The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

to say we wouldn't' have clean beaches without the EU is stretching things somewhat

You're kidding right?

What has the EU done for UK Environmental policy? The ‘dirty man’ no longer? (pdf file)

Quote

 

EU membership has had a profound impact on UK environmental policy. In the 1970s and 80s the UK earned the unattractive reputation for being the ‘Dirty Man of Europe’; we had the highest sulphur dioxide emissions in the EU and our seas were akin to open sewers as we pumped human effluent into them as part of the ‘dilute and disperse’ approach to pollution control (Rose 1990). Policy was dictated by so called ‘sound science’ with action taken only when incontrovertible damage had been proved, a policy approach that proved so damaging in the case of BSE (Patterson and Gray 2012). Moreover, policy-makers would react to problems only as they emerged, in a fragmented and ad hoc way. Perhaps most damaging though was the voluntaristic approach to regulation adopted with close relationships between policy-makers and those that they sought to regulate. Thus, policies were either implemented but targets were pitiably low, or where targets were breached legal action was rare (Lowe and Carter 1994).
EU membership consequently had a revolutionary effect upon UK environmental policy, primarily through requiring a shift in policy style and goals (e.g. see Jordan 2002; Wurzel 2005). The policies pursued via the EU by the so-called environmental pioneers, notably Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland have driven up standards across Europe as well as acting to prevent the weakening of environmental policies. The ‘europeanisation’ of UK environmental policy has seen a re-organisation of the machinery of government and the introduction of new regulatory agencies such as the national rivers authority, and most importantly the adoption of strict emissions limits with a clear judicial process to support the implementation and enforcement of policy (Jordan 2002). Thus, today many of the most important UK environmental policies and priorities are those that have emerged via the EU. For example, thanks to the EU’s bathing water directive we have been obliged to change approaches to sewage treatment and releases of nitrates and the quality of beaches and bathing waters have improved.2 Studies have shown that beach cleanliness is a key determining factor in people’s choice of beach (McKenna et al. 2011; Morgan 1999). Therefore cleaner beaches are more likely to attract visitors and boost local economies, delivering the classic win-win scenario of improved environmental quality and economic gain.
Our air is also cleaner: thanks to EU legislation such as the air quality framework directive and related ‘daughter’ directives we have seen our emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide fall significantly. Where problems do exist, UK citizens can now rely upon their rights under EU law. For example, the UK government is facing heavy fines over its failure to meet its obligations under EU air quality regulations to reduce damaging emissions.....

2 http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/status-and-monitoring/state-of-bathing-water

 

 

[tonyh29]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

Well, logically you haven't countered it at all. 'That's unquestionably a good thing, but there's a slim chance we might have done it anyway' is not much of a knock. 

well logically the argument put forward was weak to start with ... We only have clean beaches because of the EU carries zero credibility , more so when their is precedent that the UK had already acted in another area   .... it's about as strong a case as me saying  this rock on my desk protects you from tigers and the fact I've not been eaten by a tiger at work proves that it works

[tonyh29]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

You're kidding right?

What has the EU done for UK Environmental policy? The ‘dirty man’ no longer? (pdf file)

 

Reality check verdict: Over the top.

from the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

[Xann]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Sorry to hear that.

 

47 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Sorry to hear that fella.

Thanks

It's not happened yet, but less duplicity in life is a good thing.

[HanoiVillan]

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

well logically the argument put forward was weak to start with ... We only have clean beaches because of the EU carries zero credibility , more so when their is precedent that the UK had already acted in another area   .... it's about as strong a case as me saying  this rock on my desk protects you from tigers and the fact I've not been eaten by a tiger at work proves that it works

Well, no, it's much more like you saying that the rock protects me from tigers because I was formerly being menaced by tigers, for a period of many decades, and then you hit a tiger in the head with a rock and then the tigers went away. 

Saying 'correlation does not imply causation' doesn't mean that nothing causes anything, ever. The EU insisted on higher standards, therefore we implemented higher standards. This isn't a massively complicated relationship. 

Following your idea to its logical conclusion, we cannot pass comment on any aspect of EU membership, positive or negative, at all, since almost everything we have done as part of our membership could theoretically have been done otherwise. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Following your idea to its logical conclusion, we cannot pass comment on any aspect of EU membership, positive or negative, at all, since almost everything we have done as part of our membership could theoretically have been done otherwise. 

well I didn't start the daft claims  merely extended it  

[OutByEaster?]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

from the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

That BBC reality check column has been one of the most right wing things the BBC has ever done - it's an awful series of "How to think properly" pieces dressed up as debunking exercises. Since Cameron threatened them with extinction, they've lurched to an almost Daily Mail position on a lot of things. I do like the idea that you consider them Bolshevik, you'll be unsurprised that I consider them Pravda.

 

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 

 

from the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

"  it's surely going too far to say we wouldn't even be discussing air pollution without the EU"  - thats' the bit that's (in the Journo's view) OTT. 

when he says 

Quote

It's true that these issues are covered by EU laws, which have pushed for higher standards over time and that European rules are among the toughest in the world.

