Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

[remembercolinlee]

So it looks like the UK is getting Ming the merciless in drag as the next PM

 

[DMD]

We did this earlier, you had no response, piped down and shut the **** up about it.

No-one has said that the EU 'saved us' in respect of H&S, merely that the EU directives have contributed to safer working environments, this is a simple fact. As a consequence death rates have fallen by 2/3rds in 24 years, your refusal to accept any correlation simply makes you look like a belligerent fool.

I did answer, I just chose to humour you when you posted a load of bollocks that didn't support your claim that it was the EU that saved lives, with the implication it wouldn't have otherwise happened..

It's not "as a consequence" you numpty, the EU regs were simply a continuation of the UK act. Even the CDM regs have their origins outside of the EU. These things would be in place with or without the EU, and we certainly enforce them far more rigorously here. They're a consequence of UK legislation that has been adopted across Europe. That's not the same as what you're claiming.

 

[Tobes]

I didn't.
It wasn't.
I'm not.
He didn't.

You're still a thick ****, you always will be a thick ****, nothing can be done about that.

You tried calling him a liar, he posted a whole raft of quotes, you ignored what he posted and ploughed on with your faux indignation.

You're still a boring old **** fella, a miserable boring old **** at that. It must be grim being you.

 

[remembercolinlee]

I didn't.
It wasn't.
I'm not.
He didn't.

Oohhhh yes you did
Oohhhh yes it was
Oohhhh yes you are
Oohhhh yes he did

I love panto

 

[pieguts]

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/EU_Health_Safety_Report_0.pdf

Yeah I did read that, but safety is an area where I am reasonably familiar with what's going on. I hold IOSH and NEBOSH qualifications, Management of Absestos 405, CDM, PUWER and LOLA and work to such legislation as EN13849 parts 1 and 2 on a daily basis.
You're both right to a certain degree. The EU has traditional used British legislation, such as the health and safety at work Act 1974, as the basis of its own legislation. The 6 pack is effectively the H&S 1974 act with more detail. In most cases the UK legislation was more comprehensive than the equivalent EU legislation and that is why the UK adopted both the EN (harmonised standard) and the BS standard.
The safety passport type schemes which are now adopted on most construction sites are still reasonably unique to the UK.

 

[Tobes]

I did answer, I just chose to humour you when you posted a load of bollocks that didn't support your claim that it was the EU that saved lives, with the implication it wouldn't have otherwise happened..

It's not "as a consequence" you numpty, the EU regs were simply a continuation of the UK act. Even the CDM regs have their origins outside of the EU. These things would be in place with or without the EU, and we certainly enforce them far more rigorously here. They're a consequence of UK legislation that has been adopted across Europe. That's not the same as what you're claiming.

****ing hilarious that you're still trying to maintain that the EU directives have had no impact on H&S in this country, when the TUC and the likes of Unite, who both oversee the rights of the working man both conclude that they most certainly have. But no, the know all, know **** all dullard from Hull knows best.

Humouring me my arse, what bollocks was this btw? I posted direct passages from the TUC report I linked you absolute spanner, and you had **** all to come back with.

It's like conversing with a 2 metre length of 4x2

 

[DMD]

****ing hilarious that you're still trying to maintain that the EU directives have had no impact on H&S in this country, when the TUC and the likes of Unite, who both oversee the rights of the working man both conclude that they most certainly have. But no, the know all, know **** all dullard from Hull knows best.

Humouring me my arse, what bollocks was this btw? I posted direct passages from the TUC report I linked you absolute spanner, and you had **** all to come back with.

It's like conversing with a 2 metre length of 4x2

You seem to ignore the fact, that's even posted in your links, that the EU stuff stems from the UK legislation that was already having the effect you mention.

It's not even universally applied across the EU. The effect here is down to how the UK apply it.

 

[DMD]

Yeah I did read that, but safety is an area where I am reasonably familiar with what's going on. I hold IOSH and NEBOSH qualifications, Management of Absestos 405, CDM, PUWER and LOLA and work to such legislation as EN13849 parts 1 and 2 on a daily basis.
You're both right to a certain degree. The EU has traditional used British legislation, such as the health and safety at work Act 1974, as the basis of its own legislation. The 6 pack is effectively the H&S 1974 act with more detail. In most cases the UK legislation was more comprehensive than the equivalent EU legislation and that is why the UK adopted both the EN (harmonised standard) and the BS standard.
The safety passport type schemes which are now adopted on most construction sites are still reasonably unique to the UK.

Spot on.

I should have read that before I replied, and saved myself typing.

 

[Tobes]

Yeah I did read that, but safety is an area where I am reasonably familiar with what's going on. I hold IOSH and NEBOSH qualifications, Management of Absestos 405, CDM, PUWER and LOLA and work to such legislation as EN13849 parts 1 and 2 on a daily basis.
You're both right to a certain degree. The EU has traditional used British legislation, such as the health and safety at work Act 1974, as the basis of its own legislation. The 6 pack is effectively the H&S 1974 act with more detail. In most cases the UK legislation was more comprehensive than the equivalent EU legislation and that is why the UK adopted both the EN (harmonised standard) and the BS standard.
The safety passport type schemes which are now adopted on most construction sites are still reasonably unique to the UK.

Simple question then given this is your area of expertise mate. Post Brexit and left in the hands of the Tories who have constantly claimed that H&S EU directives are a burden on SME's, do you think that H&S in the UK would be likely to be enhanced or potentially fall backwards on the agenda?

 

[Tobes]

You seem to ignore the fact, that's even posted in your links, that the EU stuff stems from the UK legislation that was already having the effect you mention.

It's not even universally applied across the EU. The effect here is down to how the UK apply it.

Yes because we're Brits and great at applying rules.

Albeit the number of site inspections has been reduced in recent years. Our starting point was higher, but it still doesn't mean that there's not been a positive impact.

 

[DMD]

Yes because we're Brits and great at applying rules.

Albeit the number of site inspections has been reduced in recent years. Our starting point was higher, but it still doesn't mean that there's not been a positive impact.

We're greater still at applying our rules. A fair bit of the rest of Europe seem less keen on enforcing their rules.

 

[petersaxton]

Of course they can. Our constitution, being unwritten, works by precedent. What we have just participated in was not an election, it was a plebiscite, and there is no precedent in our country for government by plebiscite. None.

"Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation. However, reversing legislation approved by referendum would be unprecedented."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

Parliament votes for a referendum to decide an issue. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for Parliament to ignore a referendum result.

A says to B & C: You decide on Z
B & C: We have decided on Z
A says to B & C: I'm going to ignore your decision

All sensible people would think that was ridiculous.

 

[Fez]

You tried calling him a liar, he posted a whole raft of quotes, you ignored what he posted and ploughed on with your faux indignation.

You're still a boring old **** fella, a miserable boring old **** at that. It must be grim being you.

Wrong, as usual. Nothing changes.

 

[pieguts]

CDM are the regulations that ensure the UK comply with directive 92/57 EEC and directive 89/391 EEC. Other EU countries have their own versions of CDM but all are in response to EU directives

I think you will find that the EU directive, you have quoted above, was taken originally from UK legislation, the construction regs 1996, which was an amendment to earlier UK regs (sorry can't remember what those were)

 

[Fez]

Oohhhh yes you did
Oohhhh yes it was
Oohhhh yes you are
Oohhhh yes he did

I love panto

No one's behind you.

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

We're greater still at applying our rules. A fair bit of the rest of Europe seem less keen on enforcing their rules.

Same thing as always then - not much has changed... well besides the few EU wide quality standards and social standards.

 

[pieguts]

Simple question then given this is your area of expertise mate. Post Brexit and left in the hands of the Tories who have constantly claimed that H&S EU directives are a burden on SME's, do you think that H&S in the UK would be likely to be enhanced or potentially fall backwards on the agenda?

Without a doubt backwards Tobes. The U.K. Government continually try to "water" down any new legislation.

What I should also add is that from a couple of years ago, the HSE became a "self funded" organisation. Not convinced that this is the way to go.

 

[steveninaster1]

I think you will find that the EU directive, you have quoted above, was taken originally from UK legislation, the construction regs 1996, which was an amendment to earlier UK regs (sorry can't remember what those were)

The first two numbers of a directive denote the years. So 1989 and 1992. They are a standardisation across the EU so will have their origin in the legislation of the EU countries at that time. CDM 1994 and CHSW 1996 were introduced to ensure full compliance but I'm not suggesting aspects of the directives were not already in place prior to those directives being issued

 

[petersaxton]

The Tories can't survive on membership fees alone either. They need corporate support.

Conservative Party don't need corporate support.
From 2010-2013:
Nearly all donations to the Labour Party (over £60m) were from the Unions - 90%; 7% per company donations and 3% were individual donations
The donations to the Conservative Party (under £45m) were 25% from companies and 62% from individual donations with most of the rest from a lottery
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899

 

[pieguts]

The first two numbers of a directive denote the years. So 1989 and 1992. They are a standardisation across the EU so will have their origin in the legislation of the EU countries at that time. CDM 1994 and CHSW 1996 were introduced to ensure full compliance but I'm not suggesting aspects of the directives were not already in place prior to those directives being issued

My point still stands that in a lot of cases UK legislation was more comprehensive than the equivalent EU legislation. That's why the UK adopted both the EN (harmonised standards) and BS standards.