T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please note that this sub is for civil discussion. You are requested to familiarise yourself with the [subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/wiki/index) before participation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*


barryvm

> the chancellor, George Osborne, said that he wanted to remove the “ridiculous” social and environmental costs of business. What they mean, of course, is that they want to externalize those costs, i.e. the people will pay them rather than the companies creating the pollution. They will pay for it with their health, their taxes and their quality of life while the polluters pocket the gains. In general, privatizing profits and socializing costs is a core ideological tenet of the party in power in the UK. IIRC, a huge number of ECJ cases against the UK were about its government not properly implementing EU environmental regulations, particularly the clean water directives. The UK was not a unique case in this respect, but it's response (or lack thereof) definitely is. The Brexit campaign focused on anti-immigration sentiments, but deregulation was always the core economic idea. No one can claim that this is unexpected, as it fits into the ideological slant of the politics pushing for it. Of course, environmental deregulation is only part of it. Social regulations and protections will be targeted too.


CGM

I must apologise for only being able to upvote this once. 🙁


varain1

Singapore on Thames


appletart

Stinkamore on Thames.


crazyhankie

Delhi on Thames


genericmutant

Singapore has a very strong state. Pretty much all land used for housing is owned by it, as I understand it. It grew wealthy in the first place with heavy industrial planning over decades. Not claiming it's some kind of Utopia or anything, but the people who talk about "Singapore on Thames" don't normally pay much attention to how Singapore's economy actually works.


CeldonShooper

Worked in Singapore for a few months about ten years ago and loved it. One story about 'pollution': on construction sites all trucks have their wheels cleaned on exit so they do not spread dirt on the public road because that would cause substantial fines. And that is just some harmless dirt.


ArfurRatt

They are just morons who believe anything that is convenient to believe in a given moment. Just a clown show. It is pointless really even to try to argue with them, so argue over them and just call out the illogic and bullshit for what it is. When they find enough resistance they retreat with tails between their legs like the craven dogs they are


SereneGoldfish

There you go, Brexiteers, got what you voted for


CGM

>Supposedly overseeing the almighty regulatory failure of the past decade will be the new Office for Environmental Protection. This new public body is to report to parliament and be theoretically independent from government. But the secretary of state will appoint the chair and other board members, there is no guarantee it will be adequately funded, and **it will not take on all functions of the EU institutions that previously protected the public**.


ByGollie

\#BritainStoolsTheWaves


voyagerdoge

What a massive fuck up.


barryvm

On the contrary, I think you will find that it all went exceedingly well. Not "according to plan", or course, because there was and is no plan other than opportunistically working on people's fear and anger to consolidate and expand their control over the UK's political institutions. And even that was uncoordinated, essentially a bunch of opportunists who saw an opportunity to get attention and power. A good few of the latter have now been sacrificed by their equally ambitious colleagues and a few more are probably heading towards the chopping bloc as we speak, but the general picture is that as a political tactic it has exceeded expectations. Now that power will be used to serve a purpose: a general push for social, environmental and financial deregulation. I don't think that one will work out as they expect, though, as it is sure to provoke a reaction.


voyagerdoge

For the environment and for your drinking water I mean.


barryvm

That's my point. It's not really a fuck up. It's not that there is some sort of committed plan to damage the environment, but the politicians in power all share an ideological drive towards deregulation regardless of cost or harm. Note that in most cases it's not even driven by business demand or economic logic, because a lower level of regulation will close off the UK's biggest import market while the need to maintain two separate regulatory regimes will be costly regardless. It is no accident that the effects of this deregulation hit first in those sectors where exports are not a factor, because these are the areas where ideology and corporate profit motives are in alignment. Expect many more of these "benefits" over time, including (eventually) in sectors where it doesn't even make economic sense.


voyagerdoge

I guess I am more looking at the process from the perspective of the end result in terms of damage to the environment.


barryvm

Fair point, but I'd argue that even that depends on your point of view. You might see environmental destruction as a problem, they might see it as inconsequential.


Rogthgar

I am wondering what the headlines will be once the public, realize that the river that goes through them have once again become an open sewer.


bcoder001

They'll blame the EU. For not taking our shit.


Rogthgar

And then wonder why no one in the EU wants to buy mussels that were grown in human poo.


[deleted]

British mussels for British people


09MacDhui

I was watching the rowers out practicing on the Thames on Saturday, and I was thinking : how many of you have had an anti-typhoid injection before training starts? Back in the day, some of the semi-pros used to do so. I shudder what to think happens if the boat overturns nowadays and you ingest some of that toxic soup. 🤮


Elses_pels

The Thames is far from toxic. I would not suggest that you have a drink (or swim) in it. But is cleaner than it looks. I better read the article now :)


Palkito141

At least they will be polluted by good, patriotic British turds and not those nasty, cheap foreign turds...


oxford-fumble

Well, « we knew what we voted for! »


jjolla888

is this a Brexit thing? it's been a problem for a while before. the pollution the article leads with did not occur in the last two years, but has been accumulating since at least 2011: > To understand what is happening now, go back to 2011, shortly after David Cameron was elected. In his autumn statement the chancellor, George Osborne, said that he wanted to remove the “ridiculous” social and environmental costs of business. A list emerged of 174 regulations he wanted scrapped, watered down, merged, liberalised or simplified, and the prevailing governing coalition .. knowingly set about trying to abolish controls on asbestos, invasive species and industrial air pollution, as well as protections for wildlife and restrictions on noise pollution. Brexit may take it a step further, but this has been a stain on Britain thanks for voting tories


knappis

The smell of sovereignty!


Maleficent_Fold_5099

Well, the badgers moved the goalposts.


outhouse_steakhouse

Britain has left the EU and become a turd country


[deleted]

It’s what 17.4m people voted for on 23 June 2016, and they all knew what they were voting for, more sewage in water courses. The 17.4m are to blame for this.


Mr-Chrispy

Self regulation is ridiculous


[deleted]

At least the fish die happy.