Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Working with two different units of measurement cost NASA a lot of money in 1999 when the Mars Climate Orbiter disintegrated in the Martian atmosphere due to a NASA ground control computer working in non-SI units whilst the rest used SI.

...Now we get to adhere to EU red tape, and not have any say on the red tape, hooray!....

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We never had much of a say on it anyway.

That's the point, we actually did. We were one of the big 3 and we had a great deal of influence. What railed against the Tory right wing was that it wasn't enough influence, and begad we had to listen to bally foreigners and wot not.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Still, at least rail nationalisation will be back on the table as an option.

Perhaps the only benefit I can see from BREXIT.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So it's easier for everyone to work out their own contracts than have an industry standard?

I could point out that there is a huge difference between a regulation and an industry standard, the most important of which is that an industry standard can be ignored if the person so chooses, but I suspect that you would ignore such a simple comment.

 r_squared wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ r_squared

I have no idea what they may be because I cannot see the futureno matter how hard strager83 demands that I "produce evidence" , but it is entirely plausible and indeed possible that we may decide to grade Cox's apples according to rosiness.

Actually, I simply wanted you to admit that your claim that there would be more red tape after Brexit was simply your opinion and not based on any fact at all - as you've now conceded this fact I'm happy to let you have your opinion, mine is different.


I'd like to say that I find this new discussion quite interesting - it started out with a bunch of people saying that red tape means things like lead paint on childrens toys and dumping poison in the rivers and now we cannot even agree that a legal system requiring cucumbers to be graded based on their shape is red tape. I think we can safely say in that regards that if we cannot get the 'grades of cucumber shape' removed from UK law as red tape then we're not going to get 'safe paint on childrens toys' removed.

I don't really understand why we needed Brexit for that? Poland has a nationalised Rail system and is part of the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:

The debate in this topic isn't really based on reality?

That sums up the entire Brexit debacle.

Debacle or not, BREXIT is happening. As I've said before, a bold vision is what's needed to really transform the UK and make it fit for the 21st century....

That's it old chap, chin up pip pip. All we need is a positive outlook and some good old fashioned British pluck and by god we'll be just about OK, probably.

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:

The debate in this topic isn't really based on reality?

That sums up the entire Brexit debacle.

Debacle or not, BREXIT is happening. As I've said before, a bold vision is what's needed to really transform the UK and make it fit for the 21st century....

That's it old chap, chin up pip pip. All we need is a positive outlook and some good old fashioned British pluck and by god we'll be just about OK, probably.

It'll all be over by Christmas.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't really understand why we needed Brexit for that? Poland has a nationalised Rail system and is part of the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Railway_Directive

Basically it was a directive implemented, as I understand it, to allow private companies unhindered access to rail infrastructure and to ensure there was no monopolisation of interest.

In June 2010, the European Commission instigated legal proceedings through the European Court of Justice against 13 states that had not fully implemented the set of directives (known as the 'first railway package'). The countries not having fully implemented the legislation to the Commission's satisfaction were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.[19][20] In 2012 action against Germany and Austria on the basis that their infrastructure and operating companies were insufficiently separate was rejected by the European Court of Justice. Portugal, Spain and Hungary remained as having not yet fully complied with the aspects of the directives.[21] Legal action against Bulgaria was passed to the Court of Justice in 2012 for non-implementation.[22] In February 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled that the governments of Hungary and Spain had failed to liberalise their railways; infrastructure management was not sufficiently separated from train operation.[23]

So it seems that Poland was one country that the EU took legal action against because of non-implementation. They didn't have to with the UK, we'd cheerfully sold and chopped up the whole lot already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:

The debate in this topic isn't really based on reality?

That sums up the entire Brexit debacle.

Debacle or not, BREXIT is happening. As I've said before, a bold vision is what's needed to really transform the UK and make it fit for the 21st century....

That's it old chap, chin up pip pip. All we need is a positive outlook and some good old fashioned British pluck and by god we'll be just about OK, probably.

It'll all be over by Christmas.

