Back to the Good 'Ole Days

[newfhouse]

What’s to be gained?

Continued votes from the residents of care homes that they didn’t manage to cull.

 

[Pale Rider]

The OP highlighted imperial weights and measures as one of the areas affected. I hate to labour the point but how does that favour us if we revert to lb & oz? What’s to be gained? I’m really interested to know.

There is no proposal to 'revert' to pounds and ounces, and the whole measures topic is but a tiny fraction of what's proposed.

If people want to focus on that, fine, but it's rather like buying a car based on the colour of a valve dustcap.

 

[Milkfloat]

Some of the topics are listed in the Guardian article, which only scratches the surface.

We temporarily kept all the EU stuff as a housekeeping measure, because reviewing all of it is such a large task.

The advantage is the opportunity to redraw all these thousands of rules and regs in our favour, rather than at present them being a one size fits all EU version.

Much, or even most of it, may not change a great deal, but part of Brexit is the chance to look again at EU legislation to which we were subjected.

It could be seen as the nitty gritty of Brexit, which makes all the 'Brexit is shite' stories so far look like what they are - an irrelevance.

We will have to keep a huge number of them to trade with the EU, so in this era of massive international trade we will need to adhere to multiple rules and regulations because we design to have our own. We cannot afford to be isolationist.

 

[stowie]

There is no proposal to 'revert' to pounds and ounces, and the whole measures topic is but a tiny fraction of what's proposed.

If people want to focus on that, fine, but it's rather like buying a car based on the colour of a valve dustcap.

"People" are focusing on it because the press has gone with the pounds and ounces angle to the story as I result - I suspect - that the Johnson government briefed it that way.

All meat and potatoes to the "culture war" and the closely related nostalgiaw*nk that appears to be engaging a section of the politicians and voters at the moment.

Plus a handy mechanism to move attention away from the reduction in UC and the increase in NI/dividends. Another dead cat to fling onto the table already groaning with deceased felines. It also handily spins the story so that half the people are scoffing the changes and the other half are reliving the 1950's or something. When the real story on this is the government potentially eyeing up domestic legislation on road safety, environmental protections, GM crops and food standards and a whole load of other more contentious aims.

 

[lazybloke]

Unnecessary change that can only add confusion, and be used to make price increases.
Meat isn't £7.83 a kilo any more, look it's only £4.17 per pound!

Not to mention the supermarkets making "prices per unit" as difficult to compare as possible.



Coming soon, 4 star petrol by the gallon?
And Esso Blue for when the lights go out.

 

[swansonj]

......
Laws and regulations made by us to suit us makes more sense than the one size fits all approach by the EU.
.....

I think there's quite a lot to be unpacked from your use of the word "us". You are, AIUI, a late-career white anglo-saxon male of right-wing views, and although you intend to convey the impression that "us" is the whole country, you are clearly actually speaking from within your own in-group.

 

[Pale Rider]

I think there's quite a lot to be unpacked from your use of the word "us". You are, AIUI, a late-career white anglo-saxon male of right-wing views, and although you intend to convey the impression that "us" is the whole country, you are clearly actually speaking from within your own in-group.

Pretty good as statements of the bleedin' obvious go, although if you attached a similar comment to every post by every member - as you could - the forum would look a mess.

By 'us' I meant our country, the UK.

I think the majority of the population would consider rules made by ourselves as a better system than rules made by a committee of 27 nations which are then applied to us.

"People" are focusing on it because the press has gone with the pounds and ounces angle to the story as I result - I suspect - that the Johnson government briefed it that way.

It could be a Tory conspiracy, but far more likely is the story is worthy but crushingly dull, so pulling out imperial measures is the only way to inject some life in it.

Complicated rules and regulations changes are boring enough in themselves, but a story saying 'we are going to make lots of complicated rules and regulations changes over a period of years' is even worse.

 

[swansonj]

Pretty good as statements of the bleedin' obvious go, although if you attached a similar comment to every post by every member - as you could - the forum would look a mess.

By 'us' I meant our country, the UK.

