The most advanced legislation in the world
When politicians cannot defend something on the grounds of logic, they have a key word that they use instead. It is the favourite word of our Dear Leader and is common parlance in the corridors of power in Brussels.
That word is Modern. When you hear a politician use it, beware, they are up to no good. If the policy they are espousing were any good, they would explain why, not call it modern.
And so we come to REACH:
The law, considered the largest piece of legislation in EU history, has pitted industry against environmentalists for years.
The reason it is controversial is that it is based on the Precautionary Principle. This states that everything must be completely safe or it will be banned. It is the enabling act of EU politicos and will be used to snuff out every last vestige of individual choice, civil liberties and free markets from our continent. As such it is described.....
"This is some of the most advanced legislation in the world," said Mauri Pekkarinen, trade and industry minister for Finland
OK so he said advanced not modern, but the rule still holds. Bear in mind that this man is trade and industry minister, and you will understand how hopeless the situation is. Ignoramuses such as Mauri Pekkarinen, claim to be modern, progressive and advanced, but they are turning the clock back on the massive progress that society has made. They won't be happy until we are all back in our caves.
4 comments:
The core EU countries are based on the dangerous principle that the government has to allow the people to do something, rather than the government stopping people.
The EU thinks it owns the people(s), and the anglosphere the people (should) own the state (before Tony Bliar).
The EU thinks it owns the people
Precisely. It is the mentality of farmers owning cattle, the larger the herd the better.
...you'd prefer to have products with chemicals that haven't been tested in?
...you'd prefer to have products with chemicals that haven't been tested in?
Neatly demonstrating the paucity of intellectual rigour on the pro regulation side.
Just because we would like to be protected from dangerous chemicals, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to introduce massively expensive regulation.
Post a Comment