2035

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't really understand why we needed Brexit for that? Poland has a nationalised Rail system and is part of the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Railway_Directive

Basically it was a directive implemented, as I understand it, to allow private companies unhindered access to rail infrastructure and to ensure there was no monopolisation of interest.

In June 2010, the European Commission instigated legal proceedings through the European Court of Justice against 13 states that had not fully implemented the set of directives (known as the 'first railway package'). The countries not having fully implemented the legislation to the Commission's satisfaction were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.[19][20] In 2012 action against Germany and Austria on the basis that their infrastructure and operating companies were insufficiently separate was rejected by the European Court of Justice. Portugal, Spain and Hungary remained as having not yet fully complied with the aspects of the directives.[21] Legal action against Bulgaria was passed to the Court of Justice in 2012 for non-implementation.[22] In February 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled that the governments of Hungary and Spain had failed to liberalise their railways; infrastructure management was not sufficiently separated from train operation.[23]

So it seems that Poland was one country that the EU took legal action against because of non-implementation. They didn't have to with the UK, we'd cheerfully sold and chopped up the whole lot already.

But that directive doesn't ban nationalised railways. It just requires that private railway companies be allowed to apply for usage of the tracks. So we could nationalise our major rail networks as long as it was also possible for private companies to be able to apply to run services on the track.

Stranger83 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So it's easier for everyone to work out their own contracts than have an industry standard?

I could point out that there is a huge difference between a regulation and an industry standard, the most important of which is that an industry standard can be ignored if the person so chooses, but I suspect that you would ignore such a simple comment.

So is it easier or not?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So it's easier for everyone to work out their own contracts than have an industry standard?

I could point out that there is a huge difference between a regulation and an industry standard, the most important of which is that an industry standard can be ignored if the person so chooses, but I suspect that you would ignore such a simple comment.

So is it easier or not?

Yes, generally speaking an industry standard is better - but I fail to see what difference this makes to weather the regulation we're questioning is red tape or not as an industry standard is not the same as regulation.

You might as well as ask me if chicken is better than beef for all the similarity it has with the requirement to regulate classifying cucumbers on shape.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't really understand why we needed Brexit for that? Poland has a nationalised Rail system and is part of the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Railway_Directive

Basically it was a directive implemented, as I understand it, to allow private companies unhindered access to rail infrastructure and to ensure there was no monopolisation of interest.

In June 2010, the European Commission instigated legal proceedings through the European Court of Justice against 13 states that had not fully implemented the set of directives (known as the 'first railway package'). The countries not having fully implemented the legislation to the Commission's satisfaction were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.[19][20] In 2012 action against Germany and Austria on the basis that their infrastructure and operating companies were insufficiently separate was rejected by the European Court of Justice. Portugal, Spain and Hungary remained as having not yet fully complied with the aspects of the directives.[21] Legal action against Bulgaria was passed to the Court of Justice in 2012 for non-implementation.[22] In February 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled that the governments of Hungary and Spain had failed to liberalise their railways; infrastructure management was not sufficiently separated from train operation.[23]

So it seems that Poland was one country that the EU took legal action against because of non-implementation. They didn't have to with the UK, we'd cheerfully sold and chopped up the whole lot already.

But that directive doesn't ban nationalised railways. It just requires that private railway companies be allowed to apply for usage of the tracks. So we could nationalise our major rail networks as long as it was also possible for private companies to be able to apply to run services on the track.

It does in that the rail infrastructure and rolling stock must be separate entities entirely. Nationalisation is the reverse of that, so illegal under the legislation. I believe, I'm no expert TBH.

Stranger83 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So it's easier for everyone to work out their own contracts than have an industry standard?

I could point out that there is a huge difference between a regulation and an industry standard, the most important of which is that an industry standard can be ignored if the person so chooses, but I suspect that you would ignore such a simple comment.

So is it easier or not?

Yes, generally speaking an industry standard is better - but I fail to see what difference this makes to weather the regulation we're questioning is red tape or not as an industry standard is not the same as regulation.

You might as well as ask me if chicken is better than beef for all the similarity it has with the requirement to regulate classifying cucumbers on shape.

An industry standard which cannot be enforced is pointless. Without regulation requiring your product to meet certain criteria in order to be marketed as meeting industry standard what is to stop companies from claiming that their product meets some ill defined industry standard when it may not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't really understand why we needed Brexit for that? Poland has a nationalised Rail system and is part of the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Railway_Directive

Basically it was a directive implemented, as I understand it, to allow private companies unhindered access to rail infrastructure and to ensure there was no monopolisation of interest.

In June 2010, the European Commission instigated legal proceedings through the European Court of Justice against 13 states that had not fully implemented the set of directives (known as the 'first railway package'). The countries not having fully implemented the legislation to the Commission's satisfaction were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.[19][20] In 2012 action against Germany and Austria on the basis that their infrastructure and operating companies were insufficiently separate was rejected by the European Court of Justice. Portugal, Spain and Hungary remained as having not yet fully complied with the aspects of the directives.[21] Legal action against Bulgaria was passed to the Court of Justice in 2012 for non-implementation.[22] In February 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled that the governments of Hungary and Spain had failed to liberalise their railways; infrastructure management was not sufficiently separated from train operation.[23]

So it seems that Poland was one country that the EU took legal action against because of non-implementation. They didn't have to with the UK, we'd cheerfully sold and chopped up the whole lot already.

But that directive doesn't ban nationalised railways. It just requires that private railway companies be allowed to apply for usage of the tracks. So we could nationalise our major rail networks as long as it was also possible for private companies to be able to apply to run services on the track.

It does in that the rail infrastructure and rolling stock must be separate entities entirely. Nationalisation is the reverse of that, so illegal under the legislation. I believe, I'm no expert TBH.

They have to be separate companies, but that doesn't mean those companies cannot both be owned by the state so long as they function and are run separately.

Possibly, like I said I'm no expert.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So it's easier for everyone to work out their own contracts than have an industry standard?

I could point out that there is a huge difference between a regulation and an industry standard, the most important of which is that an industry standard can be ignored if the person so chooses, but I suspect that you would ignore such a simple comment.

So is it easier or not?

Yes, generally speaking an industry standard is better - but I fail to see what difference this makes to weather the regulation we're questioning is red tape or not as an industry standard is not the same as regulation.

You might as well as ask me if chicken is better than beef for all the similarity it has with the requirement to regulate classifying cucumbers on shape.

An industry standard which cannot be enforced is pointless. Without regulation requiring your product to meet certain criteria in order to be marketed as meeting industry standard what is to stop companies from claiming that their product meets some ill defined industry standard when it may not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't really understand why we needed Brexit for that? Poland has a nationalised Rail system and is part of the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Railway_Directive

Basically it was a directive implemented, as I understand it, to allow private companies unhindered access to rail infrastructure and to ensure there was no monopolisation of interest.

In June 2010, the European Commission instigated legal proceedings through the European Court of Justice against 13 states that had not fully implemented the set of directives (known as the 'first railway package'). The countries not having fully implemented the legislation to the Commission's satisfaction were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.[19][20] In 2012 action against Germany and Austria on the basis that their infrastructure and operating companies were insufficiently separate was rejected by the European Court of Justice. Portugal, Spain and Hungary remained as having not yet fully complied with the aspects of the directives.[21] Legal action against Bulgaria was passed to the Court of Justice in 2012 for non-implementation.[22] In February 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled that the governments of Hungary and Spain had failed to liberalise their railways; infrastructure management was not sufficiently separated from train operation.[23]

So it seems that Poland was one country that the EU took legal action against because of non-implementation. They didn't have to with the UK, we'd cheerfully sold and chopped up the whole lot already.

But that directive doesn't ban nationalised railways. It just requires that private railway companies be allowed to apply for usage of the tracks. So we could nationalise our major rail networks as long as it was also possible for private companies to be able to apply to run services on the track.

It does in that the rail infrastructure and rolling stock must be separate entities entirely. Nationalisation is the reverse of that, so illegal under the legislation. I believe, I'm no expert TBH.

They have to be separate companies, but that doesn't mean those companies cannot both be owned by the state so long as they function and are run separately.

Remember that such legislation was in the works for other public services so being in the EU may have brought about the demise of the NHS and social healthcare.

