What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
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.
There you go.
jjlynn27 said:
'An end in itself' is just stupid. It assumes that there are people just inventing regulations for the sake of them.
When all the rules are written the rule-writer is out of a job. I can understand the urge to find new rules to write. This tends to reduce the stupidity in the claim.I'm sure you'll deem this as inconsequential or wrong.
wc98 said:
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 ?
Again, bigger picture. Do you want different rules created for different sizes of workshops? What about paints used at main dealers, should they all have different regulations? You are still dodging the answer. I'll repeat; If we have UK regulators, instead of Brux ones, given that the EU paint/voc regs are almost identical to USA / CAN ones, would you be happier?
I don't know about fishing policy, but wasn't that directive under the body of which Farage was the top dog? The one that he didn't really care too much to attend? Maybe lobbying him would help? Ah well, we have now at least two more years of rotting fish, but we took control. I'm sure it will more than compensate for loses in other industries, as soon as we get our fleet out and start exporting.
Rovinghawk said:
When all the rules are written the rule-writer is out of a job. I can understand the urge to find new rules to write. This tends to reduce the stupidity in the claim.
I'm sure you'll deem this as inconsequential or wrong.
After your claim that architecture is seven year undergrad course, I deem everything that you write as inconsequential AND wrong.I'm sure you'll deem this as inconsequential or wrong.
Sorry.
WinstonWolf said:
That is actually probably the best example that this thread has seen. It will affect me too. I do see your point.O/T But not too bothered about it myself as I'm slowly getting of it as it makes me look like a dolt.
ETA
Article said:
But compared to the USA, where the Federal Drug Administration’s busybodies have set out to destroy large sections of the market overnight via their proposed regulations or even parts of the EU, the UK may see comparatively much less disruption. That’s down to the implementation – officially explained here.
It reads to me like that UK has (had?) 'freedom' to implement things differently. If that's actually the case, isn't that win win?
jjlynn27 said:
WinstonWolf said:
That is actually probably the best example that this thread has seen. It will affect me too. I do see your point.O/T But not too bothered about it myself as I'm slowly getting of it as it makes me look like a dolt.
ETA
Article said:
But compared to the USA, where the Federal Drug Administration’s busybodies have set out to destroy large sections of the market overnight via their proposed regulations or even parts of the EU, the UK may see comparatively much less disruption. That’s down to the implementation – officially explained here.
It reads to me like that UK has (had?) 'freedom' to implement things differently. If that's actually the case, isn't that win win?
This particular law makes no sense, I agree there should be more research but it seems daft to make the only thing that's kept me off the fags harder to use. Smaller bottles and tanks? Err, all that does is increase the price...
Excessive/interfering legislation is one of the things that put me off the EU.
WinstonWolf said:
Bugger, and I was hoping for a bun-fight
This particular law makes no sense, I agree there should be more research but it seems daft to make the only thing that's kept me off the fags harder to use. Smaller bottles and tanks? Err, all that does is increase the price...
Excessive/interfering legislation is one of the things that put me off the EU.
Careful what you wish for This particular law makes no sense, I agree there should be more research but it seems daft to make the only thing that's kept me off the fags harder to use. Smaller bottles and tanks? Err, all that does is increase the price...
Excessive/interfering legislation is one of the things that put me off the EU.
From what I've read, and I'd like to read more if you have different/additional info, is the rules are there to limit amount of e-liquid that you can swallow accidentally (you, kid, your dog). I use kanger nano tank but I buy perino in 30ml bottles. They are locked in my table at all times when not in use.
I like to think of myself as pragmatic. You'll always have the rules that make little sense to you. Sometimes that is justified, sometimes people just can't see the reasoning behind them. That article says that UK is (was?) free to implement the rules differently, doesn't sound too undemocratic to me.
In this thread people complained about 'low' power hoovers, airspeed meters for hotballoons, VOC in paint among many others. Now, most of them will be just replicated to UK Regs, due to numbers. The new ones will have to mirror EU ones if we are to sell products to EU. So, in theory we've just 'in-sourced' regulators. I can't see the benefit there. Out of the net payment to eu, you'll now have to pay for these guys. Miniscule amount on it's own, but multiply that with everything bureaucratic that we'll now have to do ourselves.
Back to regulations, I was pleased when I saw CE mark on my mod, after reading of all those exploding batteries. As for pooled regulation, I can't think of an example where pooling resources from as many entities makes more sense.
WinstonWolf said:
jjlynn27 said:
WinstonWolf said:
That is actually probably the best example that this thread has seen. It will affect me too. I do see your point.O/T But not too bothered about it myself as I'm slowly getting of it as it makes me look like a dolt.
ETA
Article said:
But compared to the USA, where the Federal Drug Administration’s busybodies have set out to destroy large sections of the market overnight via their proposed regulations or even parts of the EU, the UK may see comparatively much less disruption. That’s down to the implementation – officially explained here.
It reads to me like that UK has (had?) 'freedom' to implement things differently. If that's actually the case, isn't that win win?This particular law makes no sense, I agree there should be more research but it seems daft to make the only thing that's kept me off the fags harder to use. Smaller bottles and tanks? Err, all that does is increase the price...
Excessive/interfering legislation is one of the things that put me off the EU.
That report also suggests that different countries in the EU were able to implement the details differently - UK is going for a more relaxed method, compared to Belgium's extremely expensive testing regime.
Rovinghawk said:
jjlynn-
I get the feeling that anything anyone suggests will merely get the response that it's unimportant, irrelevant or just plain wrong.
I don't think you actually want to hear any answer to your question.
Let's wait until someone comes up with a rule, regulation, directive that is clearly wrong and we'll see what he says. I get the feeling that anything anyone suggests will merely get the response that it's unimportant, irrelevant or just plain wrong.
I don't think you actually want to hear any answer to your question.
The 'problem' with the EU regulations won't just disappear with some people voting. They will remain regardless of what we do now literally. We will have to conform to them regardless of what option we choose if we want to trade with them.
The much favoured Norwegian Option means that the only difference is that we can have little effect on the regulations we have to conform to.
There are silly complaints about the regs. Someone earlier mentioned vacuum cleaners being less effective because wattage is limited. Firstly, this ignores the fact that wattage is hardly the measurement of suction, and secondly, the Which reports often favour the lower wattage, high suction cleaners. I've got one. It is superb.
So whatever is bad about the EU regs will continue to be bad about them. In order for a, for instance, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer to trade with the EU, it will have to produce cleaners as efficient and low powered at the EU ones. Will they bother to make a different, higher-wattage range?
The much favoured Norwegian Option means that the only difference is that we can have little effect on the regulations we have to conform to.
There are silly complaints about the regs. Someone earlier mentioned vacuum cleaners being less effective because wattage is limited. Firstly, this ignores the fact that wattage is hardly the measurement of suction, and secondly, the Which reports often favour the lower wattage, high suction cleaners. I've got one. It is superb.
So whatever is bad about the EU regs will continue to be bad about them. In order for a, for instance, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer to trade with the EU, it will have to produce cleaners as efficient and low powered at the EU ones. Will they bother to make a different, higher-wattage range?
Derek Smith said:
So whatever is bad about the EU regs will continue to be bad about them. In order for a, for instance, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer to trade with the EU, it will have to produce cleaners as efficient and low powered at the EU ones. Will they bother to make a different, higher-wattage range?
They will if the market for them is big enough.Derek Smith said:
There are silly complaints about the regs. Someone earlier mentioned vacuum cleaners being less effective because wattage is limited. Firstly, this ignores the fact that wattage is hardly the measurement of suction, and secondly, the Which reports often favour the lower wattage, high suction cleaners. I've got one. It is superb.
Funny you should mention that. As you are aware Which? were very much against this move by the EU but now they've tested them....they are giving it the thumbs up !!Crackie said:
Small business often doesn't have the time or resources to investigate EU regulations in sufficient detail. If a small company does carefully scrutinise a particular law then other areas of day to day work are likely to be neglected / compromised.
Once a business is sufficiently large then the situation changes. One example, from my career, was the EU's requirement to reduce the percentage of lead in electrical solder. The large telecoms and military manufacturers had enough resource to investigate and prove that connections made with lead free solder had poor long term reliability. These industries' powerful lobbies were able to gain exemptions in their fields; smaller manufacturers, producing electrical consumer goods, still have to endure this ridiculous, ill-conceived, feeble minded legislation.
I've mentioned RoHS before. One of my suppliers closed down because they couldn't afford the changes.Once a business is sufficiently large then the situation changes. One example, from my career, was the EU's requirement to reduce the percentage of lead in electrical solder. The large telecoms and military manufacturers had enough resource to investigate and prove that connections made with lead free solder had poor long term reliability. These industries' powerful lobbies were able to gain exemptions in their fields; smaller manufacturers, producing electrical consumer goods, still have to endure this ridiculous, ill-conceived, feeble minded legislation.
80 people lost their jobs.
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
So whatever is bad about the EU regs will continue to be bad about them. In order for a, for instance, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer to trade with the EU, it will have to produce cleaners as efficient and low powered at the EU ones. Will they bother to make a different, higher-wattage range?
They will if the market for them is big enough.PositronicRay said:
The benefit of plenty of this EU stuff, it's not subject to political pressure. So it just happens, often for the best.
Thinking about environment and vacuum cleaners, investment in poorer areas.
I quite like that, if we had "free choice" it'd never happen.
Are you serious..Thinking about environment and vacuum cleaners, investment in poorer areas.
I quite like that, if we had "free choice" it'd never happen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff