What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?

[FredClogs]

boxxob said:

one argument is that the regulation is

frequently lobbied for by large corporations so they may continue to protect their market share/dominance. Rent-seeking behaviour, basically. Hannan writes widely about this e.g. http://www.hannan.co.uk/britains-obsolescent-congl...

This is also true, but sadly a necessity. Many technical standards are developed by consultative committees which are largely influenced by people who are employed by big corporates, but it's largely the only workable solution. The standards are developed and published for all to see and work to, so the corporates may get a head start but largely everyone benefits from their advantage as the reasoning's behind the development of the regulation is usually sound. And don't think that they always get what they want, many committees and consultative bodies are shouting matches of shared and divided interests which becomes a democratic mandate.

[skilly1]

I have a couple which have affected me, I believe they are EU lead:

1. Great crested newt protection. We have no shortage in the UK, but the rest of Europe does. So they slap a preservation order on them. This cost me around £30,000.
2. Wash down pad for golf machinery. I believe this is part of some European water legislation. Legislation that machines that are used for cutting grass have to be washed down in a closed circuit water system. Why, 100,000 mowers are used by people every day and they don't have too. Cars drive along wet roads every day and oil grease come off them and drains can manage. This would cost me around £20,000.

[ATG]

marshalla said:

Puggit said:

footnote said:

But staying on topic I really would like to know what and why are the regulations (other than immigration) that Leavers object to?

I'm not taking the piss - I really can't think of anything imposed on me from the EU that genuinely affects my life for the worse that I can get hacked off at the EU about.

Speak to small business owners

Somebody called? I'm not adversely affected by any of them.

When I was a one-man-band IT consultancy I didn't notice any EU regulations. And I could do business in France without impediment.

[ATG]

boxxob said:

one argument is that the regulation is frequently lobbied for by large corporations so they may continue to protect their market share/dominance. Rent-seeking behaviour, basically. Hannan writes widely about this e.g. http://www.hannan.co.uk/britains-obsolescent-congl...

And how does that differ from lobbying in the UK? A clue: it doesn't.

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

This is also true, but sadly a necessity. Many technical standards are developed by consultative committees which are largely influenced by people who are employed by big corporates, but it's largely the only workable solution. The standards are developed and published for all to see and work to, so the corporates may get a head start but largely everyone benefits from their advantage as the reasoning's behind the development of the regulation is usually sound. And don't think that they always get what they want, many committees and consultative bodies are shouting matches of shared and divided interests which becomes a democratic mandate.

There are massive advantages to consistent technical standards etc. - no-one is suggesting that we wouldn't still implement the majority of EU requirements, where these are deemed appropriate/

However, if 94% of UK businesses do not trade with the EU then requiring them to comply with EU rules does seem somewhat excessive and inefficient. Of course our government might still choose to apply some of those rules.

[chrispmartha]

Puggit said:

footnote said:

But staying on topic I really would like to know what and why are the regulations (other than immigration) that Leavers object to?

I'm not taking the piss - I really can't think of anything imposed on me from the EU that genuinely affects my life for the worse that I can get hacked off at the EU about.

Speak to small business owners

Hi, small business owner here, EU regulation has never once been frustrating or a problem. What regulation am I supposed to be looking forward to getting of?

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

Hi, small business owner here, EU regulation has never once been frustrating or a problem. What regulation am I supposed to be looking forward to getting of?

Presumably it's highly dependent on the nature of your business.

[chrispmartha]

sidicks said:

chrispmartha said:

Hi, small business owner here, EU regulation has never once been frustrating or a problem. What regulation am I supposed to be looking forward to getting of?

Presumably it's highly dependent on the nature of your business.

I'm sure it is, so the broad brush statement of 'talk to small business owners' is nonsense really.

[stuartmmcfc]

Rovinghawk said:

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 have to say the Miele we bought a few months ago is the best vacuum we've ever had.

[CrutyRammers]

wst said:

Esseesse said:

I don't think anyones care who made the regs. You may think they're for your own good and be happy to be treated like a child. Wherever possible I would rather be free to make a judgement on whether something is too dangerous/risky.

What's wrong with regulations? I like knowing that I can plug electrical things in without them catching fire, because they conform to an armload of regulations that ensure this.

Electrical regs are one of the things where the UK gos our own way. Have you seen wiring on the continent?

"Regulation" is a bit of a deceptive word as well. An EU regulation is an instrument which becomes law in each country without it going through parliament, not just a rule about product safety or whatever.

The Ports regulation is one recent one, which, from what I can see, everyone in the UK (unions, the governments, the port owners) are agreed will be bad for the UK and UK business.:
http://www.hannan.co.uk/eu-officials-all-at-sea-ov...

[CrutyRammers]

sidicks said:

FredClogs said:

This is also true, but sadly a necessity. Many technical standards are developed by consultative committees which are largely influenced by people who are employed by big corporates, but it's largely the only workable solution. The standards are developed and published for all to see and work to, so the corporates may get a head start but largely everyone benefits from their advantage as the reasoning's behind the development of the regulation is usually sound. And don't think that they always get what they want, many committees and consultative bodies are shouting matches of shared and divided interests which becomes a democratic mandate.

There are massive advantages to consistent technical standards etc. - no-one is suggesting that we wouldn't still implement the majority of EU requirements, where these are deemed appropriate/

However, if 94% of UK businesses do not trade with the EU then requiring them to comply with EU rules does seem somewhat excessive and inefficient. Of course our government might still choose to apply some of those rules.

And technical standards, of course, do not tend to originate from the EU itself, but from higher up bodies where the EU has but one seat, representing all of its members.

[maffski]

It would be nice to get away from this sort of thing (guidance notes for EC Directive 2001/113 relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and
sweetened chestnut puree intended for human consumption):

Food Standards Agency said:

Only those ingredients specified in
Schedule 2 may be added to jam, extra jam, jelly, extra jelly, marmalade
and jelly marmalade... ...However, the name of such a food could include the words
‘conserve’ or ‘preserve’. For example, a product made of raspberry jam
and cider (which is not covered in the list of permitted additional
ingredients), could be called ‘raspberry and cider conserve’.

There's a specific list of ingredients you can use in 'jam' - add anything not on that list and it isn't jam. Dare to call this 'Raspberry and Cider Jam' or 'Raspberry Jam with Cider' and it's a £5,000 fine.

Why not just let people sell things, and if we don't like them we won't buy them again. The rules should for things like ingredients and allergy labelling, and dangerous ingredients which can't be used.

[wc98]

common fisheries policy rules that are supposed to lead to sustainable commercial fishing .they actually lead to half a million tonnes plus of perfectly edible and saleable fish fish being dumped back over the side dead every year.

the solution to this is to stop dumping these fish, thereby doubling the production of the uk fleet without catching one single more fish over and above what is already caught. with uk fisheries products being mostly export this would be good for the country all round. it would also create significantly more jobs in the processing industry.

[Hosenbugler]

CrutyRammers said:

The Ports regulation is one recent one, which, from what I can see, everyone in the UK (unions, the governments, the port owners) are agreed will be bad for the UK and UK business.:
http://www.hannan.co.uk/eu-officials-all-at-sea-ov...

Glad you posted that , I was just about to go off and find reference to it.

Fact is, not all EU regs will be harmfull , some will make sense, some will not suit us, like the one quoted above. The simple prospect remains, that in the eU we can have such forced upon us , however, as we are leaving, we will be able to pick and choose those regs we keep and the ones we do not, to suit our national interest.

[handpaper]

FredClogs said:

Part of my job is designing and testing electronics to certain standards and regulations, some of these are customer or industry specific and some are "government" mandated standards, US or EU or Australian it doesn't really make much difference but if you want to sell electronic goods in certain regions you have to show compliance to certain standards (unless you're going for the car boot end of the market)

Of course they're all annoying at times and can be expensive to design to and test for but they're almost always necessary to ensure either standards of interoperation, safety or quality.

I don't know about red tape in other industries but in engineering it would be to no ones benefit to just remove EU regulations in the medium to long term and restrict our ability (as small companies, corporate developers and as a nation) just just start knocking out ste.

Out of interest, how many of these standards are mutually exclusive? Is it impossible to build a device that is universally compliant?

[Efbe]

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.

yeah, but you are wrong

half the wattage doesn't mean half the suction.
Try a 2300w vs a 1100w. I say this as we have a whole range at home(due to me daftly buying 10 from an auction). The <=1200 vacuums have far better suction.
By limiting the wattage it has forced vacuum designers to actually focus on efficiency and good design to maintain production of a device that does the same thing.

[LambShank]

Perhaps many Leavers have their own horses - EU regulations state it is illegal to eat your own pet horse.
That's a valid reason for voting out if ever there was one.

[rscott]

Efbe said:

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.

yeah, but you are wrong

half the wattage doesn't mean half the suction.
Try a 2300w vs a 1100w. I say this as we have a whole range at home(due to me daftly buying 10 from an auction). The <=1200 vacuums have far better suction.
By limiting the wattage it has forced vacuum designers to actually focus on efficiency and good design to maintain production of a device that does the same thing.

indeed. look at some of the Sebo models, for example. Rather than having a stupidly powerful motor driving a turbobrush via air pressure alone, they have a lower powered motor, plus a separate electrically powered brush. Still comes in under the power limits, yet picks up better than almost anything else on the market.

[footnote]

crankedup said:

If we disagree with something we can chuck the Government out, unelected EU suits we can't. For me that has always been a major gripe.

I don't know about this. We can chuck our MPs out every 5 years - we can't chuck our civil servants out.

We can chuck our MEPs out but we can't chuck EU civil servants out.

Same as, same as.

Equally - the 'will of the people' in their wisdom was to elect MEPs who don't turn up and said they wouldn't turn up (if I understand the point of UKIP) so we can hardly blame anyone but ourselves if we haven't had a voice.

[NickGibbs]

skilly1 said:

I have a couple which have affected me, I believe they are EU lead:

1. Great crested newt protection. We have no shortage in the UK, but the rest of Europe does. So they slap a preservation order on them. This cost me around £30,000.
2. Wash down pad for golf machinery. I believe this is part of some European water legislation. Legislation that machines that are used for cutting grass have to be washed down in a closed circuit water system. Why, 100,000 mowers are used by people every day and they don't have too. Cars drive along wet roads every day and oil grease come off them and drains can manage. This would cost me around £20,000.

Well done for posting that. A genuine example (landscaping business?)
Let's here more. there has been a lack of examples of EU laws that negatively affect people. It would be good to hear more. Maybe farming?