There are all sorts of rules about building and pollution .not just sewage ie off from cement on building sites . They are there for good reason not to stop people building .
1 Like
I refer you once again to the article I posted above:
What waste water from building sites are you talking about exactly that builders can throw in a river (according to you) ?
Can you give examples ?
Thats simply not true. The financial crisis started in 2007 when labour were in government. The run on the banks happened under a Labour government, Northern Rock, NatWest, Barclays etc all need bailing out because the Labour Government failed to intervene (when Gordon Brown was Chancellor) failing to force ring fencing of banks high risk lending from their retail banking sectors. Instead, the reckless amounts of lending in the sub-prime market was allowed to continue when soon it all blew up, first in the USA with Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae which then hit the UK banks, (under Gordon Brown when he was then Prime Minister). When Brown left office we had had the biggest financial melt down in history. To say Brown saved the banking system is simply, laughable. There was even a note from a labour minister saying that the “there was no money left”. It was the tories that had to bail out the mess, using tax payer money and austerity to rescue the country from complete and total financial meltdown.
There is no reduction in EU standards for ring fencing financial operations. The UK introduced the banking reform act in 2013 under David Cameron and UK ring fencing was introduced in the 2019 under Boris Johnson, after years of banking risk assessments and the improvements to the Basel II framework which is still being implements (and nothing to do with the EU by the way). I don’t think the ECB has its own policy on ring fencing of banks anyway, unless you care to share it, I think they follow the Basel II/III frameworks as far as I can recall.
To clarify, it was the rules over nutrition neutrality which have been abolished by Michael Gove. These nutrition neutrality rules govern the amount of nutrient “load” (phosphates and nitrates) which can be discharged into rivers. If the nutrient neutrality is imbalanced by these discharges then this can affect wildlife habitats in and around the rivers. The largest source of nutrient “pollution” is from farming (animal slurry, fertilisers), where rain run off from farm land pollutes rivers by carrying these extra amounts of nitrates and phosphates into nearby rivers. A minute amount of nutrient pollution is from house occupation where raw sewage is discharged into water systems without treatment (not many of these houses exist anymore) and finally the least amount of nutrient pollution from surface water run off from building construction waste materials.,I say its negligible because building sites use chemical toilets/portaloos for workers, construction materials don’t contain phosphates or nitrates and all new builds have modern sewage and waste systems installed, thereby reducing the risk of nutrition pollution from house occupation. The only thing I can think of where housing would affect nutrition neutrality is leaky septic tanks, but we have other laws and regulations that govern that (and fines).
With regard to building construction, it’s nothing to do with dumping construction material into rivers, builders need to be licensed waste carriers and they are all heavily regulated. They simply can’t dump construction waste into a river - inspectors police the sites regularly and there are massive fines and penalties (including prison) for doing this kind of dumping. Strangely enough, I’m building a large extension to my house at the moment and believe me, the regulations are mind boggling on what you can and cannot do.
But the point here is that nutrition neutrality has nothing to do with illegal fly-tipping or waste dumping. Inspectors regularly inspect construction sites and constructors need to pay for licenses to handle and dispose of any waste in a very heavily regulated way. As an example, our builder went to tip a lorry load of building waste recently and was stopped by the council and ordered to pay £2000 because he had a load of plasterboard on the load. He had to take it off and then dispose of it in the correct way otherwise he would lose his license for waste disposal. I also have regular skip deliveries and pickups and I can only put certain things in certain skips. These comments that suggest builders can dump waste into rivers because nutrition neutrality regulations have been dropped for house construction is simply, nonsense.
1 Like
Its funny how each person can remember differently and cast a different interpretation. Your recollection is heavily filtered to suit your narrative. The financial markets in the UK were massively de-regulated in the 80’s / 90’s under a Tory government. The subsequent Labour government decided that tax revenues from the financial sector were too attractive so did not address the risk that this de-regulation was causing. Back in 2005/6 the build up of risk and the over-heated and largely unchecked financial sector was evident to some. I recall reading an article by Will Hutton of the Observer at that time in which he pointed to the overheated mortgage sector and the risks this created. In hindsight, Brown should have acted on these warnings - but realistically the powerful finance sector would not have made new regulation easy and the opposition would certainly have made it hard to get through. It would have taken years. Such regulation would have been met with derision and criticism as there had been no crisis.
When the sub-prime market did collapse, the market in mortgage debts were exposed as mostly piles of poo, the over-extended and under-secured banks went wobbly - and full melt down looked possible. At that time there was two points of view. The free market “let them fail” camp - right wing, neo-liberal perspective that businesses should accept the consequences of their own risk. And the more cautious / realistic view that while that might be ok for a small regional bank it was not feasible for much larger banks. Their collapse would likely lead to a global melt down of all finance, all trade, everything. Brown was at the forefront of that interventionist thinking and his decisive action saved the UK and then the world (as other governments follow his lead). This is the key bit to remember - Brown’s actions greatly mitigated the extent of the financial crash and its consequences.
Of course, after the financial crisis it was now clear more regulation and tighter controls over banking was needed. Hence the US and EU regulations. This year the UK government is now rolling back some of this EU regulation.
Brown didn’t mitigate or intervene on anything. He was asleep at the wheel and caused the biggest financial crash that was happening in the USA to happen over here. If he had intervened or mitigated the impact we wouldn’t have had 10 years of austerity and a bankrupt economy.
The tight controls I think you are referring to in your last paragraph are the Basel III regulations, of which are nothing to do with the EU because Basel is in Switzerland, where it originated.
/Hi
What has this got to do Brexit Benefits?
As far as water pollution is concerned it is clear that you do understand things.
So every country was also asleep at the wheel. You need your memory refreshed.
And from an article otherwise quite critical of Brown’s term as PM
“However, as Brown struggled for his political life in the autumn of 2008, something unexpected happened. As the Credit Crunch intensified Brown and his Chancellor, Alistair Darling, suddenly seemed to find their feet. They injected equity into British banks and provided guarantees on bank debt in a bid to get inter-bank lending restarted. The influential American economist Paul Krugman praised them for taking the lead in the worldwide rescue effort, writing that ‘this combination of clarity and decisiveness hasn’t been matched by any other Western government, least of all our own.’ Labour’s opinion poll rating increased and the party won a crucial by-election.”
From an LSE article:
“Gordon Brown didn’t have many good days as prime minister, but he strung a few together during the Great Financial Crisis. Embarking on a remarkable, if brief, period of effective leadership, Brown put together massive government support for British banks and successfully advocated similar policies abroad. Andrew Rawnsley called him “Chancellor of the World.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy feted his statesmanship, telling Eurozone leaders “My friend Gordon has the right plan. We must do it in Europe.””
Sewer overflow relief means sewage won’t end up in your house when capacity is compromised. The reason that we see more sewage in the sea is because we have been increasing monitoring of it. It gives the impression that more sewage is being dumped when in reality it isn’t, it’s just that we are detecting it where we wouldn’t have before.
We need to do better but a lot of our sewer systems were built in the Victorian times when we had way less people using them. It’s a tough one where to pin the blame.
Every country wasn’t affected. Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc were not affected, funnily enough, those countries who ring fenced high risk lending from retail banking.
And just for the record, it wasn’t the Labour Government that “inject equity” into the banks, it was the tax payer who actually “bailed them out”. Labour could have avoided this crisis but they didn’t, they did nothing and people ended up losing their homes, their business and their jobs. Typical of all labour governments when they leave office. Trust the Guardian to come up with a story like that.
So you’re blaming the Tory government for the deregulation they introduced. Fair.
Sorry but Australia rode out the Global Financial Crisis (as it did the Asian Crisis before it) very well thank you. There was some stimulus applied but the only major change was the government guaranteeing deposits up to $250,000 (as it still does)
I’m not blaming the tory government at all for deregulating. Brown was chancellor and then prime minister and the banking crisis happened when he was in government.
You can’t keep blaming people who weren’t in office for this, Labour were in office since 1997 (11 years in total) and the banking crisis started under them in 2008, with Brown leaving office in 2010. His legacy is a bankrupt country, economic collapse, haemorrhaging levels of debt, unemployment at around 8% and repossession at a record high above 60%. I can’t think of any other UK government where there was a run on the banks except the last Labour Government.
1 Like
Britten-Norman, which moved its production from Romania back to the Isle of Wight recently has secured a £20m order from Torres Strait Air in Australia for 10 new Islander aircraft.
Good news for Brexit Britain
I know that the EU can do no wrong, but, the DT is, again, telling us that all is not well, financially, and members might be in for a big shock shortly.
Here’s just a part of today’s article, about the EU:-
" It is rebuilding its economy. It is embarking on a programme of economic sovereignty. It is finally weaning itself off Russian oil and gas and, in so doing, helping Ukraine defend itself.
The EU has ramped up its spending over the last three years in an effort to turn itself into the fiscal powerhouse its most ardent supporters have always wanted it to be. There is a catch, however: it seemed to ignore how it would pay for it all.
Over the last week, bitter wrangling has broken out over some minor budget cuts, while the European Commission is struggling to build support for an extra €86bn (£74bn) on its budget. In reality, the EU is starting to run out of other people’s money – and very soon that is going to become painfully apparent."
4 Likes
You lot still slugging it out. 
1 Like
This is a topic based on the old system of putting people in the stocks.
You’re supposed to come on here, make a case “a benefit of leaving” and then suffer the flack of a few remainers throwing stones your way.
Meanwhile, in the background, the benefits of leaving keep coming (depending on which media you trust).
But, as winners, (as distinct from whingers) we don’t mind having to do a little pennance for causing a little unhappiness to those who seem to have chosen to live elsewhere.
1 Like
That sums it up exactly Ted!
1 Like
And yet.
It seems quite clear that the tide has already turned and, with notable and vocal exceptions, the mood is about getting on better with the EU, getting back closer and to stop our anti-EU politicians voicing so many antagonistic opinions. And this while we still have a Brexit government. After the next election the tone will change more. And after another few years there will be overtures to some form of re-joining (most likely a Norway style arrangement of being in the EEA). The DT, DE, DM hardcore will still make noises about how much the EU (and France, Germany, etc.) are all failing - even though that will be a decade or more after they were claiming they were all failing.
1 Like