What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
jjlynn27 said:
Once you start reading about airspeed meters on hot air balloons (SERIOUSLY?)
It was a very serious proposal, eventually thrown out.If you can't see stupidity of that, I'm afraid I can't help you. But we'll 'take back control' of our regulations, right? Democratically elected regulations for every man woman and child. They'll be extra sovereign too, for that extra kick.
herewego said:
I think this is a fundamental point that was completely missed by the remain spokespeople. Obviously I don't have any numbers but I imagine it must be an order of magnitude cheaper to research, propose, legislate and implement a regulation for 350 million people in one block than for each country to do the same and come up with roughly the same but maybe slightly different conclusions and implementations. 28 countries each doing the same thing. Rather than freeing up £350M it will probably cost us dear. The remain people should have been able to put some real numbers to this cost.
It would make sense if this was a cool-headed referendum where people really understood what they are voting for. The fact that a lot of roles that we were simply out-sourcing to Brux was spun into how we need to 'take control'. Very powerful message if you are feeling that you don't have control. This, rather obviously, doesn't apply to all who voted leave. The fact that it will incur significant costs to repatriate those necessary functions here is irrelevant. It would be just another statistic easily forgotten.
V8RX7 said:
Efbe said:
But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
But it IS less effective - the water based is rubbish and the oil based goes yellow in weeks.
and once you've feathered off leave it alone whatever you do. You can't rely on flow like you could with oil based paint, you just have to get better at applying it.jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
I painted a downstairs toilet and after a year the gloss white had gone yellow, on doing a bit of research it turns out some modern paints need sunlight to maintain there whiteness, not good in toilet without a window, all due to the removal of VOC's from paint.
I'd put that down to a bad aim, not poor paint.... jjlynn27 said:
herewego said:
I think this is a fundamental point that was completely missed by the remain spokespeople. Obviously I don't have any numbers but I imagine it must be an order of magnitude cheaper to research, propose, legislate and implement a regulation for 350 million people in one block than for each country to do the same and come up with roughly the same but maybe slightly different conclusions and implementations. 28 countries each doing the same thing. Rather than freeing up £350M it will probably cost us dear. The remain people should have been able to put some real numbers to this cost.
It would make sense if this was a cool-headed referendum where people really understood what they are voting for. The fact that a lot of roles that we were simply out-sourcing to Brux was spun into how we need to 'take control'. Very powerful message if you are feeling that you don't have control. This, rather obviously, doesn't apply to all who voted leave. The fact that it will incur significant costs to repatriate those necessary functions here is irrelevant. It would be just another statistic easily forgotten.
jjlynn27 said:
And as with trade, you completely miss the point. Do you not see how absurd is to whine about regulation that'll affect 127 people. Eu-wide. Instead, you'll now have the same number of people in Whitehall, who'll you need to pay on your own, designing the same regulation with additional requirement that they are also 'EU compatible'.
If you can't see stupidity of that, I'm afraid I can't help you. But we'll 'take back control' of our regulations, right? Democratically elected regulations for every man woman and child. They'll be extra sovereign too, for that extra kick.
If, by your estimation, regulations about hot air balloons affect an insignificant number of people, why the blazes spend time and money dreaming up new rules on the subject? You really don't see anything wrong with a mindset that sees regulation as an end in itself to the extent that it fights for rules that make no sense at all and apply in trivial areas? Doesn't in worry you that rules are in the hands of those who either don't understand or don't care whether they make the slightest sense?If you can't see stupidity of that, I'm afraid I can't help you. But we'll 'take back control' of our regulations, right? Democratically elected regulations for every man woman and child. They'll be extra sovereign too, for that extra kick.
Secondly, most EU rules come in the form of directives. These have the effect of binding those people in Whitehall to make regulations to the satisfaction of the EU. They aren't instead of home produced rules, but in addition. Without such directives Whitehall could either regulate the same area without looking over their shoulders to see what Brussels demanded, or if no rules were required, not make any.
Then if we didn't like what they'd done they wouldn't be able to say 'not our fault all down to Brussels' while Brussels say 'not our fault Whitehall made the final rule'.
Efbe said:
I agree,
But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
As an example, I have just bought 10 Vacuum cleaners (don't ask) some are c2300w, and some c1100w, the former being prior to the EU legislation, and the others after.
You would expect the 2300w ones to have more suction. They don't. The 1100w ones work better, and lighter, use less electricity and are quieter.
The manufacturers were being lazy previously. It was easier to keep on doing the same thing, and I assume cheaper. Now three is an incentive to progress, which gives the end user better vacuum cleaners.
There will be legislation that doesn't work for everyone, but from what I have seen, most of the EU Regs have been beneficial.
in the case of gloss and undercoat for household use the regulations actually required new paintbrushes to be designed using slf type fibres as traditional bristle caused excess streaking in the undercoat and would not lay the paint on properly.resulting in many decorators putting an extra coat of undercoat on to ensure proper coverage. those doing pricework for house builders just left a streaky crap finish or used white emulsion for the undercoat instead. if you live in a new build and the gloss is cracking and flaking, that is why.But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
As an example, I have just bought 10 Vacuum cleaners (don't ask) some are c2300w, and some c1100w, the former being prior to the EU legislation, and the others after.
You would expect the 2300w ones to have more suction. They don't. The 1100w ones work better, and lighter, use less electricity and are quieter.
The manufacturers were being lazy previously. It was easier to keep on doing the same thing, and I assume cheaper. Now three is an incentive to progress, which gives the end user better vacuum cleaners.
There will be legislation that doesn't work for everyone, but from what I have seen, most of the EU Regs have been beneficial.
the local crown decorator centre had lots of complaints when the swap first occurred to the new low voc undercoat, so it was not a straight forward switch . now i wonder what the environmental impact of making all those new brushes was ? i have no idea, maybe they are better than traditional bristle type brushes ?
biggles330d said:
jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
I painted a downstairs toilet and after a year the gloss white had gone yellow, on doing a bit of research it turns out some modern paints need sunlight to maintain there whiteness, not good in toilet without a window, all due to the removal of VOC's from paint.
I'd put that down to a bad aim, not poor paint.... 
even with my poor aim I would struggle to get it over my shoulder. jjlynn27 said:
wc98 said:
jjlynn27 said:
As for VOC in Paint, we have repainted all doors in our house last year with white paint from Screwfix, as well as 2 external doors, and a double garage door. Still the same white colour as they were on day one. Is it possible that they are selling dodgy paint?
As for weekillers, they are so many on the market if some can't get approval for whatever reason, that says to me that they are not competitive enough?
(no comment/idea) on step part.
i seriously doubt that. go get the tin of paint you used. paint a strip a brush width wide down the centre of all the things you painted white a year ago, take some pics and post them .As for weekillers, they are so many on the market if some can't get approval for whatever reason, that says to me that they are not competitive enough?
(no comment/idea) on step part.
If the paint is harmful, I'd rather not use it. I'd be pretty pissed if civil service here would allow high content VOC paint to be used.
It would be like saying, lets keep using asbestos, it's rather good.
And if you compare VOC regulations with USA and CAN it's very similar. Not withstanding that if UK manufacturer, Crown for example, wants to export paint, what they are going to do? 2 production lines? Who'll pay for it?
the paint manufacturers already have multiple lines for making varying quality of paint depending on who they are making it for . "home" brands are not made by the people selling them. homebase and next do not have paint manufacturing facilities.as an aside, homebase white undercoat is now better than crown/dulux etc. so next time you are painting anything white it is well worth using. note the smell when you take the lid off. i suspect the voc content is much higher than the competitors which would be funny, as i think crown make their paint.
essayer said:
Who uses white gloss now anyway?
what about body shops and the switch to crap water based paints ? why do you think jags, audis etc have a horrendous rep for rusting ? modern day car paints are definitely a step backwards. not an issue for those swapping cars every few years, but a bit of a pain in the arse for people that hold onto them a bit longer. wc98 said:
Efbe said:
I agree,
But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
As an example, I have just bought 10 Vacuum cleaners (don't ask) some are c2300w, and some c1100w, the former being prior to the EU legislation, and the others after.
You would expect the 2300w ones to have more suction. They don't. The 1100w ones work better, and lighter, use less electricity and are quieter.
The manufacturers were being lazy previously. It was easier to keep on doing the same thing, and I assume cheaper. Now three is an incentive to progress, which gives the end user better vacuum cleaners.
There will be legislation that doesn't work for everyone, but from what I have seen, most of the EU Regs have been beneficial.
in the case of gloss and undercoat for household use the regulations actually required new paintbrushes to be designed using slf type fibres as traditional bristle caused excess streaking in the undercoat and would not lay the paint on properly.resulting in many decorators putting an extra coat of undercoat on to ensure proper coverage. those doing pricework for house builders just left a streaky crap finish or used white emulsion for the undercoat instead. if you live in a new build and the gloss is cracking and flaking, that is why.But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
As an example, I have just bought 10 Vacuum cleaners (don't ask) some are c2300w, and some c1100w, the former being prior to the EU legislation, and the others after.
You would expect the 2300w ones to have more suction. They don't. The 1100w ones work better, and lighter, use less electricity and are quieter.
The manufacturers were being lazy previously. It was easier to keep on doing the same thing, and I assume cheaper. Now three is an incentive to progress, which gives the end user better vacuum cleaners.
There will be legislation that doesn't work for everyone, but from what I have seen, most of the EU Regs have been beneficial.
the local crown decorator centre had lots of complaints when the swap first occurred to the new low voc undercoat, so it was not a straight forward switch . now i wonder what the environmental impact of making all those new brushes was ? i have no idea, maybe they are better than traditional bristle type brushes ?
You've got to be able to paint fast and accurately with water based, there's no second chance like there was with oil based.
Dr Jekyll said:
If, by your estimation, regulations about hot air balloons affect an insignificant number of people, why the blazes spend time and money dreaming up new rules on the subject? You really don't see anything wrong with a mindset that sees regulation as an end in itself to the extent that it fights for rules that make no sense at all and apply in trivial areas? Doesn't in worry you that rules are in the hands of those who either don't understand or don't care whether they make the slightest sense?
Secondly, most EU rules come in the form of directives. These have the effect of binding those people in Whitehall to make regulations to the satisfaction of the EU. They aren't instead of home produced rules, but in addition. Without such directives Whitehall could either regulate the same area without looking over their shoulders to see what Brussels demanded, or if no rules were required, not make any.
Then if we didn't like what they'd done they wouldn't be able to say 'not our fault all down to Brussels' while Brussels say 'not our fault Whitehall made the final rule'.
And yet again you are missing the point. They probably did that regulation as a part of something else. What I think is wrong, is failing to see the bigger picture. For every regulation like that, that's inconsequential, there will be 1000s very valid ones. Affecting lot of people. 'An end in itself' is just stupid. It assumes that there are people just inventing regulations for the sake of them. Some rules might not make sense to you. Someone came up with hoovers (you?). It was explained why that regulation is actually good. Secondly, most EU rules come in the form of directives. These have the effect of binding those people in Whitehall to make regulations to the satisfaction of the EU. They aren't instead of home produced rules, but in addition. Without such directives Whitehall could either regulate the same area without looking over their shoulders to see what Brussels demanded, or if no rules were required, not make any.
Then if we didn't like what they'd done they wouldn't be able to say 'not our fault all down to Brussels' while Brussels say 'not our fault Whitehall made the final rule'.
You are approaching this like you are 15. No it doesn't worry me one single bit. The choice of regulations to whine about does support that.
And there it is, rules made by EU = bad, rules made by Whitehall = good. So, when exporter (and boy are we going to need those) wants to sell something abroad, he'll either have to;
- UK regulation mirrors EU regulation (so the only thing that you have is additional level of regulators).
- Create separate product that conforms to different regulations. (just imagine the cost of that stupidity)
- Sell the product to either (but not both) market. (free trade eh?, but we have control of our regulators back)
I'm still waiting to hear a single regulation that came from EU that had negative impact on someone personally.
wc98 said:
essayer said:
Who uses white gloss now anyway?
what about body shops and the switch to crap water based paints ? why do you think jags, audis etc have a horrendous rep for rusting ? modern day car paints are definitely a step backwards. not an issue for those swapping cars every few years, but a bit of a pain in the arse for people that hold onto them a bit longer. Non-issue that was completely taken out of proportion.
jjlynn27 said:
It would make sense if this was a cool-headed referendum where people really understood what they are voting for.
