What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
Wow, please don't do things for me, thanks.
I asked which regulation has an impact on your everyday life. Comparison with free speech is nonsense and you know it.
This is not about laws, this is about regulations, examples were given over and over again. You are conflating the two in order to avoid the question; which regulation is having impact on your life. You are free to continue the dodge. You find things frightening? Not sure that I could help with that.
Once again, we are talking about regulations. If they are not made in brux, they'll be made here. If we want to export stuff to single market, our regulations will have to match theirs.
You can either answer these questions, or you can do 'I'll defend the right of a free speech of others' dance.
What proportion of UK businesses export to the EU?I asked which regulation has an impact on your everyday life. Comparison with free speech is nonsense and you know it.
This is not about laws, this is about regulations, examples were given over and over again. You are conflating the two in order to avoid the question; which regulation is having impact on your life. You are free to continue the dodge. You find things frightening? Not sure that I could help with that.
Once again, we are talking about regulations. If they are not made in brux, they'll be made here. If we want to export stuff to single market, our regulations will have to match theirs.
You can either answer these questions, or you can do 'I'll defend the right of a free speech of others' dance.
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Wow, please don't do things for me, thanks.
I asked which regulation has an impact on your everyday life. Comparison with free speech is nonsense and you know it.
This is not about laws, this is about regulations, examples were given over and over again. You are conflating the two in order to avoid the question; which regulation is having impact on your life. You are free to continue the dodge. You find things frightening? Not sure that I could help with that.
Once again, we are talking about regulations. If they are not made in brux, they'll be made here. If we want to export stuff to single market, our regulations will have to match theirs.
You can either answer these questions, or you can do 'I'll defend the right of a free speech of others' dance.
What proportion of UK businesses export to the EU?I asked which regulation has an impact on your everyday life. Comparison with free speech is nonsense and you know it.
This is not about laws, this is about regulations, examples were given over and over again. You are conflating the two in order to avoid the question; which regulation is having impact on your life. You are free to continue the dodge. You find things frightening? Not sure that I could help with that.
Once again, we are talking about regulations. If they are not made in brux, they'll be made here. If we want to export stuff to single market, our regulations will have to match theirs.
You can either answer these questions, or you can do 'I'll defend the right of a free speech of others' dance.
how about the directives that drove us down the diseasel route ? increasing particulate emissions while attempting and failing to reduce the ru output of co2 , a harmless gas commonly known as plant food ? the same directives that added significant weight to sports motorcycles with catalytic converters (the mining of the minerals they contain also causes huge environmental issues) and a load of other emission control gubbins .
we can argue the benefits all day long but for me increasing engine efficiency was driving output of pollutants (co2 is not a pollutant) down anyway.
we can argue the benefits all day long but for me increasing engine efficiency was driving output of pollutants (co2 is not a pollutant) down anyway.
rscott said:
There's also the reverse to consider - if we have different regulations to the EU, then there's the likelihood it would drive up the price of any products sold to the UK as they'd be bespoke to our marketplace. Fine if we have an equivalent product produced in the UK to buy instead, bad otherwise..
Taking cars for example, does it cost Japan much more to make a car for the UK because they also right-hand drive? Just saying it's not as difficult as some try to make out, and also because international standards are converging outside the EU as well.wc98 said:
how about the directives that drove us down the diseasel route ? increasing particulate emissions while attempting and failing to reduce the ru output of co2 , a harmless gas commonly known as plant food ? the same directives that added significant weight to sports motorcycles with catalytic converters (the mining of the minerals they contain also causes huge environmental issues) and a load of other emission control gubbins .
we can argue the benefits all day long but for me increasing engine efficiency was driving output of pollutants (co2 is not a pollutant) down anyway.
I really don't get your posts. Please link the regulation that drove us 'down the diesel route' as I have no idea what you are on about.we can argue the benefits all day long but for me increasing engine efficiency was driving output of pollutants (co2 is not a pollutant) down anyway.
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
sidicks said:
What proportion of UK businesses export to the EU?
I'm sure that you are more than capable to google that.Regardless of how many businesses export to EU, exports to EU still account for 44% of all our exports. They'll all have to meet EU regs.
jjlynn27 said:
wc98 said:
how about the directives that drove us down the diseasel route ? increasing particulate emissions while attempting and failing to reduce the ru output of co2 , a harmless gas commonly known as plant food ? the same directives that added significant weight to sports motorcycles with catalytic converters (the mining of the minerals they contain also causes huge environmental issues) and a load of other emission control gubbins .
we can argue the benefits all day long but for me increasing engine efficiency was driving output of pollutants (co2 is not a pollutant) down anyway.
I really don't get your posts. Please link the regulation that drove us 'down the diesel route' as I have no idea what you are on about.we can argue the benefits all day long but for me increasing engine efficiency was driving output of pollutants (co2 is not a pollutant) down anyway.
jjlynn27 said:
I really don't get your posts. Please link the regulation that drove us 'down the diesel route' as I have no idea what you are on about.
sorry about that, i did notice it,particularly on the subject of eu rules wasting half a million tonnes of fish every year.i did not say regulation, i said directives. no doubt lobbied for by the auto industry at the outset.
The European Union played a key role on Kyoto Protocol’s entrance into force, and has been a front runner on the implementation of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within its territory.
http://www.jcer.net/index.php/jcer/article/view/47...
Diesel was a niche market in Europe until the mid-1990s, making up less than 10% of the car fleet. Diesels produce 15% less CO2 than petrol, but emit four times more nitrogen dioxide pollution (NO2) and 22 times more particulates - the tiny particles that penetrate the lungs, brain and heart.
Following the signing of the Kyoto protocol climate change agreement in 1997, most rich countries were legally obliged to reduce CO2 emissions by an average of 8% over 15 years.
Japanese and American car makers backed research into hybrid and electric cars, but the European commission was lobbied strongly by big German car makers BMW, Volkswagen and Daimler, to incentivise diesel. A switch to diesel was said by the industry to be a cheap and fast way to reduce the carbon emissions that drive climate change.
The subsequent EC 1998 Acea agreement with all European car makers was backed by then EU transport commissioner Neil Kinnock and UK environment secretary John Prescott. It committed passenger car-makers to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% over 10 years.
“It was practically an order to switch to diesel. The European car fleet was transformed from being almost entirely petrol to predominantly diesel. Britain, along with Germany, France and Italy, offered subsidies and sweeteners to persuade car makers and the public to buy diesel,” said Simon Birkett, director of the Clean Air London group.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/2...
The big European car manufacturers, dominated by those from Germany and followed closely by the French and Italian companies, vigorously lobbied European regulators and politicians to further the diesel cause, citing diesel's inherently low CO2 output relative to the gasoline engine. The car manufacturers' position was that diesels would be a quick, effective way to lower overall carbon emissions, which was already the primary pollution concern.
Behind the scene, European manufacturers had already gained a big advantage in diesel engine development and saw the opportunity to bring a very favorable product to market. To complete the large incentive toward diesels, EU governments also manipulated the price of diesel fuel itself, keeping it below gasoline. They also taxed the registration of diesel-powered passenger cars at a much lower rate.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2015/10/diesel-how-i...
PositronicRay said:
Catalytic converters were driven by the USA, they then became an international standard. Prior to this European manufactures were developing different tech. Europe opposed them.
Not quite true. Germany was in favour and France went along with it. The UK and the Italians opposed them - preferring instead to go down the lean burn/low consumption route (something that, at the time, a Cat engined car could not do) PositronicRay said:
Catalytic converters were driven by the USA, they then became an international standard. Prior to this European manufactures were developing different tech. Europe opposed them.
they were driven by self interest groups that saw an opportunity to make money aided and abetted by the ecomenatlist lunacy that is california.wc98 said:
jjlynn27 said:
I really don't get your posts. Please link the regulation that drove us 'down the diesel route' as I have no idea what you are on about.
sorry about that, i did notice it,particularly on the subject of eu rules wasting half a million tonnes of fish every year.i did not say regulation, i said directives. no doubt lobbied for by the auto industry at the outset.
The European Union played a key role on Kyoto Protocol’s entrance into force, and has been a front runner on the implementation of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within its territory.
http://www.jcer.net/index.php/jcer/article/view/47...
Diesel was a niche market in Europe until the mid-1990s, making up less than 10% of the car fleet. Diesels produce 15% less CO2 than petrol, but emit four times more nitrogen dioxide pollution (NO2) and 22 times more particulates - the tiny particles that penetrate the lungs, brain and heart.
Following the signing of the Kyoto protocol climate change agreement in 1997, most rich countries were legally obliged to reduce CO2 emissions by an average of 8% over 15 years.
Japanese and American car makers backed research into hybrid and electric cars, but the European commission was lobbied strongly by big German car makers BMW, Volkswagen and Daimler, to incentivise diesel. A switch to diesel was said by the industry to be a cheap and fast way to reduce the carbon emissions that drive climate change.
The subsequent EC 1998 Acea agreement with all European car makers was backed by then EU transport commissioner Neil Kinnock and UK environment secretary John Prescott. It committed passenger car-makers to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% over 10 years.
“It was practically an order to switch to diesel. The European car fleet was transformed from being almost entirely petrol to predominantly diesel. Britain, along with Germany, France and Italy, offered subsidies and sweeteners to persuade car makers and the public to buy diesel,” said Simon Birkett, director of the Clean Air London group.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/2...
The big European car manufacturers, dominated by those from Germany and followed closely by the French and Italian companies, vigorously lobbied European regulators and politicians to further the diesel cause, citing diesel's inherently low CO2 output relative to the gasoline engine. The car manufacturers' position was that diesels would be a quick, effective way to lower overall carbon emissions, which was already the primary pollution concern.
