What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?

[jjlynn27]

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.

Again, don't understand this at all. Common sense? Your common sense will not mirror someone else's common sense. For all the reasons that you've mentioned before I can see very good reason for enforcing very strict regulations. Most definitely wouldn't want anyone to exercise their common sense approach. If you think that Brexit will lead to less regulation, or that you'll be able to change it by voting for different govt, you are, imo, mistaken. What is most likely to happen is that existing EU regs will be rewritten into UK one. Having more people on the payroll to do this doesn't strike me as an efficient way forward.

As with your VOC example previously, the regulation, quite rightly will not disappear. You'll just end up with more bureaucrats in Whitehall. At extra cost.

[jjlynn27]

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

WTD - do you think that UK should have our own version or not? If we have one, and it's different for lets say HGV drivers, when they go to EUROPE, which one should they follow?

As for power of vacuum cleaners. It was already discussed previously, and imo of the same relevance as bent cucumbers.

Or airspeed meters in hot air balloons.

[vonuber]

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.

Thank god you are no longer in charge of any sitei visit.

[rscott]

jjlynn27 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

WTD - do you think that UK should have our own version or not? If we have one, and it's different for lets say HGV drivers, when they go to EUROPE, which one should they follow?

As for power of vacuum cleaners. It was already discussed previously, and imo of the same relevance as bent cucumbers.

Or airspeed meters in hot air balloons.

So if we repeal the vacuum cleaner rules, how much difference will that make to the British economy?
There are how many British vacuum cleaner companies and how many do they employ here, given that Dyson uses Malaysian factories ..

Working time directive - is that a bad rule for the average British worker ?

[Elysium]

Dr Jekyll said:

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 think this is the problem. The perception is that the EU are pushing legal obligations onto us whilst turning a blind eye when other European nations do not comply.

My personal experience suggests otherwise. I took part in a consultation exercise with DEFRA a few years ago to discuss construction impacts on GCN (great crested newts).

The drafting of the European legislation means that it is the responsibility of the regulators in each country to make sure that GCN are not harmed. So if a property developer breaks the law, DEFRA get fined by the EU.

I met a senior representative at DEFRA who very openly stated that the primary purpose of our UK legislation was to protect DEFRA from that situation. They went for complete overkill to protect themselves rather than the newts.

France have the legislation, but it has zero day to day impact on construction and development. In contrast, we have to look high and low for the little beggars and spend hundreds of thousands of pounds creating new habitat when they are displaced.

The outcome is that our approach is hugely successful and almost every development site is now a potential GCN habitat. In contrast, they are still rare in France, so they retain their protected status, but they are not required to go hunting for them.

Just one example, but I suspect it is indicative of actions taken by our government which impose stricter regulation on us than elsewhere in Europe. I don't think this will change when we leave.

[Dr Jekyll]

mike9009 said:

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.

The UK regulations could well be more stringent. The point is that a farm in the UK is different from a farm in southern Italy or Greece, the weeds are probably different as well. So having different regulations make perfect sense.

The big difference is that if the UK regulations are inappropriate, either too stringent or not stringent enough we can vote against the government that introduced them. No doubt you consider this a disadvantage, pesky democracy getting in the way, but it's actually an advantage.

[mike9009]

Dr Jekyll said:

mike9009 said:

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.

The UK regulations could well be more stringent. The point is that a farm in the UK is different from a farm in southern Italy or Greece, the weeds are probably different as well. So having different regulations make perfect sense.

The big difference is that if the UK regulations are inappropriate, either too stringent or not stringent enough we can vote against the government that introduced them. No doubt you consider this a disadvantage, pesky democracy getting in the way, but it's actually an advantage.

Ah you think this regulation is made by democratically elected government and not civil service? CAA, HSE are great examples of democratically elected bodies making regulation. I have not noticed government stepping in to stop any VOC regs, working at height reg, asbestos controls, EASA regulation for tightening of helicopter blades, CAA regulation on flight displays over crowds, worling time directive, truck driving regulations.

Then it makes sense (because most of the introduced regs are common sense) to introduce the same controls across a continent.

Or I could request that the Isle of Wight has different pesticide regulations to Yorkshire because of the climatic differences and the amount of salad we grow to their rhubarb. As for letting them into the Isle of Wight with their funny accents, wanting to take our salad wealth away - it is the breakdown of modern democracy. I exaggerate to make a point of Little Britain

Mike

[tannhauser]

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.

Toilet flushes being limited to about half the volume of water than they used to use. So don't work properly.

[Dr Jekyll]

mike9009 said:

Ah you think this regulation is made by democratically elected government and not civil service? CAA, HSE are great examples of democratically elected bodies making regulation. I have not noticed government stepping in to stop any VOC regs, working at height reg, asbestos controls, EASA regulation for tightening of helicopter blades, CAA regulation on flight displays over crowds, worling time directive, truck driving regulations.

Then it makes sense (because most of the introduced regs are common sense) to introduce the same controls across a continent.

Or I could request that the Isle of Wight has different pesticide regulations to Yorkshire because of the climatic differences and the amount of salad we grow to their rhubarb.

But the government gives the CAA etc that power and can bring pressure to bear. Secondly the CAA aren't going to produce additional regulations simply for their own sake, the EU is far more interested in having common regulation as a step towards integration than the effect of individual rules.

Mike9009 said:

As for letting them into the Isle of Wight with their funny accents, wanting to take our salad wealth away - it is the breakdown of modern democracy. I exaggerate to make a point of Little Britain caricature opponents as parochial xenophobes.

EFA

[dav123a]

tannhauser said:

Toilet flushes being limited to about half the volume of water than they used to use. So don't work properly.

The standard volume has been reducing since the sixties, i think it was 13l. Now it's is 6l . From what I have read the eu put this forward as voluntary, but is enforced as part of the building regs.

[dandarez]

Ask Nick Grey of Grey Technologies (G-Tech) - as some are talking vacuum cleaners (although his business goes way beyond that now - my neighbour has one of the G-Tech bikes, he paid a grand for it, and I've had a ride. Very clever.)
So thriving small, rapidly growing, business. And why he voted LEAVE.
Because of the reams of regulation/legislation, that had become incredibly complicated in some areas, wasn't allowing a fair playing field.

'For me that was one of the reasons why I came down on the side of leaving, I'd like us to be left on our own a little bit more.'
'
Oh yeah, and for all those who keep harping on about only the 'intelligent' 'normal' (wtf is normal? and those with 'degrees' voted Remain.

Mr Grey left school with 2 'O' levels. He has created a rival to Dyson (although Grey does say while Dyson has around 20 lawyers - 17 in-house ffs! - G-Tech lawyers? Nick has none!
Bright enough too to realise making them here is not profitable. Produced in China because no country on earth can compete with them. Very true.

So he voted LEAVE because of the thread title.

[rscott]

dandarez said:

Ask Nick Grey of Grey Technologies (G-Tech) - as some are talking vacuum cleaners (although his business goes way beyond that now - my neighbour has one of the G-Tech bikes, he paid a grand for it, and I've had a ride. Very clever.)
So thriving small, rapidly growing, business. And why he voted LEAVE.
Because of the reams of regulation/legislation, that had become incredibly complicated in some areas, wasn't allowing a fair playing field.

'For me that was one of the reasons why I came down on the side of leaving, I'd like us to be left on our own a little bit more.'
'
Oh yeah, and for all those who keep harping on about only the 'intelligent' 'normal' (wtf is normal? and those with 'degrees' voted Remain.

Mr Grey left school with 2 'O' levels. He has created a rival to Dyson (although Grey does say while Dyson has around 20 lawyers - 17 in-house ffs! - G-Tech lawyers? Nick has none!
Bright enough too to realise making them here is not profitable. Produced in China because no country on earth can compete with them. Very true.

So he voted LEAVE because of the thread title.

