What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?

[Efbe]

Hosenbugler said:

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.

genuine question...

for regs such as the ports one, have we had the chance to vote against it?
is it that we have useless MEPs, or do they not have a choice?

[footnote]

NickGibbs said:

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?

I'm not in the commercial grass-cutting business so no expert on this.
http://www.bigga.org.uk/about-us/magazine/back-iss...

But my understanding is that the legislation is to prevent 'you' as a business, polluting the water table with chemicals used commercially.

The regulation is there to protect me 'Joe Public' from you 'Joe Business' using chemicals to improve your business but which could harm me?

I don't have a problem with that. I'm all for it. Pass the expenses on to golf club users.

I can see a business would grumble.

But then no doubt some businesses grumbled when they said you can't pour engine oil down the drain either.

[Puggit]

Efbe said:

genuine question...

for regs such as the ports one, have we had the chance to vote against it?
is it that we have useless MEPs, or do they not have a choice?

I haven't looked in to the ports one, but some EU laws are passed as 'regulations'. Once created by the (unelected) commission, they are automatically passed in to law in each country.

Some laws are passed as 'directives' - these are then left to individual member states to implement.

[rover 623gsi]

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.

Gold Crested Newts are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 consolidates a bunch of regulations that were borne out of the 1992 EU Habiitats Directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043).

So, if/when we leave the EU, we will no longer be beholden to the Habitats Directive. But we will continue to beholden to the Coservations of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 - so Gold Crested Newts will still be protected. Unless of course we, as a society, decide that this no longer necessary at which some point the regulation will get changed. I can't see it being a priority post-Brexit but it want to lobby your MP I'm sure he/she will look into it for you.

[StottyEvo]

The two wealthiest people I know to my surprise are both strong advocates of leave. Well, ones opinion is "we should've never fking joined in the first place" followed by a rant of how much paperwork he'd had to fill in over the years. What both people have in common is that most of their trade isn't with the EU, its with Taiwan/China and the other literally ships all over the world.

They've expressed anger at the trade tariff's especially as one of them imports raw material for manufacture. I haven't discussed in detail but I imagine he can get the raw material cheaper without being in the EU, allowing him to pass these savings onto his customers.

[NickGibbs]

here's another, industry view on the ports angle. Does seem like we were getting a poor deal.
http://container-mag.com/2016/03/09/european-parli...

Keep em coming. I'm was a remainer, but the more we see of stuff like this, the more positive I'll be

[footnote]

rover 623gsi said:

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.

Gold Crested Newts are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 consolidates a bunch of regulations that were borne out of the 1992 EU Habiitats Directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043).

So, if/when we leave the EU, we will no longer be beholden to the Habitats Directive. But we will continue to beholden to the Coservations of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 - so Gold Crested Newts will still be protected. Unless of course we, as a society, decide that this no longer necessary at which some point the regulation will get changed. I can't see it being a priority post-Brexit but it want to lobby your MP I'm sure he/she will look into it for you.

I have to say I agree.

Weighing up the Gold Crested Newt grumble against the positive effects of EU regulation for me and most citizens, isn't really making the case for Leaving, for me.

[skilly1]

footnote said:

I have to say I agree.

Weighing up the Gold Crested Newt grumble against the positive effects of EU regulation for me and most citizens, isn't really making the case for Leaving, for me.

I was not saying it was a case for leaving, the OP asked how EU regulations had affected us.

[Rovinghawk]

footnote said:

Weighing up the Gold Crested Newt grumble against the positive effects of EU regulation for me and most citizens, isn't really making the case for Leaving, for me.

In isolation it's not a biggie.

There's more to be weighed in the balance; how do you feel about the ports thing? Or is your view entrenched rather than susceptible to persuasion?

[CrutyRammers]

Efbe said:

Hosenbugler said:

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.

genuine question...

for regs such as the ports one, have we had the chance to vote against it?
is it that we have useless MEPs, or do they not have a choice?

From memory, the UK has managed to block it 3 times, but it has come back again and again and got forced through the 4th time despite our opposition. We were outvoted, to our detriment.

[mattmurdock]

Efbe said:

Hosenbugler said:

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.

genuine question...

for regs such as the ports one, have we had the chance to vote against it?
is it that we have useless MEPs, or do they not have a choice?

All EU regulations will have been proposed by the Commission, then amended as necessary by the Parliament (i.e. the elected MEPs) and the Council (i.e. the elected Heads of State). For a regulation to take effect, both those elected bodies will have to have approved it. If they don't, it never happens.

Some member states have vetos over some aspects of legislation. The Lisbon treaty introduced more majority voting to try and avoid deadlocks where a couple of member states were deliberately blocking something, but it is what is called Qualified Majority Voting, so the bigger countries (like us) had more voting weight.

So, if there are a lot of regulations that people think we should never have voted for, it is down to useless MEPs in the main.

Edited by mattmurdock on Friday 1st July 12:01

[rover 623gsi]

skilly1 said:

footnote said:

I have to say I agree.

Weighing up the Gold Crested Newt grumble against the positive effects of EU regulation for me and most citizens, isn't really making the case for Leaving, for me.

I was not saying it was a case for leaving, the OP asked how EU regulations had affected us.

The point is, that is no longer an EU regulation but a British one and this is the case with most of the many thousands of regulations that exist on our statute books. So, if/when we leave the EU we are going to continue operating under these same regulations until such time as they get amended. I think that in the end very few of them will get changed, and for those that do, it will take years anyway.

[footnote]

Rovinghawk said:

footnote said:

Weighing up the Gold Crested Newt grumble against the positive effects of EU regulation for me and most citizens, isn't really making the case for Leaving, for me.

In isolation it's not a biggie.

There's more to be weighed in the balance; how do you feel about the ports thing? Or is your view entrenched rather than susceptible to persuasion?

Fundamentally, I agree with remaining in the EU. Mainly because I grew up with it and on principle I believe, in all aspects of life, co-operation, negotiation and joint action is preferable to people just doing what they want individually. I'm persuaded by the view that a united Europe has a major part to play in the maintaining of the peace between the EU countries and against other aggressors. I want peace in my time and for future generations. I don't see a divided Europe as being in any way beyond war in the future.

It's interesting that the UK is the only country which has privately run ports - this is an interesting document -
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cac...

especially this point:
Since the abolition of the National Dock
Labour Scheme in 1989, stevedoring
companies employ a core workforce and run
their own recruitment agencies to satisfy
peaks in labour demand. It has been argued
that the abolition of the scheme was not a
complete success as it led to a decrease in
welfare provisions for dock workers. The
productivity of port workers in UK ports has
generally increased. However, some
experts8 claim that it is not at all clear how
much of the productivity gains came from
abolishing the scheme and how much has
been passed on to port users and
consumers. Others9 assert that UK ports are
now "locked in a vicious spiral of cost-cutting,
based predominantly on reducing labour
costs" and that the UK experience provides
few arguments to support full privatisation
when other less radical reforms could have
achieved the same objectives.

Like most UK citizens I'm probably never going to be a 'major employer' so I tend to take the view in life that it's the individual who largely needs to be protected from the bigger corporations etc. The EU doesn't seem to be my enemy in this.

But you have a different view?

[don4l]

Why do we need a European Parliament at all?

No other free trade area has a Parliament.

[williamp]

here's one example, written by the leftie Uber Guardian writer George Monbiot (I get the feeling if anyone quotes the mail in this thread, it will be ignored)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...

Then there's the decision of the EU to pay Ford (with our money) to move Transit production away from Southampton (in the UK) and into Turkey (not in the EU) to help job creation in Turkey (not in the EU).

There are others (the Telegraph did a quiz herehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howabou...

and remember there are others which have been repelled. But remember there are people-paid for by us- who think up these things. And there are more then 10,000 EU officials who earn more then the UK Prime Minister.

One of the reasons I voted leave is because the EU is too big and no longer fit four purpose. But it refuses to acknowledge this

[EnglishTony]

Re the Great Crested Newts - 10 secs on Google debunked that load of old tosh. Next time somebody tells you it's an EU regulation Google it 1st & find out what the truth is.

& so onto Mower wash down regs :-

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 , the Groundwater Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 or The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013, which all legislate against the discharge of contaminated water into the water environment.

In short, Mr Trump & your dodgy golf courses in Scotland, stop blaming the EU.

[footnote]

williamp said:

here's one example, written by the leftie Uber Guardian writer George Monbiot (I get the feeling if anyone quotes the mail in this thread, it will be ignored)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...

Then there's the decision of the EU to pay Ford (with our money) to move Transit production away from Southampton (in the UK) and into Turkey (not in the EU) to help job creation in Turkey (not in the EU).

There are others (the Telegraph did a quiz herehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howabou...

and remember there are others which have been repelled. But remember there are people-paid for by us- who think up these things. And there are more then 10,000 EU officials who earn more then the UK Prime Minister.

One of the reasons I voted leave is because the EU is too big and no longer fit four purpose. But it refuses to acknowledge this

Perhaps I've misunderstood your post - but that Guardian article says this:

I’m talking about farm subsidies. If the Brexiters have raised the subject at all, it’s only to assure recipients that these vast sums will continue to be extracted from taxpayers’ pockets if Britain leaves. Some – such as Theresa Villiers and Owen Paterson – have suggested that the great giveaway of public funds could even be increased.

This racket is perhaps the strongest of all arguments for leaving the European Union, but the Brexiters’ silence resounds. Among the 13 Conservative MPs who signed an open letter last week undertaking not to cut subsidies for owning or leasing land if Britain leaves the union was Iain Duncan Smith. His wife’s family’s estate, on which he lives, receives £150,000 a year of your money, handed to them by the EU.

I think that suggests that, even having left the EU, the Govt has every intention of spending UK tax money to replace EU farm subsidies - yu can't blame the EU for that.

[Getragdogleg]

How about the regulation that altered all the wide angle mirrors on our trucks so they had to have a certain curve to them that happened to be different to what we had before meaning we had to change out all the wide angle mirrors across the fleet ? This gem led to the drivers complaining that the reflected image was so distorted it was harder to see anything in the mirrors and that they all preferred the old ones.

The Regulation that set the EU speed limit for trucks at 90kph when our own limit is 60mph, the EU limit is the one our limiters is set to so even though we are technically allowed to do 60mph we can only do 55.9mph.

Or the Working time directive that makes you log all the hours you work are on break or simply available for work ? This is done every day and has so far in the last 6 or 7 years never ever been looked at by an official yet needs to be kept for years.

This last one is doubly insane because the weeks of work must be grouped into 17 week periods and an average taken so as to make sure you work less than 48 hours. the 17 week period is to be viewed as random so you can take a block of any 17 weeks and it ought to be 48 hours or less. Except if you have a day off its 0 hours that day but if you take a week off its logged as 48 hours. My average is around 40 to 42 hours a week but if I take a couple of weeks off my average goes UP because of the 48s added.

This working time directive is different from our domestic drivers hours regulations so its possible to be legal on one but not the other.

[230TE]

A lot of the EU-derived regulation, the environmental stuff anyway, seems to be aimed at giving manufacturers a hefty shove in the right direction by introducing standards that cannot be met without technical innovation. The Americans I think invented that idea in the 70s - they introduced new standards for vehicle emissions, all the US manufacturers said "we can't possibly meet those", and Honda fiddled about with combustion chambers and came back with the 1st gen Civic. So it's not necessarily a bad thing, provided the legislation doesn't get too far ahead of the available technology. Otherwise you end up with something like the VW diesel shambles.

[vonuber]

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.

1) as noted above comes under existing uk legislation
2) is based on volume and risk. It's the same reason why you don't need an interceptor on a driveway but you do in a car park or loading bay. The regs are about protecting groundwater that you drink and also from watercompanies so we don't detroy their treatment works. Entirely sensible legislation that was in place without the EU. All the EU have done is set higher targets for water quality in an attempt to improve the quality of Europe's rivers and aquifers- you know the place where we get our drinking water from.