Behind the scene, European manufacturers had already gained a big advantage in diesel engine development and saw the opportunity to bring a very favorable product to market. To complete the large incentive toward diesels, EU governments also manipulated the price of diesel fuel itself, keeping it below gasoline. They also taxed the registration of diesel-powered passenger cars at a much lower rate.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2015/10/diesel-how-i...
Kyoto? What?
Afaik diesels are lot more popular in UK then EU (could be wrong), even taking disparity of prices between UK and the continent.
You are still trying to engineer your case. And I'm still not sure what that case might be, taking into account the title of this thread.
more specific this time for those not inclined to big picture views.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulati...
In May 2013, the European Commission announced the so-called Plant Reproductive Material Law, an Orwellian directive that would make it illegal to "grow, reproduce or trade" any vegetable seeds that have not been "tested, approved and accepted" by a new EU bureaucracy named the EU Plant Variety Agency. The new law would give Brussels authority over all plants and seeds bought and sold in all 28 EU member states, and would prohibit home gardeners from growing their own plants from non-regulated seeds. Critics say the new law is an effort by the EU to gain "total domination of the food supply."
"This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control," according to Ben Gabel, director of the UK-based Real Seed Catalogue. "All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while interfering with the right of people to grow what they want, and charging fees for the use of plants that were domesticated and bred by the public over thousands of years of small-scale agriculture," says Gabel.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/pressro...
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulati...
In May 2013, the European Commission announced the so-called Plant Reproductive Material Law, an Orwellian directive that would make it illegal to "grow, reproduce or trade" any vegetable seeds that have not been "tested, approved and accepted" by a new EU bureaucracy named the EU Plant Variety Agency. The new law would give Brussels authority over all plants and seeds bought and sold in all 28 EU member states, and would prohibit home gardeners from growing their own plants from non-regulated seeds. Critics say the new law is an effort by the EU to gain "total domination of the food supply."
"This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control," according to Ben Gabel, director of the UK-based Real Seed Catalogue. "All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while interfering with the right of people to grow what they want, and charging fees for the use of plants that were domesticated and bred by the public over thousands of years of small-scale agriculture," says Gabel.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/pressro...
wc98 said:
more specific this time for those not inclined to big picture views.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulati...
In May 2013, the European Commission announced the so-called Plant Reproductive Material Law, an Orwellian directive that would make it illegal to "grow, reproduce or trade" any vegetable seeds that have not been "tested, approved and accepted" by a new EU bureaucracy named the EU Plant Variety Agency. The new law would give Brussels authority over all plants and seeds bought and sold in all 28 EU member states, and would prohibit home gardeners from growing their own plants from non-regulated seeds. Critics say the new law is an effort by the EU to gain "total domination of the food supply."
"This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control," according to Ben Gabel, director of the UK-based Real Seed Catalogue. "All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while interfering with the right of people to grow what they want, and charging fees for the use of plants that were domesticated and bred by the public over thousands of years of small-scale agriculture," says Gabel.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/pressro...
gatestone in 'total domination' shocker. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulati...
In May 2013, the European Commission announced the so-called Plant Reproductive Material Law, an Orwellian directive that would make it illegal to "grow, reproduce or trade" any vegetable seeds that have not been "tested, approved and accepted" by a new EU bureaucracy named the EU Plant Variety Agency. The new law would give Brussels authority over all plants and seeds bought and sold in all 28 EU member states, and would prohibit home gardeners from growing their own plants from non-regulated seeds. Critics say the new law is an effort by the EU to gain "total domination of the food supply."
"This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control," according to Ben Gabel, director of the UK-based Real Seed Catalogue. "All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while interfering with the right of people to grow what they want, and charging fees for the use of plants that were domesticated and bred by the public over thousands of years of small-scale agriculture," says Gabel.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/pressro...
Fine, you have a point there. Seeds for 'small scale-agriculture' also known as I have 4 by 6 allotment, and I'm really particular about which seed I'm going to use.
As I said, yes. that is bureaucracy gone out of control. It will probably affect the same number of people affected by hotballon airspeed meters.
wc98 said:
andymadmak said:
jjlynn27 said:
Afaik diesels are lot more popular in UK then EU (could be wrong), even taking disparity of prices between UK and the continent.
More wrong than a wrong thing that is very very wrong. 
WW came with an interesting example. I'm sure that there are 100s more good examples. I doubt that anyone is saying that EU is perfect, but it seems that people are saying that because it's not perfect we'd be better out of it.
I spoke with people abroad. Everyone seems to be perplexed. 'Why?' is the most common question.
rscott said:
There's also the reverse to consider - if we have different regulations to the EU, then there's the likelihood it would drive up the price of any products sold to the UK as they'd be bespoke to our marketplace. Fine if we have an equivalent product produced in the UK to buy instead, bad otherwise..
We have different regulations from the US, but we still manage to trade.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff