What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?

[NeilyWheelie]

afrochicken said:

I'm all for dismissing people who are poor at their job, I just didn't like the way that the guest in question was all for being able to sack someone on the spot even if they were the perfect employee. I'm as capitalist as they come, I understand that there are times businesses have to save money. No point it going bankrupt because they can't shed staff. It was just the implication that long term full time employees should basically become no more than temporary employees that I feel would be damaging to the overall economy, even if it would help some businesses in some situations.

The situations surrounding the poorly performing teachers etc is terrible, but would I be right in thinking that is also a result of a shortage of labour? A lack of competition?

Surely in your example you'd be pretty safe dismissing the employee for poor conduct? Isn't it easier to dismiss staff in the first 2 years?

You have a point. I guess when I look at the other half's schools situation, it is apparent there was a shortage of labour - that said there were at least 3 recently retired specialist teachers that would have been prepared to come back for a short term to fill in.

The problem with getting rid of teachers is that reflects badly on the school. Its a bit like expelling kids permanently...the school can only get rid of 3 maximum over a year, otherwise this goes against the Ofsted rating.

Don't know about the first two years thing...I thought that was the first 3 months probation when you could tell them to naff off if they were no good.

[otolith]

It's written from a particular point of view, but I think it has a good stab at explaining why some people appeared to vote against their own best interests.

[jjlynn27]

Dr Jekyll said:

jjlynn27 said:

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...

Thanks for posting that. Very well reasoned even if I don't agree with parts of it. Last paragraph is spot on though.

Did seem to start from the assumption that wanting to leave the EU was some kind of personality disorder in need of diagnosis.

Read it again. If it seems that it starts like that to you, you are seeing something that it's not there.
As said, I don't agree with some conclusions, but it's well reasoned opinion piece.

[Elysium]

Dr Jekyll said:

jjlynn27 said:

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...

Thanks for posting that. Very well reasoned even if I don't agree with parts of it. Last paragraph is spot on though.

Did seem to start from the assumption that wanting to leave the EU was some kind of personality disorder in need of diagnosis.

Really interesting analysis. I think the starting point was simply a view that the EU was not a malevolent organisation. The last paragraph really sums it up.

[mike9009]

I am still searching for...

1) What regulations are holding back Don4Ls business which we will now change to help him?
2) Why EU VOC regulations are bad or any worse than USA/ Canada/ Mexico regulations?
3) Why a 50% reduction in construction fatalities due to working at height regulations is bad?

Obviously, I am looking for answers and willingly accept them when presented.

[Dr Jekyll]

mike9009 said:

I am still searching for...

1) What regulations are holding back Don4Ls business which we will now change to help him?
2) Why EU VOC regulations are bad or any worse than USA/ Canada/ Mexico regulations?
3) Why a 50% reduction in construction fatalities due to working at height regulations is bad?

Obviously, I am looking for answers and willingly accept them when presented.

Even without knowing Dons business I can answer 2 of these.

2) Because USA/Canada/Mexico regulations are only relevant if you are dealing with USA/Canada/Mexico respectively.
3) Nobody is saying a reduction in fatalities is bad. The point is that IF these reductions are really due to regulations ('let's make so many rules nobody will dare to fall off') we could always have exactly the same regulations ourselves and they will be every bit as effective despite not being officially blessed by our glorious leaders in Brussels.

[mike9009]

Dr Jekyll said:

mike9009 said:

I am still searching for...

1) What regulations are holding back Don4Ls business which we will now change to help him?
2) Why EU VOC regulations are bad or any worse than USA/ Canada/ Mexico regulations?
3) Why a 50% reduction in construction fatalities due to working at height regulations is bad?

Obviously, I am looking for answers and willingly accept them when presented.

Even without knowing Dons business I can answer 2 of these.

2) Because USA/Canada/Mexico regulations are only relevant if you are dealing with USA/Canada/Mexico respectively.
3) Nobody is saying a reduction in fatalities is bad. The point is that IF these reductions are really due to regulations ('let's make so many rules nobody will dare to fall off') we could always have exactly the same regulations ourselves and they will be every bit as effective despite not being officially blessed by our glorious leaders in Brussels.

I will answer just one as the other does not warrant a response.

2) The comment was made that EU VOC regulations were bad because white paint no longer remains white as long. The regulations introduced (I am presuming by the EU) are no worse than those in the USA. So what is so bad about introducing common sense regulations to reduce workers exposure to carcinogens (in some cases and suspected in others? If the EU had introduced restrictions on the use of asbestos would people also say it was over-regulated?

[Dr Jekyll]

mike9009 said:

I will answer just one as the other does not warrant a response.

2) The comment was made that EU VOC regulations were bad because white paint no longer remains white as long. The regulations introduced (I am presuming by the EU) are no worse than those in the USA. So what is so bad about introducing common sense regulations to reduce workers exposure to carcinogens (in some cases and suspected in others? If the EU had introduced restrictions on the use of asbestos would people also say it was over-regulated?

The same regulation could have been made by the UK govt, what is wrong with the British govt making a law to reduce exposure to carcinogens? For one thing all such regulations require a trade off between increasing safety margins and other criteria. Can you really not see that this calculation is better made on a local basis with regard to local industries and conditions?

The difference is that if the regulation turns out to be unnecessary, or to make matters worse, (believe it or not regulators are not infallible) we can do something about it. It's a lot more difficult if it's the EU that make the rules.

I've quoted elsewhere the European proposal to make airspeed indicators compulsory for hot air balloons, no national body has ever pressed for anything quite that stupid and it was only fought off after a major effort, sooner or later an equally demented rule will get through.

[Elysium]

OpulentBob said:

There are many major highway schemes that have an additional year on programme for environmental monitoring and mitigation, which includes for several months of manual searches for GCN's. As said, they are not rare here at all, so most schemes have to have the monitoring, trapping, relocation etc. If we didn't have to do this, while it wouldn't save a huge amount of money, it would accelerate construction programmes noticeably.

(former GCN licence holder, yes really)

This is a Natural England / DEFRA issue though. In other EU countries they don't bother surveying for and trapping newts. Their version of the legislation is far less onerous and not enforced.

It is a particularly British problem because we are the only ones that properly implement many EU laws. Other countries agree to them and simply ignore the requirements

[jjlynn27]

Dr Jekyll said:

The same regulation could have been made by the UK govt, what is wrong with the British govt making a law to reduce exposure to carcinogens? For one thing all such regulations require a trade off between increasing safety margins and other criteria. Can you really not see that this calculation is better made on a local basis with regard to local industries and conditions?

The difference is that if the regulation turns out to be unnecessary, or to make matters worse, (believe it or not regulators are not infallible) we can do something about it. It's a lot more difficult if it's the EU that make the rules.

I've quoted elsewhere the European proposal to make airspeed indicators compulsory for hot air balloons, no national body has ever pressed for anything quite that stupid and it was only fought off after a major effort, sooner or later an equally demented rule will get through.

I'm not going to speak for mike but this is what I don't get about this whole saga. It's almost like people believe that EU has UK in crosshairs and does everything to make our lives more difficult. I'm sure that there will be some proposals like curved cucumbers or 5 bananas or airspeed indicators for hot air balloons (I can only imagine millions of people affected by that), but cmon, lets have some perspective. Also what do you think that you'll be able to do about lets say about VOC content? I'd imagine that some civil servant, sitting somewhere comes up with numbers for those regulations. Are you going to research every single proposal and lobby government?

[Dr Jekyll]

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not going to speak for mike but this is what I don't get about this whole saga. It's almost like people believe that EU has UK in crosshairs and does everything to make our lives more difficult.

Err...

Elysium said:

It is a particularly British problem because we are the only ones that properly implement many EU laws. Other countries agree to them and simply ignore the requirements

If the rules applied to everyone it wouldn't be so bad. But you really don't see a danger in the EU having the power to kick the st out of us without affecting anyone else?

Look at Juncker's explanation as to why France wasn't fined for breaking EU rules. 'because it's France'.

[rscott]

So have we had a single example of a troublesome regulation imposed by the EU which the Uk wouldn't have introduced anyway?

[V8RX7]

Dr Jekyll said:

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not going to speak for mike but this is what I don't get about this whole saga. It's almost like people believe that EU has UK in crosshairs and does everything to make our lives more difficult.

Err...

Elysium said:

It is a particularly British problem because we are the only ones that properly implement many EU laws. Other countries agree to them and simply ignore the requirements

If the rules applied to everyone it wouldn't be so bad. But you really don't see a danger in the EU having the power to kick the st out of us without affecting anyone else?

Look at Juncker's explanation as to why France wasn't fined for breaking EU rules. 'because it's France'.

Exactly - if you look at Health & Safety in France, Spain etc it's a joke - fire doors are regularly chained shut, windows are barred etc they are worse than UK was in the 60's - I suspect it's far worse in other EU States.

[jjlynn27]

Dr Jekyll said:

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not going to speak for mike but this is what I don't get about this whole saga. It's almost like people believe that EU has UK in crosshairs and does everything to make our lives more difficult.

Err...

Elysium said:

It is a particularly British problem because we are the only ones that properly implement many EU laws. Other countries agree to them and simply ignore the requirements

If the rules applied to everyone it wouldn't be so bad. But you really don't see a danger in the EU having the power to kick the st out of us without affecting anyone else?

Look at Juncker's explanation as to why France wasn't fined for breaking EU rules. 'because it's France'.

I'm not going to speak for Elysium as he seems quite capable eloquently speaking for himself. I'm not aware of a situation where Britain was fined for not following EU regulation while France wasn't. As this is a thread about regulations, I still don't see any where I would feel that EU is going after Britain.

Ask yourself, if you are coming up with an example of airspeed meters for hot air balloons, do you think you'd agree with all of the regulations devised by Whitehall? Just imagine the work necessary to go through all those regulations and decide which ones are beneficial. Not taking into account that you'll have to hire more civil service personnel to deal with these in the future. To think that by voting for government every five years will lead to a change of ones that population doesn't want is, imo, naive.

[Dr Jekyll]

rscott said:

So have we had a single example of a troublesome regulation imposed by the EU which the Uk wouldn't have introduced anyway?

Working time directive. (OK not technically a regulation but so what).

Restrictions on the power of vacuum cleaners.

[dav123a]

V8RX7 said:

Exactly - if you look at Health & Safety in France, Spain etc it's a joke - fire doors are regularly chained shut, windows are barred etc they are worse than UK was in the 60's - I suspect it's far worse in other EU States.

It probably is worse else where. But it's hardly something to be proud of though. We have a great safety record in industry compared to other EU countries,id rather it stayed that way.

[V8RX7]

dav123a said:

V8RX7 said:

Exactly - if you look at Health & Safety in France, Spain etc it's a joke - fire doors are regularly chained shut, windows are barred etc they are worse than UK was in the 60's - I suspect it's far worse in other EU States.

It probably is worse else where. But it's hardly something to be proud of though. We have a great safety record in industry compared to other EU countries,id rather it stayed that way.

That was my point - our rules - that were enforced, were better than 99% of countries BEFORE all the later stuff.

I was a Site Agent many years ago - when all the Health & Safety rules came in all it meant was that we got 4" thick folders from every subbie - neither I nor they, had read them - that would be a job in itself. We got on with building homes.

I had a visit from the HSE and he asked had I read them - I told him no - after many stupid questions I told him "Building sites are not like factories, the weather changes hourly as do the people, the materials are heavy, the tools are sharp, the machines are big and the operatives are stupid - it's dangerous"

Common sense has always seen me through and I never had to deal with a serious injury in the 10 years I was managing sites - just minor cuts from hand tools and materials handling.

[mike9009]

Dr Jekyll said:

mike9009 said:

I will answer just one as the other does not warrant a response.

2) The comment was made that EU VOC regulations were bad because white paint no longer remains white as long. The regulations introduced (I am presuming by the EU) are no worse than those in the USA. So what is so bad about introducing common sense regulations to reduce workers exposure to carcinogens (in some cases and suspected in others? If the EU had introduced restrictions on the use of asbestos would people also say it was over-regulated?

The same regulation could have been made by the UK govt, what is wrong with the British govt making a law to reduce exposure to carcinogens? For one thing all such regulations require a trade off between increasing safety margins and other criteria. Can you really not see that this calculation is better made on a local basis with regard to local industries and conditions?

The difference is that if the regulation turns out to be unnecessary, or to make matters worse, (believe it or not regulators are not infallible) we can do something about it. It's a lot more difficult if it's the EU that make the rules.

I've quoted elsewhere the European proposal to make airspeed indicators compulsory for hot air balloons, no national body has ever pressed for anything quite that stupid and it was only fought off after a major effort, sooner or later an equally demented rule will get through.

As usual the Brexiters have somewhat ignored the question posed and jumped to the solution that Brexit is the only answer. Very Faragesque.

I am yet to see what EU regulations really harm or cripple the UK economy. Many of the regulations are the same in intent as many other first world countries.

Moving on to why should the UK regulate themselves? The example of the weedkiller given earlier in the thread. The company wishing to comply will now need to pass some new UK regulations (presumably lighter, less stringent and less safe) and then to get the large market test again for EU regulations. It makes no economic sense.

In a similar manner, a subject closer to my heart, the aerospace industry. At present, UK companies comply with EASA regulations. What we propose to do is build the CAA back up again (at what cost?) to create new regulation. UK companies then need to comply with new UK regulations but in order to get parts onto Airbus or Boeing we need to comply with EASA or FAA regulation.

Centralised regulation, economically, makes a lot of sense, especially when no one seems to be able to offer regulations which harm the UK from the EU.

Mike

[dav123a]

V8RX7 said:

That was my point - our rules - that were enforced, were better than 99% of countries BEFORE all the later stuff.

I was a Site Agent many years ago - when all the Health & Safety rules came in all it meant was that we got 4" thick folders from every subbie - neither I nor they, had read them - that would be a job in itself. We got on with building homes.

I had a visit from the HSE and he asked had I read them - I told him no - after many stupid questions I told him "Building sites are not like factories, the weather changes hourly as do the people, the materials are heavy, the tools are sharp, the machines are big and the operatives are stupid - it's dangerous"

Common sense has always seen me through and I never had to deal with a serious injury in the 10 years I was managing sites - just minor cuts from hand tools and materials handling.

So what is your point we should go back 25 years in terms of safety on site ? If the EU have forced us to tighter rules and so caused a drop in deaths at work great. If other countries decide not to follow this then that is their look out.

[jjlynn27]

V8RX7 said:

Exactly - if you look at Health & Safety in France, Spain etc it's a joke - fire doors are regularly chained shut, windows are barred etc they are worse than UK was in the 60's - I suspect it's far worse in other EU States.

I don't understand this argument at all. Sorry. Are you saying that we shouldn't have H&S regs, or that we shouldn't follow EU ones because France and Spain don't follow them? Would it be better if H&S regs are purely coming from Whitehall and should we follow them then?