Brexit matters

[21C101]

I am sure this what you believe, but it really is complete wibble. The Precautionary Principle wasn't formulated until the 1970s and doesn't have anything whatever to do with Napoleonic law - it was a German idea which was originally conceived to apply in relation to the environment. The Treaty of Amsterdam mentions the "precautionary principle" just once - in relation to environmental impact assessments:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf

It is not complete wibble far from it. Incorportation of the precautionary principle into the Amsterdam treaty 1997 built on previous preparatory work by the EU and enabled this :

"the European Commission in 2000 issued a formal "Communication" about the precautionary principle. This Communication extended the applicability of the principle to public health and consumer protection as well as environmental policy. "

The Perils of the Precautionary Principle: Lessons from the American and European Experience

The concept of a universal precautionary principle apparently has its origins in early German and Swedish thinking about environmental policy, particularly the need for policymakers to practice foresight in order to prevent long-range environmental problems. The concept was included in the...

www.heritage.org

 

[notlob.divad]

subsequent public reluctance to have the vaccine due to bad publicity

On this point. the people I have spoken to are now more likely to have this vaccine and future treatments rather than less. It has built trust in the processes that monitor these things. People realise that if countries are willing to be transparent and pause vaccination to review and investigate such a small set of anomalies, then they will quickly be ontop of any issue.

Overall for me, trust in the authorities and systems that are in place to monitor these things is more important than trust in any one specific vaccine. Maybe in the UK, there is a bigger willingness to put absolute trust in authorities and people in positions of power. However where I live that is not the case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2021 ==

Incorportation of the precautionary principle into the Amsterdam treaty 1997 built on previous preparatory work by the EU and enabled this :

"the European Commission in 2000 issued a formal "Communication" about the precautionary principle. This Communication extended the applicability of the principle to public health and consumer protection as well as environmental policy. "

The Perils of the Precautionary Principle: Lessons from the American and European Experience

The concept of a universal precautionary principle apparently has its origins in early German and Swedish thinking about environmental policy, particularly the need for policymakers to practice foresight in order to prevent long-range environmental problems. The concept was included in the...

www.heritage.org

Seems like an excellent idea. Certainly better than allowing BSE infected meat to enter your food chain and then taking 9 years to accept that there is a problem.

 

[21C101]

On this point. the people I have spoken to are now more likely to have this vaccine and future treatments rather than less. It has built trust in the processes that monitor these things. People realise that if countries are willing to be transparent and pause vaccination to review and investigate such a small set of anomalies, then they will quickly be ontop of any issue.

Overall for me, trust in the authorities and systems that are in place to monitor these things is more important than trust in any one specific vaccine. Maybe in the UK, there is a bigger willingness to put absolute trust in authorities and people in positions of power. However where I live that is not the case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2021 ==


Seems like an excellent idea. Certainly better than allowing BSE infected meat to enter your food chain and then taking 9 years to accept that there is a problem.

Would that be the BSE that Professor Lockdown thought would cause 50,000 deaths but actually caused 178?

 

[notlob.divad]

Would that be the BSE that Professor Lockdown thought would cause 50,000 deaths but actually caused 178?

It is the BSE outbreak that to this day prevents me from donating blood. Due to the precautionary principle you were deriding.

 

[21C101]

It is the BSE outbreak that to this day prevents me from donating blood. Due to the precautionary principle you were deriding.

I am very sorry to hear that the country you are living in does this, although it does rather seem to prove my point about the disproportionate actions the precautionary principle can lead to.

 

[edwin_m]

It is not complete wibble far from it. Incorportation of the precautionary principle into the Amsterdam treaty 1997 built on previous preparatory work by the EU and enabled this :

"the European Commission in 2000 issued a formal "Communication" about the precautionary principle. This Communication extended the applicability of the principle to public health and consumer protection as well as environmental policy. "

The Perils of the Precautionary Principle: Lessons from the American and European Experience

The concept of a universal precautionary principle apparently has its origins in early German and Swedish thinking about environmental policy, particularly the need for policymakers to practice foresight in order to prevent long-range environmental problems. The concept was included in the...

www.heritage.org

The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing American think tank and according to Wikipedia supplied several of the members of the Trump administration, employed others after they left, and published articles falsely alleging election fraud. So probably even more biased than your normal source in the Telegraph.

 

[AlterEgo]

I see we're at the stage of people searching for sources on the internet to back up their existing beliefs. Anyone can find a source or two to back up just about any kind of belief.

It's certainly fair to say however, that on this occasion the precautionary principle has been unwisely applied, and the lack of progress in administering vaccines in certain countries as well as the general undermining of confidence in the AZ vaccine is very, very unwelcome. It will cost lives.

 

[21C101]

I see we're at the stage of people searching for sources on the internet to back up their existing beliefs. Anyone can find a source or two to back up just about any kind of belief.

It's certainly fair to say however, that on this occasion the precautionary principle has been unwisely applied, and the lack of progress in administering vaccines in certain countries as well as the general undermining of confidence in the AZ vaccine is very, very unwelcome. It will cost lives.

I do find it amusing when in response no attempt to rebut the case put in the argument is made, instead essentially the claim is made that the source is insufficienty progressive or slightly to the right of Tony Blair so is automatically disqualified.

 

[najaB]

Would that be the BSE that Professor Lockdown thought would cause 50,000 deaths but actually caused 178?

Predicted. Not thought. A worst-case prediction based on the evidence available at the time, which is often the case with new diseases. While the number of deaths was much lower than initially predicted, variant CJD has a very long incubation period so we will probably never know the true toll.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2021 ==

It's certainly fair to say however, that on this occasion the precautionary principle has been unwisely applied, and the lack of progress in administering vaccines in certain countries as well as the general undermining of confidence in the AZ vaccine is very, very unwelcome. It will cost lives.

There's merit to that argument, but it's nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.

 

[edwin_m]

I do find it amusing when in response no attempt to rebut the case put in the argument is made, instead essentially the claim is made that the source is insufficienty progressive or slightly to the right of Tony Blair so is automatically disqualified.

Anybody who's heard of the Heritage Foundation is going to take anything from that source with a huge pinch of salt, unless their viewpoint is similarly far-right. If you can't find a better source then whatever your trying to say isn't worth engaging with.

 

[najaB]

Anybody who's heard of the Heritage Foundation is going to take anything from that source with a huge pinch of salt, unless their viewpoint is similarly far-right.

I wouldn't describe the Heritage Foundation as far-right, but they are definitely not an unbiased source. Up until the last five or six years they would have been classed as traditional conservative but unfortunately they've embraced Trumpism in a big way.

 

[notlob.divad]

I am very sorry to hear that the country you are living in does this, although it does rather seem to prove my point about the disproportionate actions the precautionary principle can lead to.

I don't know why you are sorry, I am not. As I have said before, when trust in authority figures has historically been incredibly low for good reason, then current authorities have to go out of their way to show themselves as squeeky clean to maintain the trust of their populations.

 

[najaB]

I am very sorry to hear that the country you are living in does this, although it does rather seem to prove my point about the disproportionate actions the precautionary principle can lead to.

All things considered, I think that more harm has been done where governments haven't exercised caution than when they have.

 

[REVUpminster]

Is Ursula von der Leyen the worst EU president ever? She threatens to cut off supplies to Britain then Phizer have to remind her that a factory in Britain supplies a vital component of the Phizer vaccine; and if it was cut off they would get no vaccine at all.

She criticises the UK and US over raw materials probably making a trade deal more likely between the US and UK.

No wonder the Germans palmed her off to Europe.

 

[21C101]

All things considered, I think that more harm has been done where governments haven't exercised caution than when they have.

It is an argument that could run to a 100 page thread of its own.

One of the first results of the UK ditching the EUs precautionary principle is set to be the legalisation of genetically edited food in the UK

Consultation launched over gene edited food in England

The UK government launches a public consultation on using gene editing to modify livestock and crops.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[najaB]

One of the first results of the UK ditching the EUs precautionary principle is set to be the legalisation of genetically edited food in the UK

Which is a non-issue in the EU. As noted about twenty pages back, there isn't a ban on GMO in the EU. Each never state is free to allow their use.

 

[21C101]

Which is a non-issue in the EU. As noted about twenty pages back, there isn't a ban on GMO in the EU. Each never state is free to allow their use.

Perhaps in a very narrow legalistic sense. However the EUs precautionary principle based laws place so many regulatory hurdles in the way that in practice it is impossible.

A pub that only permits credit to people over 80 accompanied by both of their parents can be stated de jure to permit credit, but it is very misleading.

 

[Journeyman]

Perhaps in a very narrow legalistic sense. However the EUs precautionary principle based laws place so many regulatory hurdles in the way that in practice it is impossible.

A pub that only permits credit to people over 80 accompanied by both of their parents can be stated de jure to permit credit, but it is very misleading.

I'm with the EU on this one. Their food standards are exceptionally high. Have you soon the crap you're allowed to eat in America? It's no surprise so many Americans are so unhealthy.

 

[21C101]

I'm with the EU on this one. Their food standards are exceptionally high. Have you soon the crap you're allowed to eat in America? It's no surprise so many Americans are so unhealthy.

Yes, I've been there and lived to tell the tale.

Thus debate to an extent is really all about whether you want a comprehensive nanny state to or whether people should have the freedom to make their own choices, even stupid choices?

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, I've been there and lived to tell the tale.

Thus debate to an extent is really all about whether you want a comprehensive nanny state to or whether people should have the freedom to make their own choices, even stupid choices?

You're so inconsistent on this. You decry the EU for interfering, yet it's a democratic, participatory organisation in which the UK had an enormous input into rules and standards, pretty much designing the single market from scratch and very much to our advantage. Yet you want us to join TPP, which is run by a remote committee that has already decided everything, has lower standards, the electorate has no say in whether we go in or not, and we don't get to vote on who represents us in it.

The word "hypocrite" springs to mind. You're blinded by hatred of the EU and can't see how ridiculous your position is.

As to your question, both are ridiculous extremes which don't exist anywhere in the world.

 

[37424]

Is Ursula von der Leyen the worst EU president ever? She threatens to cut off supplies to Britain then Phizer have to remind her that a factory in Britain supplies a vital component of the Phizer vaccine; and if it was cut off they would get no vaccine at all.

She criticises the UK and US over raw materials probably making a trade deal more likely between the US and UK.

No wonder the Germans palmed her off to Europe.

I thought Von der Leyen was OK at first I think she certainly had some bearing on actually getting a trade deal with the EU, but since we have left I think she's lost the plot quite frankly.

 

[najaB]

A pub that only permits credit to people over 80 accompanied by both of their parents can be stated de jure to permit credit, but it is very misleading.

You're completely misrepresenting the situation. A more accurate analogy would be head office of a chain pub saying "We'd rather you didn't offer credit, but you can as long as you put measures in place to ensure that all tabs get paid. We're not going to reimburse your losses."

The fact that some pubs only offer credit to people over 80 accompanied by their parents is nothing to do with head office.

 

[REVUpminster]

I thought Von der Leyen was OK at first I think she certainly had some bearing on actually getting a trade deal with the EU, but since we have left I think she's lost the plot quite frankly.

She thinks she is the leader of country and not an "association". She will probably declare war on the UK because she can use the soldiers stationed in Germany.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, I am certain the EU wants to go to war with us. And of course it would be the Germans that did it.

If we all wrap ourselves in Union Flags, we'll be fine though.

 

[ainsworth74]

She will probably declare war on the UK because she can use the soldiers stationed in Germany.

This is a joke right?

 

[37424]

You're so inconsistent on this. You decry the EU for interfering, yet it's a democratic, participatory organisation in which the UK had an enormous input into rules and standards, pretty much designing the single market from scratch and very much to our advantage. Yet you want us to join TPP, which is run by a remote committee that has already decided everything, has lower standards, the electorate has no say in whether we go in or not, and we don't get to vote on who represents us in it.

The word "hypocrite" springs to mind. You're blinded by hatred of the EU and can't see how ridiculous your position is.

As to your question, both are ridiculous extremes which don't exist anywhere in the world.

I think your position is ridiculous quite frankly, my understanding of TPP is that it is little more than you expect from a typical trade deal.

Ok it is working towards some common standards but they are optional as I understand it.
Does it stop countries doing individual trade deal outside TPP, No
Does it demand freedom of movement, No
Does it demand a single currency and decisions made by a central bank, No
Does it demand a common agricultural policy and fisheries policy, No
Does it demand increasing levels of integration that the public had no direct say in until the referendum where they made their view clear.

The USA have flirted with joining this and may do at some point, but I think you can be pretty sure that the USA will never join something that has a major impact on their sovereignty, and I expect that any trade organisation that tries to go too far in the direction of the EU that the UK is member of, the UK would withdraw from.

 

[Journeyman]

I think your position is ridiculous quite frankly, my understanding of TPP is that it is little more than you expect from a typical trade deal.

Ok it is working towards some common standards but they are optional as I understand it.
Does it stop countries doing individual trade deal outside TPP, No
Does it demand freedom of movement, No
Does it demand a single currency and decisions made by a central bank, No
Does it demand a common agricultural policy and fisheries policy, No

The USA have flirted with joining this and may do at some point, but I think you can be pretty sure that the USA will never join something that has a major impact on their sovereignty.

But does TPP allow democratic participation? No. Does it defend decent working conditions? No. Is freedom of movement a bad thing? No. Does sovereignty at any price make any sense? No. Is making trade with our nearest neighbours, and the biggest and richest trading bloc in the world, harder, a sensible move? No. Is denying us a say in joining TPP fair? No. Is leaving one bloc only to immediately want to join another consistent and principled? No.

 

[REVUpminster]

This is a joke right?

Yep. They're UK troops but with delusions of grandeur you never know.

 

[alex397]

She thinks she is the leader of country and not an "association". She will probably declare war on the UK because she can use the soldiers stationed in Germany.

I know some people seem to think we are at war with the EU, or bizarrely seem to want a war, but this comment is ridiculous.

 

[37424]

But does TPP allow democratic participation? No. Does it defend decent working conditions? No. Is freedom of movement a bad thing? No. Does sovereignty at any price make any sense? No. Is making trade with our nearest neighbours, and the biggest and richest trading bloc in the world, harder, a sensible move? No. Is denying us a say in joining TPP fair? No. Is leaving one bloc only to immediately want to join another consistent and principled? No.

Freedom of Movement was fine when the majority of economies in the EU were at a similar level, but when you started to get economies that were at a lower level and significant influxes from these you are going to get problems. I have a Polish friend who lives near Worksop and there are high levels of polish and people from other Eastern European counties in that area and she understands why the local's may not be too happy about it because there are simply too many, and some of the factories around there up to Brexit at least would only employ Eastern Europeans. She also said if the situation was reversed with English in Poland some native Poles wouldn't be happy about it either. So as far I'm concerned we don't need freedom of movement with any country and it should be up to individual countries to decide their immigration policy, and short term work permits etc.

If TPP keeps to terms largely relating to trade and doesn't have a wide ranging remit like the EU then it doesn't really need to be democratic, we are not going to have a referendum on a trade deal with Japan we leave that to our government.