Reply to post: Re: EU friends apparantly

Blighty stuffs itself in Galileo airlock and dares Europe to pull the lever

BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

Re: EU friends apparantly

My point was about buying, not selling.

Not being in the EU or the US may well prevent us from keeping current standards when buying from any market

What does being in the EU have to do with that? Go to Amazon and look at the amount of Chinese tat on sale that doesn't meet EU or UK standards. I can personally import stuff from the US if I want, and if I'm willing to accept shitty quality & 90-day warranty in return for a low price, that's up to me. UK and EU standards have no impact.

Whilst we are in the EU we have to follow various EU laws that we've benefited from - cleaner beaches, safer food, etc, etc. If those are relaxed someone will take commercial advantage of this, and apply pressure to other companies. At the moment there is a level playing field. I'm talking everyday purchases here, not importing via Amazon or Ebay.

Tory opposition to the ECHR (which we set up *headdesk*)

You're confusing ECHRs. Tory objection is to the Court, not the Convention (which, as you say, the UK helped to define). The Tory dislike is of having a European court able to overrule a British one on matters of British interest, like deporting hate preachers.

OK, to be accurate they're looking to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights which replaces part of the Convention. I still consider leaving ECHR (both definitions) as-is to be a wise idea. We can perhaps debate whether the law is too soft on hate preachers, but as the government appears to be doing its best to be judge, jury, and executioner on things such as the appeal of poorly thought out benefit assessments I see any weakening of this as dangerous.

you're going to receive less from the state when in need.

For state you mean taxpayer, of course. The problem as always is telling the difference between "need" and 'want".

I would agree the definition is sometimes fuzzy, but that there are an increasing number of cases where the government is clearly shirking its social responsibilities.

I don't fancy my chances of coping with a life changing event in a post Brexit Tory driven world, but it appears to be what the majority are happy with.

I, like you, am in a well-paid IT job. Post-Brexit I still expect the "state" to cover serious unexpected problems, I've paid enough for that cover, but I have of course also made my own provisions for that, in a way that suits me. I neither want nor expect the state to coddle me.

If you expect the state to cover unexpected problems you are clearly not making your own provisions for everything. Forced into such an unexpected situation the evidence is that you will be poorly catered for by the state and that this is worsening.

We also need to consider that this needs to apply for not only people on a well paid job, but minimum wage or unemployed/disabled people with no savings.

Alternatively, would you be happy to give your disabled mate a few hundred quid a month, because an outsourced on a target assessor made a bullshit decision that their ailment wasn't serious, they're not able to appeal (because, goodbye ECHR), and their motability car was withdrawn, leaving the only alternatives for them to rot at home, or be supported by friends and family. Some of the more left wing websites are perhaps a bit enthusiastic about covering this, but it's a real thing covered in more centrist or local news.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019