What's so bad about EU regulation anyway?
Discussion
sidicks said:
footnote said:
Sorry, I think that went over my head - that's what you meant isn't it?
That the reality is that people didn't choose Leave because of regulations?
It's about the other stuff - the emotive stuff.
Perhaps you didn't mean that.
I'm actually doing the vacuuming at the moment! It's probably a carp hoover - it's taking it out of me.
It's about a wife range of different things, some economic, some practical, some 'emotive'.That the reality is that people didn't choose Leave because of regulations?
It's about the other stuff - the emotive stuff.
Perhaps you didn't mean that.
I'm actually doing the vacuuming at the moment! It's probably a carp hoover - it's taking it out of me.
I didn't want to ask people abut the immigration issue for fear of stirring the racism pot so I wanted to know what it means 'being told what to do'
I've taken that to be unnecessary or disagreeable rules and regulations.
I've not found any EU rules or regs that affect me personally in a bad way - quite the contrary.
As people on PH are statistically more likely to be Leavers and generally like to read up on stuff, the perfect people I thought, to ask which regualtions actually are bad enough to make you want to leave.
But I don't think people really are revealing EU rules or regs which bug them personally.
Its some time ago now but I was involved in the working group which presented to the commission recommendation that became this.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri...
I can confirm it was defiantly a good thing. It even required a change in UK company law.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri...
I can confirm it was defiantly a good thing. It even required a change in UK company law.
footnote said:
sidicks said:
footnote said:
Of course and I know how I feel about it emotionally but 17m people seem to feel fundamentally different to me and when I see them on TV they say it's about immigration or being told what to do.
Don't believe the media...The fundamental issue is the extent to which it is necessary and desirable to apply homogenous regulations across the EU - where applying the same regulation across 28 countries and 500 million people means a compromise which might not be optimal for this one country of 64 million people. I suspect that if the EU had paid more attention to subsidiarity and localism, we might not have come to this pass.
NeilyWheelie said:
But they are not in constant fear if they are a good employee that does their job, are they? Unless theres a serious inter-company reason, why would you need to get rid of an employee unless they are useless?
The social charter is what has bought poor teachers to schools knowing that however crap they perform, the school will go through absolute hoops to keep them with them. The teacher knows this, so can do the very minimum and still go home and pay the mortgage. My other halfs school spent 16 months training and nurturing a teacher that somehow managed to pass an NQT, even though from day one it was clear she was not a competent teacher, let alone have suitable subject knowledge.
I run a small business, and am employed by another company. I want to employ someone to help me with my own business, and I don't have a bottomless pit of money to pay for someone not prepared to pull their weight. If I spend 3 or 4 months training them up and ultimately they sit in my office messing about on bookface all day, I want the ability to tell them to do one....not nurture them to find out why they choose to spend time on t'internet, rather than drumming up business for me. The same goes for my employer - if he thinks I am not pulling my weight, I totally understand that he would want to move me on and get someone else in.
I'm all for dismissing people who are poor at their job, I just didn't like the way that the guest in question was all for being able to sack someone on the spot even if they were the perfect employee. I'm as capitalist as they come, I understand that there are times businesses have to save money. No point it going bankrupt because they can't shed staff. It was just the implication that long term full time employees should basically become no more than temporary employees that I feel would be damaging to the overall economy, even if it would help some businesses in some situations.The social charter is what has bought poor teachers to schools knowing that however crap they perform, the school will go through absolute hoops to keep them with them. The teacher knows this, so can do the very minimum and still go home and pay the mortgage. My other halfs school spent 16 months training and nurturing a teacher that somehow managed to pass an NQT, even though from day one it was clear she was not a competent teacher, let alone have suitable subject knowledge.
I run a small business, and am employed by another company. I want to employ someone to help me with my own business, and I don't have a bottomless pit of money to pay for someone not prepared to pull their weight. If I spend 3 or 4 months training them up and ultimately they sit in my office messing about on bookface all day, I want the ability to tell them to do one....not nurture them to find out why they choose to spend time on t'internet, rather than drumming up business for me. The same goes for my employer - if he thinks I am not pulling my weight, I totally understand that he would want to move me on and get someone else in.
The situations surrounding the poorly performing teachers etc is terrible, but would I be right in thinking that is also a result of a shortage of labour? A lack of competition?
Surely in your example you'd be pretty safe dismissing the employee for poor conduct? Isn't it easier to dismiss staff in the first 2 years?
maffski said:
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):
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.
Didn't the supermarkets and food producers try that before? They considered 'Horse' better branded as 'Beef'... 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.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’.
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.
I'm another small business person who honestly cannot think of where an EU regulation affects me but I'm more sitting at a computer all day.
sidicks said:
Is that really what was being discussed?
Yes. From my recollection he gave the case of an imaginary small business with a few (say 3) employees, and how that business could be boosted by the ability to let one of those go at any time. The presented noted that surely that was where zero hour contracts come in to play, and how it is easier to let staff go in the first 2 years. I'm not saying that there was any merit in what the guest discussed, simply that when put on the spot the only EU regulation he could name that he wanted to abolish was the social charter
Rovinghawk said:
footnote said:
Fundamentally, I agree with remaining in the EU............
But you have a different view?
I'm EU- rather than UK-born. I speak French & German, can understand many of the other languages.But you have a different view?
I've worked in France, Germany, Holland, Finland, Latvia & Switzerland (not EU but you see where I'm going). I've had GFs from all those countries.
I should be more pro-EU than the average. However, my view is that whilst the concept is admirable the reality is not. One size does not fit all very well and various factions will want regulations to suit themselves rather than the rest; an example is CAP rules massively favouring the French.
I want us to have the flexibility to choose which regulations suit us & which don't. We can cooperate whilst still being independent.
Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?
biggles330d said:
Do you really think the UK Government is going to be more generous to the farmers from UK taxation than CAP is? It might favour French Farmers but they carry a lot of influence which has benefitted UK farmers. I can see very quickly a lot of noisy farmers faced with many more cheap imports (yes, that was promised with access to more global markets) and a drastically lower subsidy settlement from Government than they're used to. I'm staggered at how many farmers voted out as they seem to have the most to loose along with the Welsh steel workers and northern automotive workers.
Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?
If we're not subsidising the French we have scope to increase subsidies to our farmers, if considered appropriate.Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?
Rovinghawk said:
footnote said:
I've not found any EU rules or regs that affect me personally in a bad way
So the ports thing isn't a bad regulation because it doesn't affect you personally? You seem to be moving the goalposts.The first objection in your mind was vacuum cleaners so you can hardly call me out on altruism.
If you followed my thoughts on the 'ports thing' I expressed concerns for the effect on employees which you seem unbothered about.
Nor was the ports issue even on the agenda when Leavers were interviewed in Yarmouth this morning and Boston yesterday.
Of course, they obviously knew about it and voted on those grounds but chose not to mention it
But then you still haven't managed to answer the OP anyway, have you?
biggles330d said:
Do you really think the UK Government is going to be more generous to the farmers from UK taxation than CAP is? It might favour French Farmers but they carry a lot of influence which has benefitted UK farmers. I can see very quickly a lot of noisy farmers faced with many more cheap imports (yes, that was promised with access to more global markets) and a drastically lower subsidy settlement from Government than they're used to. I'm staggered at how many farmers voted out as they seem to have the most to loose along with the Welsh steel workers and northern automotive workers.
Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?
So you think it's ok to keep food prices artificially high and to pay farmers to not farm?Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?
Maybe the farmers feel they'd be better off, in more ways than one, if government simply gave them a level playing field and let them get on with it.
sidicks said:
biggles330d said:
Do you really think the UK Government is going to be more generous to the farmers from UK taxation than CAP is? It might favour French Farmers but they carry a lot of influence which has benefitted UK farmers. I can see very quickly a lot of noisy farmers faced with many more cheap imports (yes, that was promised with access to more global markets) and a drastically lower subsidy settlement from Government than they're used to. I'm staggered at how many farmers voted out as they seem to have the most to loose along with the Welsh steel workers and northern automotive workers.
Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?
If we're not subsidising the French we have scope to increase subsidies to our farmers, if considered appropriate.Maybe turkeys do actually vote for Christmas?
We could use that money from the tax on migrant fruit-pickers wages, sorry, they've gone haven't they?
Still, at least there's lost of jobs for the young English unemployed now - I bet they can't wait to get their backs into it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff