What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?
Discussion
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.
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.
PRTVR said:
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.
I'm sorry, 'the small amount'? The point is EU regulation. To put it simply if there wasn't EU regulation there would be an UK one. As there is a USA one, as there is Canada one, as there is a New Zealand one. To me it looks like centralised service. Perfectly fine with that. And i'd rather trust civil/service and/or eurocrats than random people on the internet. If your background is in organic chemistry and you have researched this particular subject, fair enough. Otherwise, my point stands.
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.
Would it make a difference if it was UK regulation? Let's take your example. How would it differ if that same regulation was conceived in Whitehall. You'd still have the same problem of time. And I doubt that you could change that at the ballot box. Saying all that I don't remember last time I had a dry joint, bar one amplifier board but that one was imported from China. 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.
Still one of the better points about regulation impact. Not sure that source of that regulation is very relevant.
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 think I can agree on this point. ROHS legislation has been painful for my current company, but we are now through it and are completely lead free and supplying into the aerospace market. The overall benefit of ROHS and WEEE requirements has added cost, but the health benefits are undeniable. Removing lead from petrol was also extremely controversial at the time, I seem to remember and caused much heart-ache amongst classic car owners (even now!).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.
The ROHS regulations are 'slowly' being absorbed into other countries (USA, in particular California).
The USA can have its own onerous requirements like Conflict Minerals which has cost our company too. And this is likely to be adopted by the EU shortly - hopefully in the same format as the US rather than the EUs own variation.
These new requirements are for the benefit of us all though. It is like the pain many years ago of converting from leaded paint, CFCs, changing from asbestos in brake pads/ building materials and the restrictions on certifying vermiculite due to health scares in the 90s. Progress in my eyes.
Mike
PRTVR said:
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.
That 'small amount' is magnified many times to those of us that use the paint everyday, all day.Having started using paints just as lead was being phased out, I'm glad VOC's have been reduced by whichever eurocrat decided it.
That it renders some of today's paints slightly poorer than those of the past, is probably a price worth paying for our overall health benefits.
,k
And i'd rather trust civil/service and/or eurocrats than random people on the internet. If your background is in organic chemistry and you have researched this particular subject, fair enough. Otherwise, my point stands.Part of a team commissioning one of the largest VOC recovery plant in Europe, and my point was people are exposed to more VOCs when they fill up with petrol which is more frequently carried out than painting.
jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
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.
I'm sorry, 'the small amount'? The point is EU regulation. To put it simply if there wasn't EU regulation there would be an UK one. As there is a USA one, as there is Canada one, as there is a New Zealand one. To me it looks like centralised service. Perfectly fine with that. And i'd rather trust civil/service and/or eurocrats than random people on the internet. If your background is in organic chemistry and you have researched this particular subject, fair enough. Otherwise, my point stands.
PRTVR said:
Part of a team commissioning one of the largest VOC recovery plant in Europe, and my point was people are exposed to more VOCs when they fill up with petrol which is more frequently carried out than painting.
Please read post above yours. And one above that too. I understand that it's quite fashionable to 'wing-it'. I take more comfort especially when it comes to well-being of my family that someone somewhere spent time thinking about it. It doesn't mean that it's fool-proof. I'm aware of that, but it's definitely better than listening to bloke in the put. I still don't understand why would EU regulation be more taxing than UK one. To me it's just outsourcing stuff that someone somewhere can do more efficiently than me.
LambShank said:
PRTVR said:
Part of a team commissioning one of the largest VOC recovery plant in Europe, and my point was people are exposed to more VOCs when they fill up with petrol which is more frequently carried out than painting.
That depends how economical ones work van is 
jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
Part of a team commissioning one of the largest VOC recovery plant in Europe, and my point was people are exposed to more VOCs when they fill up with petrol which is more frequently carried out than painting.
Please read post above yours. And one above that too. I understand that it's quite fashionable to 'wing-it'. I take more comfort especially when it comes to well-being of my family that someone somewhere spent time thinking about it. It doesn't mean that it's fool-proof. I'm aware of that, but it's definitely better than listening to bloke in the put. I still don't understand why would EU regulation be more taxing than UK one. To me it's just outsourcing stuff that someone somewhere can do more efficiently than me.
PRTVR said:
Its all about risk analysis and risk managment, if the people who are exceeding the safe limit for exposure are professional painters make trade paint voc free, and require them use them and if anybody did not want to take the minimal risk they could also buy trade paint, a blanket ban that makes the paint less effective for the normal person who is exposed to the risk maybe once a year is madness, but the nanny state prefers a blanket ban its easier but more efficient? I think not.
You are complaining about over-regulation, but take a step back. Instead of simplifying things, you now want different paints (presumably regulated differently) for pros and diyers? You think another set of regulation is necessary to counter nanny-state? Given that the other states, as shown above, have the pretty much identical regulation, do you think that regulation from UK would be any different?
LambShank said:
PRTVR said:
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.
That 'small amount' is magnified many times to those of us that use the paint everyday, all day.Having started using paints just as lead was being phased out, I'm glad VOC's have been reduced by whichever eurocrat decided it.
That it renders some of today's paints slightly poorer than those of the past, is probably a price worth paying for our overall health benefits.
But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
As an example, I have just bought 10 Vacuum cleaners (don't ask) some are c2300w, and some c1100w, the former being prior to the EU legislation, and the others after.
You would expect the 2300w ones to have more suction. They don't. The 1100w ones work better, and lighter, use less electricity and are quieter.
The manufacturers were being lazy previously. It was easier to keep on doing the same thing, and I assume cheaper. Now three is an incentive to progress, which gives the end user better vacuum cleaners.
There will be legislation that doesn't work for everyone, but from what I have seen, most of the EU Regs have been beneficial.
Efbe said:
I agree,
But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
As an example, I have just bought 10 Vacuum cleaners (don't ask) some are c2300w, and some c1100w, the former being prior to the EU legislation, and the others after.
You would expect the 2300w ones to have more suction. They don't. The 1100w ones work better, and lighter, use less electricity and are quieter.
The manufacturers were being lazy previously. It was easier to keep on doing the same thing, and I assume cheaper. Now three is an incentive to progress, which gives the end user better vacuum cleaners.
There will be legislation that doesn't work for everyone, but from what I have seen, most of the EU Regs have been beneficial.
Once you start reading about airspeed meters on hot air balloons (SERIOUSLY?) and bent cucumbers it's quite obvious that people just want to have a whinge. Funny thread.But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
As an example, I have just bought 10 Vacuum cleaners (don't ask) some are c2300w, and some c1100w, the former being prior to the EU legislation, and the others after.
You would expect the 2300w ones to have more suction. They don't. The 1100w ones work better, and lighter, use less electricity and are quieter.
The manufacturers were being lazy previously. It was easier to keep on doing the same thing, and I assume cheaper. Now three is an incentive to progress, which gives the end user better vacuum cleaners.
There will be legislation that doesn't work for everyone, but from what I have seen, most of the EU Regs have been beneficial.
jjlynn27 said:
Please read post above yours. And one above that too. I understand that it's quite fashionable to 'wing-it'. I take more comfort especially when it comes to well-being of my family that someone somewhere spent time thinking about it. It doesn't mean that it's fool-proof. I'm aware of that, but it's definitely better than listening to bloke in the put.
I still don't understand why would EU regulation be more taxing than UK one. To me it's just outsourcing stuff that someone somewhere can do more efficiently than me.
I think this is a fundamental point that was completely missed by the remain spokespeople. Obviously I don't have any numbers but I imagine it must be an order of magnitude cheaper to research, propose, legislate and implement a regulation for 350 million people in one block than for each country to do the same and come up with roughly the same but maybe slightly different conclusions and implementations. 28 countries each doing the same thing. Rather than freeing up £350M it will probably cost us dear. The remain people should have been able to put some real numbers to this cost.I still don't understand why would EU regulation be more taxing than UK one. To me it's just outsourcing stuff that someone somewhere can do more efficiently than me.
V8RX7 said:
Efbe said:
But it doesn't mean that paint will be less effective. The companies will just find a different way of doing it, for which they had no incentive to do before.
But it IS less effective - the water based is rubbish and the oil based goes yellow in weeks.
Same with CFCs, we just needed a different and better way of doing it.
Dr Jekyll said:
jjlynn27 said:
Once you start reading about airspeed meters on hot air balloons (SERIOUSLY?)
It was a very serious proposal, eventually thrown out.How close to the windspeed to airballoons go? are that just below, or a lot below?
Should the air balloon be above the cloud base, and so no ground reference, would this airspeed indicator combined with the local METAR/TAF data help you calculate your position in the absence of a GPS unit, for which I am sure every balloon will have anyway
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.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.
The notion that all of this red tape is somehow going to disappear is utterly absurd!
I suspect that moving forward, we'll probably automatically adopt any EU legislation that applies to anything British businesses might wish to sell on EU markets to keep costs down (but no longer have a voice in designing that legislation), but have even more red tape over the top of that for stuff which only applies in country.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff