4 ms·
The title is too clickbaity for such an interesting article otherwise. The fire retardants (and their problems/limitations) themselves are more interesting of a
by Someone1234 7y ago
The title is too clickbaity for such an interesting article otherwise. The fire retardants (and their problems/limitations) themselves are more interesting of a topic than the whole Brexit/EU spin that the title is trying to bait with.
It is like someone tried to write an interesting article then someone else came along and said "How can be mix Brexit into this?" Particularly as this issue has been well known for over ten years, long before Brexit was a realistic thing and the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it had wanted.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago> the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it had wanted. Could it? Wouldn’t one EU state banning products from sale due to the presence of chemicals not banned elsewhere in the EU, not go against the point of the Common Market?
- Someone1234 7y agoNo. Each EU state enacts their own versions of EU regulation, including variances. This is already the case with multiple food items, video games (Germany), animal products, electrical systems, and furniture standards. The common market is a trade alliance with some regulatory back-stops. In this case if the UK banned these chemicals and required a safer flame retardant, it would likely be legal elsewhere in the EU anyway because as the article says the currently regulations are too vague on WHAT can be used (so manufacturers use the cheapest). Obviously none of which matters with Brexit. But historically the UK absolutely could have acted alone, as can other EU countries today.
- detritus 7y agoYup, which is a central core to the tragedy of how the EU was [mis-] sold to the UK populace and the idea of Brexit allowed to creep in over decades of gradual negative sublimation in the tabloid / right-wing press. We've always been free to choose much of our own course (blue passports anyone?), and we've also been as free as other EU states to break rules when it suited us. Beyond that, we were a part of the dialogue and could've pushed our points in within the European context. Instead we had the likes of Farage taking up seats in the EU parliament and adding absolutely nothing useful. And so, the various vying frontline political factions in Westminster managed to pin much of the discontent in the UK's political landscape on the EU, not itself. - ed clarified a line by adding '/ right wing'
- namdnay 7y agoMuch as I like the Guardian, it seems that every single article they publish now has to mention Brexit in some way shape or form.
- easytiger 7y agoFor context, George Monbiot, is a left wing political activist who's "journalism" generally consists of stretching half truths in some way or other try and discredit the government any which way he pleases. Note also this isn't published in the news section but in the opinion section. Read into that what you will. A quick google will reveal the level of gibberish allowed under this editorial section. Edit: downvotes? Is this Reddit?
- pergadad 7y agoNo matter your personal views (ad hominem?) regarding the author, the article makes a number of relevant points. The issue was raised last year in parliament but disappeared intentionally or accidentally in the Brexit maelstrom.
- easytiger 7y agoYou can see in about 4 places in the "opinion piece" he's trying to paint a picture of conspiratorial levels of capitalist and legislative corruption. It very very much is relevant to reading the article and given much of the audience here may not be British they might not pick up on the context or think the author is impartial or respected
- UweSchmidt 7y agoNo matter how you think about the EU, this new structure above european individual nations has shaken up and successfully confronted many national lobby groups and special interests. Every country may have it's weirdness, but, for example, the fire retardant lobby couldn't extend their BS over all of Europe. One aspect of Brexit could very well be national lobbyists wanting their control back. Strategically buring news with other events that are higher priority in the news cycle is nothing new and worth pointing out.
- dplgk 7y agoSorry for forgetting the source, but I learned recently that the person that writes the article does not choose the headline, generally.