I would ask the question the other way. How many people who vote remain have any idea how to fight/overturn an EU regulation? For many, me included, the problem is with the democratic process of the regulations, not any specific regulation in isolation.If the UK government creates a law I disagree with, I have a few simple options. I can speak to my MP or I can organise a group of like-minded individuals to speak to our MPs collectively. The aim is to get our MP to discuss the issue with the government. If enough people have the same opinion as me then the MP and potentially the government can be changed within 5 years. It's not perfect democracy but it's pretty good.
EU Article 288 said:
A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
A regulation is different from a directive. It is implemented directly by the EU and becomes legally en-forcible in every member simultaneously (excluding a few areas where some countries have individual opt-outs).A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
If I object to an EU regulation that becomes binding tomorrow, what can I do about it? If you cannot answer this without further research then I would suggest you don't know what you were voting for either. I've tried to understand the process and it seems too complicated to me. It's several steps further away from the good democracy we have in the UK. Some people call it undemocratic but the problem with that word is that democracy isn't a binary thing. Democracy is a scale, and the EU is taking us in the wrong direction compared to an independent UK.
alock said:
A regulation is different from a directive. It is implemented directly by the EU and becomes legally en-forcible in every member simultaneously (excluding a few areas where some countries have individual opt-outs).
If I object to an EU regulation that becomes binding tomorrow, what can I do about it? If you cannot answer this without further research then I would suggest you don't know what you were voting for either. I've tried to understand the process and it seems too complicated to me. It's several steps further away from the good democracy we have in the UK. Some people call it undemocratic but the problem with that word is that democracy isn't a binary thing. Democracy is a scale, and the EU is taking us in the wrong direction compared to an independent UK.
Eh, if I would feel strongly enough about any regulation, I'd get my MEP to lobby on my behalf. If I object to an EU regulation that becomes binding tomorrow, what can I do about it? If you cannot answer this without further research then I would suggest you don't know what you were voting for either. I've tried to understand the process and it seems too complicated to me. It's several steps further away from the good democracy we have in the UK. Some people call it undemocratic but the problem with that word is that democracy isn't a binary thing. Democracy is a scale, and the EU is taking us in the wrong direction compared to an independent UK.
Do you seriously believe that your democracy is eroded by regulators sitting in Brux rather than Whitehall? As far as I understand they are civil servants anyway rather than government, so not sure how would you vote to replace them.
Which particular regulation is blighting your day to day life?
WinstonWolf said:
Bristle soaks up the water and goes limp, you just need to use the right brush for the paint you're using. First time I used water based gloss I returned it as I couldn't get a finish with it. Turns out the problem was me, I was applying the paint incorrectly. Our local Dulux trade place has samples and demo boards, they'll happily train you how to apply water based gloss correctly.
You've got to be able to paint fast and accurately with water based, there's no second chance like there was with oil based.
i served my time as a decorator when i left school, i do have a small idea of what i am talking about . i can paint fast and accurately ,as you say the problem i initially encountered was traditional bristle brushes unsuitability for water based paint .You've got to be able to paint fast and accurately with water based, there's no second chance like there was with oil based.
jjlynn27 said:
Again, missing the point completely. You'll have the same regulations (with the cost of additional regulators here). And they'll have to keep up with whats the latest in Brux if they want to export to single market. Who's going to pay for additional cost? Taxpayer (already on the hook for very many things), manufacturer (hmm, do I really want to operate in this environment).
Non-issue that was completely taken out of proportion.
i don't know any local body shops that export their services to europe , do you ? what is the additional cost , both monetary and environmental of bodywork that rusts due to paint that does not protect it ? did anyone ever answer the point around the half a million tonnes of discards the uk fishing industry has to throw back due to the common fisheries policy ?Non-issue that was completely taken out of proportion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff