Do you want to import toxic chemicals to Britain with little scrutiny? The work says: Go ahead George Monte

IT of the extreme right of the Conservative Party from the exit of Britain from the European Union: demolishing decisive public protection, including those that defend us from the most brutal and dangerous capital forms. Conservatives lost his position before they could do the worst they have. But don’t care, because the Labor Party has now picked up the stick.

A month ago, quietly that most of us missed, The government has published Consulting the editing of chemicals. Although most of the consultations last for 12 weeks, this consultant lasts for eight, and half of the vacation period – closed on August 18. The intention is initially determined: Reducing “Work costs”. This, repeated adverss by Kiir Starmer ShoutMeans tearing Rules.

If consulting, a chemical has been approved by “reliable foreign jurisdiction”, it must be approved for use in the UK. A list is not given what these reliable judicial states are. It will be up to the ministers for their report: they can add such countries through legal tools, which means without a full parliamentary scrutiny. In one paragraph, the document appears to provide a guarantee: these judicial states must have standards “at least similar to that in Great Britain.” After three paragraphs, the confirmation was emphasized: The government will be able to “use any available evaluation, which it considers reliable, from any foreign judicial mandate.”

In this matter and other aspects, the consultation document is transparent, contradictory and lacks clear and frightening guarantees. The pressure groups will indicate that a chemical product has been approved for sale in the United States, Thailand or Honduras, then ask the government to add this country as a trusted judicial authority. If the government agrees that “home evaluation” will be “removed”, which means that an investigation will not be needed in the UK in the health and environmental effects of the product.

In the United States, to give one example, there is a wide range of dangerous chemical products Uses approved That is blocked here and in many other countries. The government launched the gun to the race to the bottom.

The clay is worse, once a country is added to the list of trusted judicial states, all vital products that allow them to use can be approved for use here. The proposed new rules, in other words, appear to be aware Fantasy By the extremist conservative deputy Yaqoub Reese Mug in 2016: “We can say, if it is good enough in India, it is good enough here … we can take it a very long way.”

In fact, there is a way to reduce costs while maintaining high standards: simply reflects the rules of the European Union. Although it is far from perfection, it has set the highest standards in the world for chemical organization. Its reversal, with its development, would avoid the meaningless, similar and regulatory symmetrical collapse that our chemicals system has suffered since we left the European Union. But we cannot get this, because it means to back down from Britain’s exit from the European Union, which will be betrayal. Adopting the weakest criteria for other countries at the request of foreign companies, in contrast, is the peak of patriotism.

It is possible that the difference from European standards Break From the European Union Trade and Cooperation Agreement, as well as the decline in Northern Ireland in a greater dilemma, as it is Still in Both the unified market of the European Union and the internal market in the United Kingdom. In many cases, the abolition of bureaucratic chaos is delivered.

Consultation also indicates the removal of all expiration dates to agree to active chemicals. The default position will be that as long as foreign judicial jurisdiction agreed to a product, which allows it to be used in the United Kingdom, it remains on the books indefinitely. Those who argue that the new evidence should lead to its deletion from the approved menu will have a mountain to climb it. Worse, consulting suggests removing any commitment to health and safety executives to maintain a database available to the public for the harmful properties of chemicals in the UK market. No wonder they kept calm.

Yes, these proposals may reduce business costs. But the inevitable result is Transfer To society. Indeed, we face a tremendous pollution crisis as a result of organizational failure in this country, such as vehicles such as PFAs (“Chemicals Forever”), microscopic dirt, and Vital pesticides Spread in our lives. If the removal of land and water pollution is possible, it will cost hundreds of times more than any profits achieved by the industry as a result of the rules of relaxation. In fact, we will carry these costs in our bodies and ecological systems, indefinitely. The real price is countless.

Many have pushed their lives, health, education, or ways of living for the previous “Red Ribbon”: through the Grenfell Tower disaster, dirty rivers, collapsed classrooms, consumer consumption and 2008 financial crisis. But as long as these costs can be stopped from the budgets of companies and the current government, this is a victory for work and victory over the treasury.

Earlier this month, Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, The financiers said In the speech of its palace’s house, the organization “works as a shoe on the neck of companies.” In fact, business works as shoes on the neck of democracy, a shoe that is compatible with the government with kisses.

Before the general elections last year, Reeves said A group of corporate executives: “I hope when you read our statement, or see our priorities, to see the fingerprints of your fingers all over.” I told them that the catastrophic planning reforms are now forced by the government through Parliament, in “smoked salmon and whipped egg breakfast” with pressure groups on companies.

This was just an example of a huge attack attack before the elections, including Hundred meetings Behind closed doors with companies, which formed the plans of the Labor Party and explains a lot what happened since then. The point and purpose of the Labor Party was the resistance of the economic war by the wealthy against the rest. Starmer and Rivis turned their party to the opposite of what it was before.

Capital calls for three things at one time: that the government strip the rules that defend the public interest to achieve harsh profits; That the government is organizing itself With mad pledges, such as the financial rules of Reeves; And that the public is regulated by laws more than ever, like that Restriction of protest. He gets what he asks. Everything should give way to the capital, but the capital should give anything.

• George Monteet is a guardian of a guardian

• On Tuesday, September 16th, George Montet, Michaella Lush and other distinguished guests at the Guardian Climate Association, live in Barbican, London and broadcast worldwide. Book tickets here or in Guardian.Live