Is that the Prose and cons of this issue?
Dewey
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] On the immutability of bad laws
You sound like Ogden Nash, when he wrote:
They told me it couldn't be done.
With a smile I went right to it,
I tackled that job that couldn't be done But couldn't do it!
:-)
Brian
Harvey Miller wrote:
> Brian
>
> You have described a plausible but mechanistic scenario that might be
> altered by many factors now imponderable. When electronic equipment
> failure rates start climbing, along with litigation, and bright
> reporters really start to investigate--- new possibilities emerge.
>
> Then there will be a host of exempted equipment categories.
> We'll have a kind of controlled experiment. The minimal result will be
> strenghening the exempion process, extending exemptions to more and
> more categories.
>
> As you point out, the trade and professional institutions caved or
> worse, under fear of being perceived as anti-environmental. The tin
> industry has poured money into the lead-free initiative and will
> continue to do so. There are many lead-free laws being enacted. All
> of these are very impressive negatives for reversing lead-free solder
> course. But none of them reverse the laws of physics.
>
>
>
> --- Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm sorry, Harvey, I AM resigned to the inevitability, much as I
>>regret it. I agree with you that non-compliance is ill-treated in the
>>EU, whose workings seem obscure to you. Let me explain the MO of what
>>could happen. Nothing can happen before 1 July 2006, I think you will
agree.
>>Let us imagine that manufacturer or importer X puts on the market a
>>lead-soldered product in member-state A which does not have a good
>>control mechanism (ie, is non-compliant). Nothing will happen, until a
>>single unit is transferred to another member-state B who zealously
>>does a control because of no certificate of compliance or a falsified
>>one. He will turn the unit back at the frontier and notify the
>>non-compliance to A who, in turn, should rattle the ribs of X. B will
>>also notify the EU, who will do nothing, at this stage, other than to
>>warn all the other 23 states that this problem exists and to enjoin A
>>to do something. At this stage, X will either comply, letting A off
the hook or he won't comply.
>>If the latter, any transfer of goods from X to any other member state
>>will receive particular scrutiny. If found to be non-compliant and the
>>goods are rejected a second time, the procedure will be stepped up a
>>notch and the EU will send A a stiff letter telling them to get their
>>finger out and to provide proof that X is compliant to A's law, based
>>on the directive, giving them a delay of 1 year for A to show that
>>they now have the necessary controls in place. If this is not
>>forthcoming, a second, stiffer, letter is sent out giving A 6 months
to comply or else.
>>If this does not happen, then the EU prepares a file to take the case
>>before the ECJ. It would be unlikely that the ECJ would have received
>>such a file before 2010 and, as is well-known, the backlog of the ECJ
>>is such that the case will not be heard before 2015. Let's imagine
>>that X and A present a strong argument why they have not complied and
>>the Court says the Directive is stupid (which it is). What do you
>>think will happen? X will continue to use 63/37 for his soldering (if
>>he can find a
>>supplier!) but the 99.9999% of other manufacturers supplying the EU
>>who have complied are not suddenly going to rub their hands together
>>and say, "Ooooh! Let's go back to SnPb!", are they, after 9+ years of
>>compliance? Especially knowing that China, Japan and some US States
>>will have similar laws, by then, and probably elsewhere.
>>
>>If you allow me to mix impossible metaphors, you are tilting at
>>windmills with your head in the sand if you think, for one moment,
>>that lead-free is not a fait accompli in the EU and that you can
>>reverse the situation. It is too late. If the IPC, EIPC and other
>>trade organisations had put their heads together with the learned
>>institutes like the IEE, IEEE etc about 5 or 6 years ago and invested
>>money and resources into combatting the situation, then something may
>>have been achieved, but this did not happen. In fact, these
>>organisations mostly quietly acquiesced (pleonasm!) or even supported
>>it under the pressure of vested interests.
>>
>>As for the WTO, it would be laughable to think that they would bend,
>>knowing that the EU, Japan and China form a powerful camp promoting
>>lead-free solder, along with the countries with a vested interest,
>>such as the tin producers.
>>
>>In short, reason, goodwill, logical arguments or whatever are not
>>going to change a jot, regrettable though it may be.
>>
>>Sorry, but the time has come to accept defeat :-(
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>Harvey Miller wrote:
>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>You surprise me with your resignation to the "inevitability "
>>>of the enforcement of the lead-free solder provisions of RoHS.
>>>I urge you and all to study the following document:
>>> Department of Political Science
>>> November 19 1999, Lund, Sweden
>>> Author: Jonas Tallberg
>>> Title and subtitle: Making States Comply: The European
>>>Commission, the European Court of Justice, and the Enforcement of the
>>>Internal Market
>>>
>>>Dr. Talberg documents the prevalence of non-compliance with EU
>>>Parliament laws. You pick one case; he studies many. His point of
>>>view is that non-compliance is a problem, an issue that must be
>>>resolved for the sake of the viability of the European Union.
>>>I believe that, in principle, he is correct, because the world needs
>>>a countervailing force to one superpower. But lead-free solder is an
>>>exceptional law, above all because it would destroy the reliability
>>>of all electronic equipment. Recycling as required by another, more
>>>sensible EU law-- WEEE, is the way to separate lead from people.
