"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:21:02 on Mon, 18 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked:
And at least we had a significant say, and sometimes a veto, over
other
rules that did affect us. They'll probably still affect us when we're
outside the EU, but now we have no say, and certainly no veto.

Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned the
sale of these instruments, then?

Do you approve of scrapping the ban on trading in ivory too?

That's completely different though, isn't

(It's a ridiculous comparison and you ought to fell ashamed making it)

It's every much the same sort of thing: banning a commodity because it's
harmful/unethical or whatever.

There is a mile of difference between unethical and harmful, especially when
in normal use the item isn't harmful at all, it's only harmful if it's
abused.

The reason I mentioned that one example (rather than say a pesticide) is
that sufficiently old examples have grandfather rights. Which you might be
suggesting doesn't apply to mercury instruments??

The grandfather rights to antique mercury based instruments apply to
unrepaired ones (whether still working or otherwise).

as soon as they (the mechanism) is newly repaired they have to follow the
same rules as newly made, which means that their sale is banned.

It's a nonsense

tim