For example, the quality of water at beaches is governed by the revised Bathing Water Directive.

But outside the EU ,Britain might have implemented its own laws on environmental issue

he kind of overlooks the fact that UK beaches were absolutely filthy. The UK didn't do anything until forced to do so by the EU. Here's a beach just by me

Quote

In 1988, just six of 29 waters surveyed around the Blackpool region met the EU’s bathing water guidelines. By 2014, all of the northern seaside resort’s beaches passed the EU test

before and after

 

[tonyh29]

12 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I do like the idea that you consider them Bolshevik

it's not my nickname for them it's just one of those labels that people attached that have stuck , see Grauniad for example

[TrentVilla]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

"  it's surely going too far to say we wouldn't even be discussing air pollution without the EU"  - thats' the bit that's (in the Journo's view) OTT. 

when he says 

he kind of overlooks the fact that UK beaches were absolutely filthy. The UK didn't do anything until forced to do so by the EU. Here's a beach just by me

 

Bloody immigrants coming over here taking our beech pollution....

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Bloody immigrants coming over here taking our beech pollution....

On top of Dutch Elm disease and Ash dieback? Bastards!

Edited October 28, 2016 by snowychap

[TrentVilla]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

On top of Dutch Elm disease and Ash dieback? Bastards!

Don't those count as contributions to this country by immigrants? I'm confused...

[snowychap]

Edit: Perhaps I'm confused now.

Edited October 28, 2016 by snowychap

[villakram]

4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

That BBC reality check column has been one of the most right wing things the BBC has ever done - it's an awful series of "How to think properly" pieces dressed up as debunking exercises. Since Cameron threatened them with extinction, they've lurched to an almost Daily Mail position on a lot of things. I do like the idea that you consider them Bolshevik, you'll be unsurprised that I consider them Pravda.

 

NPR would be considered as somewhat similar to the beeb in education/journalism terms over here and has similarly been gutted since the republicans went after them hard in 2008-2010. Hardly ever challenge the "consensus" viewpoint now, i.e., they're becoming right wing by default. 

[Enda]

9 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

That wasn't the point though, AWOL was completely correct in the point he was making about the here and now. Things might not look so healthy when we actually go but the point is how accurate are these forecasts of woe from 'experts' given the current GDP figure? The point AWOL was making is that the predictions are fairly worthless.

Trent, Awol, honest question: can you find expert reports that said the recession would start immediately?

I'm sure politicians and the Daily Mail said these things and maybe even some of the hysteria slipped into places like the BBC, but I don't think any economists predicted GDP to decline the following quarter.

For example, I remember chatting with two economists from the IFS and their prediction was recession in 2017 conditional on immediate triggering of Article 50, which is similar to the IMF's prediction of recession beginning in 2017 if the UK went the WTO route.

I haven't found any serious independent/academic report that predicted recession before 2017, partly because the implied elasticities would have to be absolutely huge. So can you point to these forecasts of immediate woe, please?

[Awol]

@Enda I haven't got time now to find the originals for you but some Google action will no doubt sort you out. 

Prior to the referendum the Treasury (supposedly expert and non political civil servants) said a Brexit vote would see economy shrink by between 0.1% - 1% in Q3 2016.

IMF predicted -0.3% for Q3 if Brexit won the vote and the OECD went for short term impact of -1.25%.

Given how steeply the IMF has revised those figures upwards since we voted, it's pretty clear these organisations were putting out politically polluted figures at the behest of Downing Street.

Obviously it's not even worth going into the garbage produced by Cameron, Osborne & the Remain campaign they directly controlled. 

Please note I'm sure things will get worse next year and the whole world is likely to have a bad time, but that's not an issue with Brexit! 

[Enda]

21 minutes ago, Awol said:

@Enda I haven't got time now to find the originals for you but some Google action will no doubt sort you out. 

...IMF predicted -0.3% for Q3 if Brexit won the vote and the OECD went for short term impact of -1.25%.

Thanks. Have you (Google) links for these, please?

[Enda]

2 minutes ago, Enda said:

Thanks. Have you (Google) links for these, please?

Just to add... reason I ask is because the closest I can find for OECD saying -1.25% is for 2018, not 2016 and not even 2017.

So I think this paper talk about the predictions being wrong is just the counter-point of The Great Marmite Struggle, i.e. a load of nonsense designed to sell papers. The Marmite thing was a fight between two firms and not really Brexit-related and, as far as I can see, there were no (well, maybe one or two) predictions of immediate recession.

[meregreen]

Apple announce 20% price hike for computers and laptops in UK . With the pound crashing after the vote for Brexit, this could just be the start methinks.

Edited October 29, 2016 by meregreen

[limpid]

VillaTalk is costing around 25% more to host than six months ago. I pay in USD so it's just mainly exchange rate, not scamming megacorps.

Advertising revenue has increased by about 0%.