4 ms·

> 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 chem

> 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 ago
No. 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 ago
  Yup, 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'

4 ms·

> 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 chem

by Mediterraneo10 7y ago

Someone1234 7y ago
No. 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 ago
  Yup, 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'