Something the TTIP is interested in destroying too

That isn't going to happen as to do so would also majorly affect the health systems of other major EU players such as France. Socialised healthcare is not going anywhere in Europe as it is used by the overwhelming number of countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe

Hence why TTIP was not going to get anywhere with that particular part of it (though in Tory run Britain on its own it probably will).

Yep, the Tories are without a doubt a greater threat to the UK than the Russians.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


An industry standard which cannot be enforced is pointless. Without regulation requiring your product to meet certain criteria in order to be marketed as meeting industry standard what is to stop companies from claiming that their product meets some ill defined industry standard when it may not?

Which is actually my point, it's industry standard within my own industry to offer 99% uptime guarantee - most offer this, some (such as my company) go higher than this but the important distriction over a regulation is that you can choose not to offer the industry standard - if you make it clear that you're not offering 99% uptime there is nothing to stop you from doing so.

If it was regulated millions of companies that don't care about 99% uptime would be forced to pay more for a service that they don't really care about, it's the important distinction between a regulation and an industry standard. there is no need to 'enforce' a standard, as it's not really a rule - it's just what is usually as standard.

Stranger83 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


An industry standard which cannot be enforced is pointless. Without regulation requiring your product to meet certain criteria in order to be marketed as meeting industry standard what is to stop companies from claiming that their product meets some ill defined industry standard when it may not?

Which is actually my point, it's industry standard within my own industry to offer 99% uptime guarantee - most offer this, some (such as my company) go higher than this but the important distriction over a regulation is that you can choose not to offer the industry standard - if you make it clear that you're not offering 99% uptime there is nothing to stop you from doing so.

If it was regulated millions of companies that don't care about 99% uptime would be forced to pay more for a service that they don't really care about, it's the important distinction between a regulation and an industry standard. there is no need to 'enforce' a standard, as it's not really a rule - it's just what is usually as standard.

IT is a service. It doesn't really need much in the way of standards other than the ones you set for yourself. I mean my wife is a graphic designer, she does mostly wine labels, what kind of industry standard can you set for that other than "I like them".

Actual physical products like airbags, fire extinguishers, cosmetics, chemicals, and just about anything you eat or interact with do need standards. Some times it's safety and others it's to promote information and competition.

Stranger83 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


An industry standard which cannot be enforced is pointless. Without regulation requiring your product to meet certain criteria in order to be marketed as meeting industry standard what is to stop companies from claiming that their product meets some ill defined industry standard when it may not?

Which is actually my point, it's industry standard within my own industry to offer 99% uptime guarantee - most offer this, some (such as my company) go higher than this but the important distriction over a regulation is that you can choose not to offer the industry standard - if you make it clear that you're not offering 99% uptime there is nothing to stop you from doing so.

If it was regulated millions of companies that don't care about 99% uptime would be forced to pay more for a service that they don't really care about, it's the important distinction between a regulation and an industry standard. there is no need to 'enforce' a standard, as it's not really a rule - it's just what is usually as standard.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse, especially as you can only quote one example from your own limited experience that is hardly even relevant. Industry standards are a basic requirement of international trade.
Server uptime is a selling point.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


An industry standard which cannot be enforced is pointless. Without regulation requiring your product to meet certain criteria in order to be marketed as meeting industry standard what is to stop companies from claiming that their product meets some ill defined industry standard when it may not?

Which is actually my point, it's industry standard within my own industry to offer 99% uptime guarantee - most offer this, some (such as my company) go higher than this but the important distriction over a regulation is that you can choose not to offer the industry standard - if you make it clear that you're not offering 99% uptime there is nothing to stop you from doing so.

If it was regulated millions of companies that don't care about 99% uptime would be forced to pay more for a service that they don't really care about, it's the important distinction between a regulation and an industry standard. there is no need to 'enforce' a standard, as it's not really a rule - it's just what is usually as standard.

IT is a service. It doesn't really need much in the way of standards other than the ones you set for yourself. I mean my wife is a graphic designer, she does mostly wine labels, what kind of industry standard can you set for that other than "I like them".

