concerns about the robustness of the Environment Agency’s systems of water quality spot sampling32 and the system of operator self-monitoring it relies on to regulate sewage treatment works. We examine these issues in more detail in Chapter Four below.35. The latest progress report against the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan shows that indicators for wild salmon rivers indicators are moving in the wrong direction.68 The percentage of principal salmon rivers at risk in England has risen by 10 percentage points, from 48% in 2004 to 58% in 2019. Over the same time frame the percentage of rivers in the ‘probably at risk’ category has increased by 15 percentage points, from 21% to 36%. The percentage of rivers in the ‘not at risk’ category has fallen by 24 percentage points to zero between 2004 and 2019, and while the percentage of rivers in the ‘probably not at risk’ category has fluctuated in the intervening years, it is the same in 2019 as it was in 2004.69 Salmon and Trout Conservation warned that:we have 42 main salmon rivers in England. In 39 of the 42 the populations are categorised as being at risk or probably at risk. No rivers are categorised as not at risk at all. The salmon population is in a bit of a mess. There are other threats other than pollution facing salmon but pollution of the rivers, where they spawn, is a serious one.70The situation in the UK mirrors this concerning global picture. In June 2021 we published a report on biodiversity in the UK which highlighted the poor record of successive governments in protecting biodiversity at home.76 The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world with the lowest level of biodiversity remaining of any G7 country. In that report we argued that action to protect biodiversity needed to be stepped up in scale, ambition, pace, and detail in order to halt the decline of species.77 In this inquiry we have examined the measures needed to improve water quality in rivers in order to protect the biodiversity of freshwater bodies in England.I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment that Chemical pollution especially Phosphorous is a real scourge but hardly limited to EU Here the Committee examine a case study on River Wye 106 Intensive livestock and poultry farming appears to be putting enormous pressure on particular catchments, such as those feeding the river Wye running through Wales and the south-west Midlands. The number of chickens being reared there appears to have increased significantly, and pollution from their waste appears to be finding its way into river waters. The potential impact of intensive agricultural practices on river water quality must be fully acknowledged and the risks mitigated. One means of doing this is through farming which is as sensitive as possible to its effect on water quality in catchments.
In CAP 11 the EU have put in place a strategy to reduce Chemical Fertilisation linked to Payments in the "Farm to Fork" Plan. I guess we'll discover at some point what the UK Government Plan may be if they ever get around to replying to the Committees Report agriculture.ec.europa.eu/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/low-input-farming/nutrients_enThe FFCC argued that greater resources ought to be devoted to enforcement of existing water and farming regulations.223 Sir James Bevan conceded that funding reductions had reduced the Environment Agency’s ability to police the farming rules:
[… B]because of the reduction in our grant and because most farming is not regulated and, therefore, we do not get income from the cost of regulating farms in those cases, we have been able to do fewer and fewer farm inspections over the last several years. Right now, at least last year, we had sufficient resource that would allow us, in theory, to visit every farm in Britain less than once every 200 years. That is not a great disincentive to a farmer to stay on the right side of the line, so there is an issue about resourcing and about the overall regulatory framework for farmi publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmenvaud/74/report.htmlThe above extracts are from just the first 20% of the report and I won't continue as you get the picture The terrible state of English Rivers described above as the worst in Europe has nothing to do with EU or CAP. A Sovereign Government has the duty and ability to protect its own Environment and no impediments were placed upon it in EU Fine Words are great but they butter no parsnips The Truth is this Government has no interest in protecting the Environment but spouts a load of BS Action speaks louder thank words and the Environmental Agency Budget has been cut by 75% www.endsreport.com/article/1720062/funding-cuts-put-communities-environment-risk-ea-chair-tells-eusticeWhile DEFRAs Budget has been continuously reduced since 2010 and a further £500M or 10% cut in the November 2022 Autumn Statement www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/22/defra-facing-500m-real-terms-cut-after-autumn-statementI said we had problems didn't I? Most of what you are criticising is Tory policy, nothing to do with leaving the EU. We are not alone, look at Germany, Czech R, and Hungary: www.downtoearth.org.in/news/water/60-european-water-bodies-highly-polluted-study-61058We are where we are because of decades of EU membership and bad government, hamstrung by financial problems. But on environmental performance there are lots of league tables showing how much better the UK is than most of the world. The UK has done more on climate change than any other major economy. Here's 3 more to be going on with, read and enjoy how highly the UK is rated and be proud : www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/greenest-countriesecotogofoodpacks.co.uk/dream-destination-top-ten-most-eco-conscious-countries-around-the-world/theweek.com/feature/briefing/1017804/most-and-least-environmentally-friendly-countriesSo you've settled on bad Tory Government as the reason this time which I agree has nothing to do with leaving the EU (other than their irrational solution to try and fix their Party divisions) , but nor does it have anything with staying in the EU Environmental Policy was always in the hands of the UK Government as long as it maintained Minimum EU standards. I would expect now EU oversight is removed and internal Environmental Agency Monitoring Budgets slashed we will see a further deterioration over time. I forgot to mention whataboutary in my list Bad Government which leads to low growth (financial problems) has nothing to do with EU Membership in fact exiting has led to a deterioration Most rational people understand this including Tory Voters as evidenced by current Polls. The vast majority of Statistics which appear to reflect positively on UKs Carbon Footprint is that we have essentially exported it by importing manufactured goods largely from China which does not count in UKs Footprint While at home we show a very casual attitude to protecting the Environment
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 17, 2022 21:40:43 GMT
More post-Brexit deregulation. More post-Brexit loosening of standards and protection. DT: Water quality left out of eco targets. The government has been criticised for failing to include a target to improve overall water quality in England and Wales. Meanwhile, the EU's water framework directive, to which the UK is no longer beholden, continues to do just that in its member countries. Coke will be along shortly to say why its all the CAP's fault really and why loosening environmental protection post-Brexit, as entirely predicted pre-Brexit, is nothing to do with Brexit, or its inevitable need to save money as a result. Expect more shit pumped into our rivers and seas. On the plus side, if you don't have targets, all our rivers will, by default, be excellent quality! An approach to standards and regulation which is increasingly likely elsewhere too. It's actually post restoring sovereignty deregulation. We are now free to elect a government to enact or repeal laws in Britain and not be subjected to EU regulations. The British people can elect whatever government is wishes; a green government, or even a government to rejoin the EU if the people want to hand law making back to the EU. The only thing CAP has to do with the environment is damage it by intensive farming, resulting in water pollution throughout Europe due to fertilisers and pesticides, etc. into Europe's waterways. I have posted at length on the subject as you are clearly aware. Toxic chemicals are the main cause of river pollution, not sewage, which is a natural product. As usual you are critical of government. That's good. We are probably the most self critical nation in the world, which is also good, as it pushes our authorities in the right direction. As a consequence for example the UK is ranked second best in the world this year's environmental performance index. epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epiThere are other environmental comparison systems of course, but whichever one you choose the UK is up there near the top of over 150 countries worldwide. On one of them New Zealand is the best in the world. I don't think they need membership of the EU to keep them right. Their agriculture policy is about as far away from CAP as you can get! The solution to all our problems like environmental controls, poverty, NHS, education, welfare, etc. is to create greater national wealth. Outside the EU we are far better placed to do that by managing our own affairs like trade and ending , or at least drastically reducing, the massive trade deficit with the EU. What is the sense in the UK having a positive trade balance with the rest of the world, simply to hand over £70billion per year trade deficit to the EU? We are earning revenue from the rest of the world to hand it over to the EU buying food, cars, white goods, etc. There are some who argue for greater deregulation, I don't agree with them. I want to see regulation customised to UK needs not what Brussels thinks is in the best interest of the European Union. I have worked closely with the Environment Agency in my time and have great respect for their professional competence. They are best at judging what controls are necessary for the UK; they just need backing from responsible politicians. And yet, the thing you keep defending is, in fact, the single most damaging thing to creating greater national wealth that has happened to this country in decades! It's actually costing us £80-£100bn a year, every year, in lost GDP... I remember you saying one of the benefits of leaving would be that we could now set our own, more stringent environmental protections and that being part of the EU had hindered environmental improvement, yet here we are doing exactly what I feared: dropping EU protections and replacing them with nothing. Not all that surprising I guess if you need to let water companies pump shit into our rivers regularly.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 18, 2022 9:48:18 GMT
Have the EU sausage laws been repealed yet? Just asking for a friend.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Dec 21, 2022 10:09:26 GMT
"Brexit has cost the UK a staggering £33bn in lost trade and investment, according to a new study that found that the economic damage is even worse than previously feared. Research by the Centre for European Reform (CER), shared with The Independent, shows that Britain’s economy is 5.5 per cent smaller than it would have been if the country had remained inside the EU." www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-cost-uk-gdp-economy-failure-b2246610.html
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 21, 2022 10:14:50 GMT
"Brexit has cost the UK a staggering £33bn in lost trade and investment, according to a new study that found that the economic damage is even worse than previously feared. Research by the Centre for European Reform (CER), shared with The Independent, shows that Britain’s economy is 5.5 per cent smaller than it would have been if the country had remained inside the EU." www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-cost-uk-gdp-economy-failure-b2246610.htmlTake your pick from: "CER is an anti-Brexit organisation"; "The Independent is an anti-Brexit paper"; "their figures are wrong, here are mine"; "short term pain only"; "I'm confident Britain will outperform its rivals in due course"; "it's bad government not Brexit"; "we can change our bad government [with no admission it was that bad govt that wanted Brexit!]" Or all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Dec 21, 2022 10:20:45 GMT
Have the EU sausage laws been repealed yet? Just asking for a friend. Steady on. They have to sort out the bends in the bananas first.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 21, 2022 12:18:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 22, 2022 7:57:51 GMT
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/21/brexit-deal-not-boosted-business-uk-firmsDespite Mr Coke’s posts, it seems that the vast majority of business owners don’t agree. The longer we continue this terrible arrangement with the EU, the greater the number of EU businesses and consumers that source their products and services elsewhere and not from the UK. This is the “over ready” deal struck two years ago that we are too scared to fully implement because it is so bad. It wasn’t oven ready and the entire 2019 election was fought on a complete lie. No wonder Johnson was found to be a conman (again) and forced to leave office in disgrace and humiliation. He conned leave voters. Then tory 2019 voters. His lies have been exposed. We need wholesale renegotiation with the EU, as demanded by the majority of businesses. GDP down by 5.5% due to brexit. £40bn in lost tax revenues a year due to brexit. That could have built some of the 40 hospitals, or funded schools, or stopped strikes, or reduced income tax, etc Instead we have more powerful vacuum cleaners.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 22, 2022 8:11:43 GMT
Some choice quotes: Bosses who spoke to the British Chamber of Commerce were scathing about the Brexit arrangements 24 months on from the end of the transition period. “Leaving the EU made us uncompetitive with our EU customers,” said one retailer from Scotland. “Exporting goods into the EU since Brexit, continues to prove difficult,” said a manufacturer in the East Midlands. Another in Dorset added: “Brexit has been the biggest ever imposition of bureaucracy on business.”
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 22, 2022 8:35:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 22, 2022 10:17:30 GMT
Why have all the brexiteers gone quiet?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 22, 2022 11:09:27 GMT
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/21/brexit-deal-not-boosted-business-uk-firmsDespite Mr Coke’s posts, it seems that the vast majority of business owners don’t agree. The longer we continue this terrible arrangement with the EU, the greater the number of EU businesses and consumers that source their products and services elsewhere and not from the UK. This is the “over ready” deal struck two years ago that we are too scared to fully implement because it is so bad. It wasn’t oven ready and the entire 2019 election was fought on a complete lie. No wonder Johnson was found to be a conman (again) and forced to leave office in disgrace and humiliation. He conned leave voters. Then tory 2019 voters. His lies have been exposed. We need wholesale renegotiation with the EU, as demanded by the majority of businesses. GDP down by 5.5% due to brexit. £40bn in lost tax revenues a year due to brexit. That could have built some of the 40 hospitals, or funded schools, or stopped strikes, or reduced income tax, etc Instead we have more powerful vacuum cleaners. Who knew After years of claim and counter claim we now have two years of actual Trading Results and the Economic self harm is evident (other than to a rare few) Business Organisations are normally reluctant to Publically criticise Government, especially Conservative ones as generally Laws/Rules are enacted in their favour but obviously they being the ones directly affected are calling for changes to Trade and Cooperation Agreement to mitigate the harm (not fix) that is being done to their Businesses and the UK Economy A number of interesting points in the report Those that best coped with new Export Regulations established a Hub in EU an investment that would normally have been made in UK. Not only is it Manufacturing and Food exporters who are encountering difficulties but Services too as well as obtaining Visas for staff, I assume they are related. A staggering 42% of items are no longer Exported to EU. It is somewhat ironic but highly predicable that 4 of the 5 immediate changes BCC are calling for were offered as Part of TCA by EU but rejected by UK. The fifth is a seperate Article in itself agreed but UK refusing to implement causing strained relationship. And what are these changes which BCC are calling for. Mutual Recognition of Food Standards and Acedemic Qualifications which would smooth Food Exports and Visa Applications. A Norway style arrangement exempting Small Traders from VAT and Joint Recognition of Manufacturing Safety Standards and Markings. Why you may ask did UK refuse to allow equivalence of Standards in TCA at Brexit date when they were and still are? It was also one of the strong arguments put forward by Brexiteers that a Trade Agreement with EU would be the easiest in the World as we start from the same position and therefore Trade with EU would not be affected, a reasonable position to take. But Arrogance and Hubris took over in TCA negotiations and for Purity of Brexit UK must have its own Standards And how is that working out? Well 4 times the UK has postponed introducing any Import checks on Goods and Food from EU. There is only a vague date as to when this may happen. Twice the replacement of EU CE Manufacturing Safety Marking with new UKCA has been postponed, latest date 2025 (it won't happen) One notable Brexiteer on this MB laughable blames EU for the increased bureaucracy, of course he knows better So Brexit Purity has become do nothing I.e. another Sham while shooting UK Industry in both feet. The usual Conservative Suspects (and even some on this MB) Rees-Mogg etc continue to Gaslight on this. Labour remains largely silent for fear of upsetting the The Red Wallers but suggests a more conciliatory relationship with EU which of course is the sensible course of action. It will be interesting to see what approach Rishi takes over the next couple of years. Will he maintain the Status Quo further damaging the UK Economy or will he front up to the Lunatic Wing of the Conservative Party and enter Mutually Beneficial Arrangements with EU. I suspect it will be the former as he's not in a strong enough position
|
|