What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?

[crankedup]

biggles330d said:

Rovinghawk said:

footnote said:

Fundamentally, I agree with remaining in the EU............

But you have a different view?

I'm EU- rather than UK-born. I speak French & German, can understand many of the other languages.

I've worked in France, Germany, Holland, Finland, Latvia & Switzerland (not EU but you see where I'm going). I've had GFs from all those countries.

I should be more pro-EU than the average. However, my view is that whilst the concept is admirable the reality is not. One size does not fit all very well and various factions will want regulations to suit themselves rather than the rest; an example is CAP rules massively favouring the French.

I want us to have the flexibility to choose which regulations suit us & which don't. We can cooperate whilst still being independent.

Do you really think the UK Government is going to be more generous to the farmers from UK taxation than CAP is? It might favour French Farmers but they carry a lot of influence which has benefitted UK farmers. I can see very quickly a lot of noisy farmers faced with many more cheap imports (yes, that was promised with access to more global markets) and a drastically lower subsidy settlement from Government than they're used to. I'm staggered at how many farmers voted out as they seem to have the most to loose along with the Welsh steel workers and northern automotive workers.
Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?

The NFU rep' made an appearance on local television, apparently a significant number of farmers within the east Anglia region had voted to leave EU. Obviously confident that the UK Government will meet the subsidy requirements of the industry?

[footnote]

crankedup said:

The NFU rep' made an appearance on local television, apparently a significant number of farmers within the east Anglia region had voted to leave EU. Obviously confident that the UK Government will meet the subsidy requirements of the industry?

I saw a Cornish person on TV saying they'd voted Leave but wanted to keep getting the EU money too.

I've seen many Leavers on tv saying we're not all thick bigots - go figure.

[biggles330d]

sidicks said:

romeogolf said:

I work in what's called an "Innovation Centre". Its specific purpose is to nurture small businesses and encourage/support their growth. We have around 40 businesses based at this site.

Of my knowledge two individuals here voted leave. One is an older lady who is an accounts assistant in one of the businesses and her reasoning was immigration. Another was an accountant who said he didn't like the un-elected aspect of the EU (House of Lords, anyone?).

All of the small business owners I've spoken to are pro-remain. None of them feel constrained by "red tape", a majority of them benefit from EU funding in various forms. Indeed many of our centres are built using EU funding such as the ERDF.

Any they are in favour of remaining in the EU? Who'd have thought it...

But this is the point. We ask 'what do we get back'. Answer, lots, everywhere, all over the place but it's not so obvious unless you look. If I think about it, quite a bit of what I do has its origins in and a good deal of funding contribution from the many EU programmes. The project I'm working on right now is effectively dead because the UK is on its way out from being an EU member state and looses all entitlement to being a project partner and receiving money with the two other EU countries involved.

Look around at all the more 'cultural' things that make our towns and cities nice places to visit. The investment in redevelopment, public spaces, art and museums. None make any pure commercial sense and most are supported by the social funds the EU hands out, particularly in the gritty, challenged and unattractive post-industrial places. You'd be amazed at how many come with the blue flag of the EU attached. This all stops when we're out. It'll be for us as UK tax payers to pay for ourselves and personally, I can't see the UK Government being anywhere near as keen to do this.

[sidicks]

biggles330d said:

But this is the point. We ask 'what do we get back'. Answer, lots, everywhere, all over the place but it's not so obvious unless you look. If I think about it, quite a bit of what I do has its origins in and a good deal of funding contribution from the many EU programmes. The project I'm working on right now is effectively dead because the UK is on its way out from being an EU member state and looses all entitlement to being a project partner and receiving money with the two other EU countries involved.

Look around at all the more 'cultural' things that make our towns and cities nice places to visit. The investment in redevelopment, public spaces, art and museums. None make any pure commercial sense and most are supported by the social funds the EU hands out, particularly in the gritty, challenged and unattractive post-industrial places. You'd be amazed at how many come with the blue flag of the EU attached. This all stops when we're out. It'll be for us as UK tax payers to pay for ourselves and personally, I can't see the UK Government being anywhere near as keen to do this.

It's our money in the first place!

It comes from the UK, not from the EU!

[biggles330d]

REALIST123 said:

biggles330d said:

Do you really think the UK Government is going to be more generous to the farmers from UK taxation than CAP is? It might favour French Farmers but they carry a lot of influence which has benefitted UK farmers. I can see very quickly a lot of noisy farmers faced with many more cheap imports (yes, that was promised with access to more global markets) and a drastically lower subsidy settlement from Government than they're used to. I'm staggered at how many farmers voted out as they seem to have the most to loose along with the Welsh steel workers and northern automotive workers.
Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?

So you think it's ok to keep food prices artificially high and to pay farmers to not farm?

Maybe the farmers feel they'd be better off, in more ways than one, if government simply gave them a level playing field and let them get on with it.

One example. The vast majority of UK Sugar is produced in the UK from Sugar Beet. It is protected from cheap cane sugar imports by high tariffs import limits agreed at an EU level. It is impossible to produce the 17-18m tonnes of sugar we consume in the UK from Beet at the price level cane sugar can be imported to the UK at. How much of the East Anglian economy is dedicated to growing sugar beet??

We'll end up putting up almost exactly the same barriers as currently apply at the EU level, so whats the point?

[Bertrum]

CAP is only useful for the Larger farmers as it is productivity based.

I guess there is a sweet spot that is impossible to reach.

The Farmers incomes are being screwed by the big corporations in the name of profits (we don't see the price drop), the EU does nothing about that despite having the power and hands out subsidies instead.....

[DMN]

Tuna said:

Some of those in the North blame the spate of flooding we've seen on the fact that such naturally flowing water courses are no longer capable of carrying the volumes of water you see each winter away.

And some of those here in the North are wrong. All dredging does is move the problem downstream, in ever greater volumes. In York, where the river Ouse is actually a basin as it flows through the City (its deeper than its exit point down stream), all dredging up stream would do is increase the flow of water into York making the problem worse. By not dredging, peak flow is reduced as it takes the water longer to reach the critical pinch points.

[anonymous-user]

I'm sure there are some shockingly bad examples of regulation around and the EU is probably not the only culprit.

The cost of land fill has risen astronomically due to EU regulations, is the greater goal worth the cost?

The EU introduced restrictions on nasty substances in electronics e.g. lead, cadmium, mercury, etc - a bad thing?

The EU introduced the WEEE regulation to ensure we recycle our electronics to do the least damage to our environment - another bad thing?

Introduced CE marking for products to allow free movement of goods throughout Europe, another bad thing obviously. Saves business a lot of time and money that one and no doubt what ever agreement we reach with the EU this will remain. The government has neutered organisations like the radio communications agency and dumped what's left into Ofcom who are only interested in when rude words are broadcast.

They have introduced energy efficiency requirements so our electronics consume and waste less power saving us money, another bad thing?

I am under no illusion that the one size fits all approach has likely produced some awful legislation but our parliament also has to take responsibility for it. They interpret and implement the EU directive as UK law, they translate it literally to be as true to the original, other member states take a more pragmatic approach and the legislation isn't so painful in its implementation or just plain ignore it.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 1st July 15:30

[Otispunkmeyer]

Rovinghawk said:

footnote said:

What and why are the regulations (other than immigration) that Leavers object to?

I'll open with the ban on powerful vacuum cleaners, meaning a half-power machine that takes twice as long, thereby using the same amount of energy for generally a lesser result.

I'm sure there are others.

I thought this too, however reading into it more its actually got some common sense to it.

Its to stop manufacturers sticking cheap ass, powerful but inefficient motors in their products and then slapping 2000W on the box as a marketing aid. Its forcing them to use better motors and put some proper effort into Air path design in order to give the same suction power. On the face of it its an absurd rule, but digging deeper, it does start to make sense.

[anonymous-user]

Otispunkmeyer said:

I thought this too, however reading into it more its actually got some common sense to it.

Its to stop manufacturers sticking cheap ass, powerful but inefficient motors in their products and then slapping 2000W on the box as a marketing aid. Its forcing them to use better motors and put some proper effort into Air path design in order to give the same suction power. On the face of it its an absurd rule, but digging deeper, it does start to make sense.

This, most people do not look past the fact that it is another rule, regulation or block on what they are doing. You need to spend a bit of brain power to understand what the regulation is trying to or intending to achieve rather dismiss it as eurobabble.

[vonuber]

sidicks said:

It's our money in the first place!

It comes from the UK, not from the EU!

Exaclty, so we are getting that money back then aren't we.

Difference is that is targeted at the poor and needy areas, something successive governments have never done. It basically forces investment in those areas - which those areas have just decided in the main to reject.
To think that money will be invested in the same way and at the same levels as currently is staggeringly niave.
Cornwall know it which is why they are shouting already.

[vonuber]

DMN said:

And some of those here in the North are wrong. All dredging does is move the problem downstream, in ever greater volumes. In York, where the river Ouse is actually a basin as it flows through the City (its deeper than its exit point down stream), all dredging up stream would do is increase the flow of water into York making the problem worse. By not dredging, peak flow is reduced as it takes the water longer to reach the critical pinch points.

You're wasting your time, mate.

[sidicks]

vonuber said:

Exaclty, so we are getting that money back then aren't we.

Difference is that is targeted at the poor and needy areas, something successive governments have never done. It basically forces investment in those areas - which those areas have just decided in the main to reject.
To think that money will be invested in the same way and at the same levels as currently is staggeringly niave.

A bit premature to be claiming this, given where we are in the Brexit process!

vonuber said:

Cornwall know it which is why they are shouting already.

Do you have an association with Cornwall?

[Dr Jekyll]

vonuber said:

Exaclty, so we are getting that money back then aren't we.

Difference is that is targeted at the poor and needy areas, something successive governments have never done. It basically forces investment in those areas - which those areas have just decided in the main to reject.
To think that money will be invested in the same way and at the same levels as currently is staggeringly niave.
Cornwall know it which is why they are shouting already.

Ah yes the inverted jingoist argument that the EU can obviously spend UK money in the UK much more wisely than the UK can.

[wc98]

footnote said:

I can see there are very specific and technical rules that affect business - and very often for very good reason.

Of course, business, whether it's a private port or a haulage company, can and does lobby on it's own behalf, here and in the EU.

This doesn't really apply to private individuals.

So far, it's vacuum cleaners then, that's the biggie of being told what to do by the EU, that we can identify that affects private individuals (other than immigration).

There must be some other domineering EU rules and regs that make all our lives more difficult.

Where I stand, I can't think of any, but I do want to know.

so you are quite happy with the half a million tonnes of wasted natural resource in the fishing industry every year ? this also reduces the amount of fish available to recreational anglers in some areas.

[otolith]

Some interesting thoughts on why people who were receiving funding from the EU did not necessarily love the EU for it.

http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-t...

[anonymous-user]

Don't know if it's been covered or not but the Bank Bonus Cap is a particularly poor EU reg. It doesn't actually change the amount bankers get paid, it just increases their base salary and the banks fixed costs. Ironically as the base salary is in cash it also reduces the amount that can be paid in restricted stock or ever clawed back. Completely counter productive populist idiocy. (and no I'm not effected by it)

[Tuna]

DMN said:

Tuna said:

Some of those in the North blame the spate of flooding we've seen on the fact that such naturally flowing water courses are no longer capable of carrying the volumes of water you see each winter away.

And some of those here in the North are wrong. All dredging does is move the problem downstream, in ever greater volumes. In York, where the river Ouse is actually a basin as it flows through the City (its deeper than its exit point down stream), all dredging up stream would do is increase the flow of water into York making the problem worse. By not dredging, peak flow is reduced as it takes the water longer to reach the critical pinch points.

.. and longer to leave critical pinch points as well.

Hey, I'm just going by things like this: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...

I'm sure that it's not applicable for all rivers, but it has been a practise for years to manage flow rates (as someone who lives in the fens, with a back garden that's only three feet above sea level despite being fifty miles in land, it's something I do care about!). It seems though, this sort of management is being prevented by a blanket ban rather than letting the Environment Agency make locally appropriate decisions.

[wc98]

otolith said:

Some interesting thoughts on why people who were receiving funding from the EU did not necessarily love the EU for it.

http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-t...

that is probably the most insightful piece i have read to date on the current situation, thanks for posting.

[vonuber]

Tuna said:

.. and longer to leave critical pinch points as well.

Hey, I'm just going by things like this: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...

I'm sure that it's not applicable for all rivers, but it has been a practise for years to manage flow rates (as someone who lives in the fens, with a back garden that's only three feet above sea level despite being fifty miles in land, it's something I do care about!). It seems though, this sort of management is being prevented by a blanket ban rather than letting the Environment Agency make locally appropriate decisions.

No ban. No money though.