I think the majority of the population would consider rules made by ourselves as a better system than rules made by a committee of 27 nations which are then applied to us.
...

I think the majority of people who think they will benefit from the rules resulting from rule-making at the UK level (e.g. because those rules are likely to entrench their existing position of privilege) are in favour of UK rule making. I think there are also plenty of people who think that rule-making at a higher level might sometimes be better, in part precisely because it is likely to challenge those privileges.

 

[Pale Rider]

I think the majority of people who think they will benefit from the rules resulting from rule-making at the UK level (e.g. because those rules are likely to entrench their existing position of privilege) are in favour of UK rule making. I think there are also plenty of people who think that rule-making at a higher level might sometimes be better, in part precisely because it is likely to challenge those privileges.

There are thousands of rules to be remade, a work which will take an army of civil servants and lawyers.

It's impossible all that work could be done with the aim of 'entrenching existing positions of privilege'.

I also wonder who are these people of privilege to whom you refer.

A key focus appears to be improving matters for British business, so our businessmen, big and small, will likely do well out of the process.

But a thriving business is equally good for the little people on the shop floor, unless you want to bankrupt the millionaire or billionaire owner at the inevitable cost of throwing many out of work.

 

[newfhouse]

There are thousands of rules to be remade, a work which will take an army of civil servants and lawyers.*

If it is such a huge task to determine which rules need changing, is examination of every one a good use of resources? Which rules should be changed as a matter of priority? I presume you have a top ten?

*Unelected bureaucrats, natch.

 

[Bromptonaut]

There are thousands of rules to be remade, a work which will take an army of civil servants and lawyers.

It's impossible all that work could be done with the aim of 'entrenching existing positions of privilege'.

I also wonder who are these people of privilege to whom you refer.

A key focus appears to be improving matters for British business, so our businessmen, big and small, will likely do well out of the process.

There is a massive collection of legacy rules. The government can cherry pick those upon which the 'army of Civil Servants and Lawyers' will focus.

And it's perfectly possible, in fact probable, that the current government will do so with an eye to entrenching its own power and that of other privilege. There is literally nothing in the record of the Johnson government to suggest it will do anything else.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think the majority of the population would consider rules made by ourselves as a better system than rules made by a committee of 27 nations which are then applied to us.

You are fooling yourself if you believe the rules are made by ourselves. It is always them that make the rules and tell us why they are good for us.

Yes, they are made closer to home but that has never been a guarantee that they are good rules. With that argument I expect you are in favour of strengthening and widening the powers of devolved government to include not just W,S & NI but the English Regions in the same way as those more successful nations the US and Germany.

 

[Pale Rider]

n eye to entrenching its own power and that of other privilege.

The government will seek to entrench its own power by making the new rules advantageous to the British economy, which is likely to secure votes.

'Other privilege' is a woolly term which I don't understand.

If it is such a huge task to determine which rules need changing, is examination of every one a good use of resources? Which rules should be changed as a matter of priority? I presume you have a top ten?

*Unelected bureaucrats, natch.

Since I wouldn't bark myself if I had a dog, I elect the government and expect them to ruddy well get on with it.

Better our unelected bureaucrats over whom we have some control than EU ones over whom we have next to no control.

You are fooling yourself if you believe the rules are made by ourselves. It is always them that make the rules and tell us why they are good for us.

I don't see it as 'them and us' and in any case your argument is against all parliamentary democracy.

How do you think laws should be made?

 

[Rusty Nails]

I don't see it as 'them and us' and in any case your argument is against all parliamentary democracy.

How do you think laws should be made?

Parliamentary democracy can mean several things. I believe our several hundred year old style of democracy, especially with FPTP and antiquated and potentially corrupt methods of funding political parties is far from perfect.

I think laws should be made well.

 

[newfhouse]

Since I wouldn't bark myself if I had a dog, I elect the government and expect them to ruddy well get on with it.

Just to be clear, are you saying that you trust them to just do what's right and don't have an opinion about the order or direction of any changes?