Actual physical products like airbags, fire extinguishers, cosmetics, chemicals, and just about anything you eat or interact with do need standards. Some times it's safety and others it's to promote information and competition.

But airbags. fire extingishers, cosmetic are all covered by regulations, not standards. as far as I know (and I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, I'm certainly not an expet) there is no law based on how a fire extinguisher should look like, but all the ones I've seen look the same, it is therefore a standard shape but not regulated so you COULD make one a different shape if you so choose. Similarly all the air bags I've ever seen are white, this is the industry standard - but there are no regulations that require me to make them white I could make bright pink ones if I wanted. (actually in fairness I think there are laws on the colour of fire extinguishers - but again these are a regulation, not a standard)

It's the distinction between a regulation (i.e. we are required to meet this specification) and a standard (i.e. everyone does it this way but you are not required to) If I want to makee pink airbags I can under a standard, I cannot under a regulation.

 r_squared wrote:


I think you're being deliberately obtuse, especially as you can only quote one example from your own limited experience that is hardly even relevant. Industry standards are a basic requirement of international trade.
Server uptime is a selling point.

See above for further examples based on options given by jouso

You would be wrong. There are definitely laws on how fire extinguishers must look in order to differentiate between the different extinguishers. A Halon extinguisher, for example, must be painted solid green or red with a green panel, a powder extinguisher must be red with a blue panel, CO2 is red with a black panel above the usage instructions and water is solid red.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You would be wrong. There are definitely laws on how fire extinguishers must look in order to differentiate between the different extinguishers.

Which as I mentioned is due to the colours, and is a regulation - but they all are the same shape (including the ones that contain different types of substance) and (as far as I'm aware) this is not a requirement of law, its just a standard that they all follow.

So again, there is a difference between a regulation and a standard in that a regulation MUST be followed but a standard can be changed if you see a reason to do so.

So now we're debating the difference between regulation and standard?
Interesting, if you're a pedant who worries about this sort of thing and is desperate to not concede an inch even though the point of the original argument has long since disappeared.

Glad we got the whole cucumber thing cleared up though.

 r_squared wrote:
So now we're debating the difference between regulation and standard?
Interesting, if you're a pedant who worries about this sort of thing and is desperate to not concede an inch even though the point of the original argument has long since disappeared.

Glad we got the whole cucumber thing cleared up though.

Because I was asked if I agree that standards are generally good, I think they usually are I just don't see what impact this has on the regulation we are discussing. It's nothing I brought up I'm afraid.

I'm more than happy to drop the discussion however because like you I don't see the relevance to the original point - which was that when leavers talk of dropping red tape were not things like putting lead paint onto children's toys or dropping poison into the rivers but are the more pointless stuff like forcing all growers of cucumbers to classify them based on their shape regardless of who they sell them to.

Stranger83 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
So now we're debating the difference between regulation and standard?
Interesting, if you're a pedant who worries about this sort of thing and is desperate to not concede an inch even though the point of the original argument has long since disappeared.

Glad we got the whole cucumber thing cleared up though.

Because I was asked if I agree that standards are generally good, I think they usually are I just don't see what impact this has on the regulation we are discussing. It's nothing I brought up I'm afraid.

I'm more than happy to drop the discussion however because like you I don't see the relevance to the original point - which was that when leavers talk of dropping red tape were not things like putting lead paint onto children's toys or dropping poison into the rivers but are the more pointless stuff like forcing all growers of cucumbers to classify them based on their shape regardless of who they sell them to.

Except, as we pointed out earlier, if they are not being sold as class 1 cucumbers then they don't need to sort them according to shape. They can sell them as large, organic etc. cucumbers to their local greengrocer regardless of shape. It is only when they are using the nomenclature adopted to allow for international trade that such things come into it.

So lets say that your server company from the UK is advertising their servers as meeting industry standard and a company from France hires them. Now what if the industry standard in France is that the server uptime is 99.5% compared to the 99% uptime in the UK?

OK folks, to put all the food standards issue to bed and the "serious" issue over bendy cucumbers, this has absolutely nothing to do with EU. These accusations being levelled at them is just them putting into place regulations that the *UN* want applying globally. With a few moments of research you can find that there is a whole area set up at the UN to deal with food marketing and they set the standards, not the EU. All the EU does is implement these global standards see here:-

http://www.unece.org/info/media/blog/previous-blogs/cucumbers-blame-the-un.html

If you want to blame anyone, blame the UN, but you aren't going to get away from this highly contentious issue, that allegedly is all the EU's fault, because the UK will still have to comply with these standards. That is unless Brexiters mean that we should now leave the UN as well???

Stranger83 wrote:


This is just silly - nobody will support cutting the 'red tape' that means we can put lead paint on a childs toy, why would we? It's a straw man argument and I think your a smart enough person to know it.

As I say, this is just a very small list that I can think of today - all of which are just pointless 'red tape' and designed to ensure that small manufacturers cannot compete with the big boys. This is what is meant by 'red tape' - not the ban on lead paint on childrens toys.

Actually it's not a straw man argument and the UK government is still doing it even today; they drag their feet over this type of legislation as much as possible if the industry thinks it will cost them. I've seen it happen, we are not talking about the difference between legal and illegal activities, it's relaxation of regulations to allow maximum profit and cash flow but at the cost to the environment.

For example:-

Incinerators have high emission standards to the point where the emissions at the top of the stack are cleaner than walking through central London - an EU requirement
You have lots of recycling options because the EU enforced reducing waste to landfill
The chemicals you use today are much safer because they now have to be tested before they are put on the market rather than a wait and see attitude - and EU requirement
Car safety standards were introduced - an EU requirement
Your hoover and electrical items are now more efficient meaning it draws less electricity, needing less power stations pumping out sulphur dioxide which use to cause acid rain and our actions were devastating Scandinavian's environment, not to mention the CO2 emissions
You now have options to recycle all your electrical items and batteries rather than disposing of them leaching the toxic chemicals - an EU requirement.
Your cars now have to dismantled appropriately in properly controlled facilities whereas before they it happened on any old concrete with the chemicals from A/C, batteries, fuel and oil tanks going down the nearest drain

and it goes on and on and pretty much resisted by the UK government every step of the way because of what the existing industries view was that it would bite into their profit margins. Make no mistake many of these pieces of legislation resulted in brand new start up industries and SMEs that would never had a chance before. The reason big businesses don't like such circumstances as it allows new industries and small businesses to poach some of their current customers.

And if you want examples of the UK continue doing the same things and sacrificing the social and environmental impacts just look at their resistance to banning neonicotinoids pretty much the DDT of the bee world or their watering down of the plans to try and force companies to control sugar in their products. I'm not saying that overnight all these things will go, but give it 20 years and you can expect significant relaxation of such environmental and social standards. Just look at the MP in charge of DEFRA, a person that is not sure about whether climate change is happening and that flowers should be grown on hills and food elsewhere which shows a complete lack of understanding of how the environment works and you can't just parcel things up like this (and I'm not even mentioning the Badger cull).

Thank you for getting us back on topic. Now I agree with you that the tories would LIKE to do most of what you say, I just don't see them actually doing it. If they tried they would get kicked out at the next general election by any party that said they would reinstate the laws. Now I'm not saying we don't need to watch them carefully, and we don't need to keep informing them what we do and don't want, but I just don't see them actually doing things like allowing people to put lead paint onto children's toys. You might disagree but until I see it actually get announced that they plan to do it I'll still believe that this is not the plan.

Politics is all about PR. Nobody in this country would be insane enough to let companies put lead paint on toys. Think of the headlines.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Politics is all about PR. Nobody in this country would be insane enough to let companies put lead paint on toys. Think of the headlines.

But putting paint on lead toys is A-Okay!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Politics is all about PR. Nobody in this country would be insane enough to let companies put lead paint on toys. Think of the headlines.

I disagree. They wouldn't even think of that happening until a load of toys from china were legally imported with lead paint all over them.

Remember, these are the politicians who pushed through the psychoactive substances bill, saying it would ban poppers, which it did not. They have no concept of the actual effects and legal workings of the bills they push through.