One can only guess if this was the first word that spilled out of The Frenchman’s mouth on hearing Brexit had won and the UK were leaving the European Union. Jean-Pierre ClamadiEU probably was not a supporter of Vote leave, I am pretty sure of that, although I remain open to a retraction if he wants to point out differently. 😆
As CEO of Brussels based Solvay, he is also chair of the chemical industry European lobby group Cefic, The European Chemical Industry Council, based in , you’ll never guess, Brussels- the heart of course of The European Union. Aside from that he is also a former French Government civil servant, but information on that appears a little more secretive.
Being based in Brussels no doubt helps both Cefic and Solvay get very close to where European legislation is constructed- especially its regulation. The lobby group unsurprisingly  seeks out get togethers with the powerful unelected Brussels bureaucrats. An EU freedom of information request reveals significant information about Cefic and the way that they operate.
A meeting was sought with the newly appointed EU Commissioner for Environment, Maritime affairs and fisheries, Karmenu Vella in December 2014. His appointment ends in 2019.
According to the Commissions “mission” statement the purpose of Vella’s portfolio is
“To develop and facilitate the implementation of policies and legislation that contribute to enabling EU citizens to live well, within the planet’s ecological limits, based on an innovative, circular economy, where biodiversity is protected, valued and restored and environment-related health risks are minimized in ways to enhance our society’s resilience, and where growth has been decoupled from resource use.”
What a long winded load of waffle- typical EU bureaucrat speak you might say filled with flashy verbs and adjectives to disguise the real limited effect of its existence.
The Cefic letter is typical brown nosing disguised as a friendly Brussels luncheon chat. packed with self important trumpet blowing such as “with an annual turnover of €558 billion, 17.8% share of the world market and a trade surplus of €49.2 billion we are a vital component of European manufacturing industry” , it virtually reads as a summons. One wonders what they would have said if he had declined the invitation.
They also subtly remind Vella of unelected President of the EU Junker’ s own agenda whilst asking what “hurdles” the new environment chief has so that they can presumably develop a strategy around avoiding them, or seeing them lowered in order for them to achieve their “mission” strategy. Unfortunately, lobbying like this is endemic within the European Union.
It is clear that this meeting benefitted the lobby group in that they spell out a further letter reminding the commissioner as to what they believed had come from the meeting. These “key points” are anchored with personable statements such as “your enthusiasm”, your offer“, whilst connecting them to Cefic’s aims.
“Though we touched on a variety of topics I make particular note of:
• Your enthusiasm to reduce the administrative burden on industry particularly in complying with REACH;
• Your offer to engage in a meeting to resolve issues connected to the Endocrine Disruptor debate.
• The importance of the Circular Economy in tackling growth & jobs;”
The freedom of information request also presented Cefic’s objectives, which in relation to Mr ClamadiEU’s company in the UK are particularly interesting. They point out that there are 150 legislative EU rules which they desire to reduce under the guise of achieving better environmental standards, but does anyone really believe this, or conversely that they just want to remove as much of the regulation as they can. Presumably the EU set these legislatures for specific reasons of environmental protections. Why should the polluters have an easy time of steering a course through these protections?
“Non-toxic Environment
The European Chemicals Industry is committed to ensuring that there is “no harm to people, wildlife and the environment as a result of exposure to substances during the whole life cycle”. To deliver on this commitment we support an evidence based approach to the safe use of chemicals.
Thus, if evidence were to show that people, or the environment, are being harmed, then we do whatever is necessary to prevent that harm. Where evidence shows that people, or the environment, could be harmed, we will manage the risk so as to avoid that harm. And where scientists suggest a possibility of harm, we explore that possibility and may take proportionate, precautionary measures to guard against any possible risk pending such review. “
I coughed quite loudly on first reading this and remembered the lies of Rhodia Consumer Specialities concerning what they knew to be harmful in Rattlechain lagoon, which even when proved harmful to birds dying on the lagoon they further attempted to deceive the public. Mr ClamadiEU was in charge of Rhodia at the time that Rhodia knew what was causing the bird deaths. It is uncertain if he has ever even heard of the site, or visited it, Â except that it featured in a single line concerning financial liabilities that the company held in remediation terms in past corporate reports. SO OF COURSE THEY KNEW AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL EXACTLY WHAT THE RISKS WERE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
And then of course there is the Rhodia/Solvay toxic assault fire of 2nd January 2009 on Oldbury and subsequent guilty plea revealed earlier this year. One must wonder if this left Mr ClamediEU extremely red faced when it was reported to the EU commission, yet it should be remembered that the procrastination of the UK Health and Safety Executive trial was in part due to people within his company trying to spin out scientific evidence to favour their own selfish denials of guilt.
Bullshit arguments by Rhodia not protecting human health
Their toxic gas emergency plan was non existent
Politicians left in such positions may be called to “consider their positions” and to take collective responsibility when embarrassed by such incidents, but I’m not sure if lobbyists have such rules let alone morals when it comes to “responsible care”.
We also learn from the request that the insidious TTIP is backed by Cefic. This secretive trade deal between the US and the EU should worry everyone because US legislation is virtually bought by lobbyists and backed by gamekeepers turned poachers who used to regulate companies and then go on to work for them for their expertise. Science for hire you may call it. Environmental regulation in the US as evidenced by the recent drinking water crisis is utter rubbish and has been widely condemned by well known environmental activists like Erin Brockovich. .Oddly Cefic wanted the name and data of the requester from the EU which she agreed to, even though it appeared on a public website. Is this a little sinister?
Of course reduced costs are what Cefic and their affiliates are about and they desire less cumbersome regulation to achieve this.
Another meeting over dinner appeared to take place on the same date as revealed in a further information request. On this occasion we learn that the head of Cabinet, Mrs Maria Ã…senius, and the CEOs of the chemical industry mainly discussed TTIP.
 “Cefic is also very concerned about the negative tone of the public debate and believes that Member States should do more to promote TTIP and counter misperceptions. “
If you voted to remain in the EU, and believed the lies about economics, then this is basically what you were voting for, a corporate green light for business to piss on us all from a great height. One can only hope that after the democratic exercise that Mr ClamadiEU and his colleagues’Â ambitions have been thwarted and they are now up Merde Creek like a Rattlechain bird landing in the quagmire of a white phosphorus lagoon that his polluting company were eager to lie about when they were dying.
Of Solvay’s two sites in Halifax and of course Oldbury, will the Brexit vote mean the exile to Brussels of this chemical behemoth to reduce costs? I certainly hope that potential  voyage has been aided by the result.