>>>
>>>I do not agree with Joe Fjelstad that reason and goodwill will
>>
>>overcome
>>
>>>those political motivations that you so cynically describe. I think
>>
>>that
>>
>>>the resolution of lead-free solder will be found in realpolitik, its
>>>unworkability, uneforceability, above all, ite inequity. Theae are
>>>the factors that will force re-examination of the issue, ultimately.
>>>That may happen in the EU Pariament, or the European Court of
>>>Justice, or the World Trade Commission, or just the court of public
>>>opinion.
>>>
>>>In 1920, the Volstead Act, banning alcoholic beverages, became the
>>
>>18th
>>
>>>amendment to the U.S. constitution, over the President's veto. It was
>>>repealed in 1933.
>>>For 13 years, enforcement was a joke, sapping respect for all laws,
>>>feeding crime. I do not believe that it will take
>>>13 years for the equally insane ban on lead in electronic solder law
>>
>>to
>>
>>>meet its ultimate fate, death.
>>>
>>>Harvey Miller
>>>
>>>
>>>--- Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe
>>>>
>>>>You speak in tongues. To use words like "intelligence", "reasoning"
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>"rational" in the same breath as "politicians" (of ANY nation or
>>>>group
>>>>thereof) is a paradox. To use them with the EU in mind is a
>>>>downright contradiction. Just analyse why someone chooses a career
>>>>in politics,
>>
>>be
>>
>>>>it as a village councillor or as a president/prime minister. The
>>>>words that spring to mind are "gravy train", "glory", "influence",
>>
>>"respect",
>>
>>>>"money", "corruption". The words farthest from the mind are
>>>>"constituent", "democracy", "honesty", "representation", "people",
>>>>"welfare". I have met many politicians in many countries, some of
>>>>them high-ranking. I would say that their first care is ensuring
>>>>continuity by re-election and thus security. Their second care is
>>>>nearly always, what is in it for me? There may be exceptions, but
>>>>they are rare
>>
>>birds.
>>
>>>>In the case of EU politicians, they are even more remote from the
>>
>>people
>>
>>>>they purport to represent, they will vote the most outrageous laws,
>>
>>such
>>
>>>>as the maximum curvature of cucumbers (this is not a joke).
>>>>
>>>>This may appear "sad" and cynical, but it is something I have to
>>>>live with in my everyday life. Do you know how many regulatory
>>>>instances
>>
>>have
>>
>>>>been introduced in the EU? 10 years ago, it was over 80,000,
>>>>certainly doubled by now.
>>>>
>>>>Take the Constitution of the USA. It has 7 articles over 4
>>
>>hand-written
>>
>>>>pages, with 27 subsequent amendments. Take the proposed Constitution
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>the EU, as rejected, rightly, by France and the Netherlands. It is a
>>>>closely-printed book 5 cm thick. Even the very abbreviated summary
>>>>at http://europa.eu.int/constitution/download/oth180604_3_en.pdf is
>>>>15 pages long and tells almost nothing, other than it may be
>>>>modified by
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>unanimous decision of the EC after consultation and ratification.
>>>>Democracy? All my eye and Betty Martin!
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't believe there will be a blind eye turned to minor
>>>>infractions. Why? Because the ECJ has the power to inflict swingeing
>>>>fines on hundreds of thousands of euros per day on member states
>>>>that
>>
>>do
>>
>>>>not ensure the directives are adequately enforced. This is a regular
>>>>procedure. For example, a private landfill (small) owner on a Greek
>>>>island did not respect the Greek law promulgated according to a EU
>>>>directive. Greece was fined, I think EUR 50,000/day until they could
>>>>show that the landfill was modifified according to the law or
>>>>rendered inoperational.
>>>>
>>>>Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In a message dated 2/11/2006 7:52:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>>>>>[log in to unmask] writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Once a law has been passed, it would require little less than a
>>>>>nuclear bomb to cause it to be broken up, no
>>>>
>>>>matter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>how ill-conceived it may be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Brian,
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a sad statement Hopefully there will be an easier
>>>>
>>>>accommodation. It
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>may be that it will just be treated like speed limits in the US
>>>>>;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Still, considering all of the fantastic thinkers and scientists
>>>>>that
>>>>
>>>>Europe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>has blessed this planet with, I must remain an optimist with the
>>
>>faith
>>
>>>>that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>science and reason will eventually prevail in one of their most
>>>>
>>>>recognizable
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>birthplaces and homelands. I trust that the genetic heritage of
>>>>
>>>>intelligence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and reasoning cannot really be lost and that we are likely just
>>>>
>>>>presently
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>living in one of the troughs of the ebb and flow of rational
>>>>
>>>>thinking... ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Very best,
>>>>>Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------Leadfee
>
>>>>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following
>>
>>text
>>
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To temporarily
>>>>>stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>>>>
>>>>send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>>>>Please visit IPC web site
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
>>>>information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>>
>>847-615-7100
>>
>>>>ext.2815
>>>>
>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------Leadfee
>
>>>>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d To
>>>>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
>>>>in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To temporarily
>>>>stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>>>>send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
>>>>visit IPC web site
>>>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
>>>>information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>>
>>847-615-7100
>>
>>>>ext.2815
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------Leadfee
>
>>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d To
>>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To temporarily
>>stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>>send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
>>visit IPC web site
>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
>>information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>>847-615-7100
>>ext.2815
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV
> 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following
> text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To
> temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL) Search previous postings at:
> http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following
text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To
temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL) Search previous postings at:
http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site
http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
ext.2815
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