Has he mentioned any particular regulations? That's the whole point of this thread - real examples of specific rules & regulations generated by the EU which the UK aren't likely to have introduced anyway.

[wc98]

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 .

[PRTVR]

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 .

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.

[vonuber]

tannhauser said:

Toilet flushes being limited to about half the volume of water than they used to use. So don't work properly.

They work fine. I'd check your downstream pipework.

And again, building regs not eu regs.

[mike9009]

rscott said:

dandarez said:

Ask Nick Grey of Grey Technologies (G-Tech) - as some are talking vacuum cleaners (although his business goes way beyond that now - my neighbour has one of the G-Tech bikes, he paid a grand for it, and I've had a ride. Very clever.)
So thriving small, rapidly growing, business. And why he voted LEAVE.
Because of the reams of regulation/legislation, that had become incredibly complicated in some areas, wasn't allowing a fair playing field.

'For me that was one of the reasons why I came down on the side of leaving, I'd like us to be left on our own a little bit more.'
'
Oh yeah, and for all those who keep harping on about only the 'intelligent' 'normal' (wtf is normal? and those with 'degrees' voted Remain.

Mr Grey left school with 2 'O' levels. He has created a rival to Dyson (although Grey does say while Dyson has around 20 lawyers - 17 in-house ffs! - G-Tech lawyers? Nick has none!
Bright enough too to realise making them here is not profitable. Produced in China because no country on earth can compete with them. Very true.

So he voted LEAVE because of the thread title.

Has he mentioned any particular regulations? That's the whole point of this thread - real examples of specific rules & regulations generated by the EU which the UK aren't likely to have introduced anyway.

Agreed - still no mention of what EU regulation. It is like talking to Farage on this thread? Even if the regulations were relaxed in this country, if Mr G-Tech wants to sell into the EU he will still need to comply with EU regulations, unless he is only eyeing up the extensive shrinking UK market?

Mike

[jjlynn27]

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 .

Lol. Seriously? You want me to go and paint something to prove something on internet forum?

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?

[jjlynn27]

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.

What do you think it's the reason for lowering the content of VOC? Could it be that it's actually safer? I don't buy this logic, it almost seems like they come up with regulations just for the sake of them.
I'm still trying to find an actual regulation that affects someone's life in a negative way.

[Elysium]

jjlynn27 said:

What do you think it's the reason for lowering the content of VOC? Could it be that it's actually safer? I don't buy this logic, it almost seems like they come up with regulations just for the sake of them.
I'm still trying to find an actual regulation that affects someone's life in a negative way.

The UK embraces legislation like this with open arms. We volunteer to do it and that is not going to change when we leave the EU.

We are not suddenly going to decide to drop our CO2 emissions targets, waste water with 'good old fashioned' flushes and go back to putting unpleasant chemicals in paint that make people ill.

The only EU regulation that I can think off that was completely irrelevant to the UK is the requirement for products to be sold in metric weights etc.. We would not have decided to stop selling ham by the quarter ourselves.

That said, apart from a bit of grumbling and some confused pensioners I can't see that it really matters.

Like you I would be interested in finding an EU regulation that causes us real problems, where those problems have not been created by an over-enthusiastic response by UK government.

Oh .. and the scientific consensus is that VOC's leach out of finishes causing occupants to feel unwell (known as sick building syndrome). Anyone who has tried to sleep in a recently painted room (prior to reduction in VOC's) will have experienced this.

Edited by Elysium on Sunday 3rd July 18:43

[PRTVR]

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.

What do you think it's the reason for lowering the content of VOC? Could it be that it's actually safer? I don't buy this logic, it almost seems like they come up with regulations just for the sake of them.
I'm still trying to find an actual regulation that affects someone's life in a negative way.

The problem is everything is dangerous, the small amount of VOCs in a tin of paint is insignificant, along with the smell encourages you to open a window, you get a bigger exposure when you fill your car up with petrol and I would imagine people fill their cars up more than paint woodwork.