This is Bound to End in Tears

[Serial_Apologist]

OK - before I try to get a definitive answer (from where?) -

I want to know:

Are all UK laws currently subservient to EU laws?

Are some UK laws completely outside EU control?

I assume that some - possibly very many EU laws and UK laws are pretty much compatible, if not identical.

If there are differences between the EU and UK in terms of laws/rules/regulations, what are the scopes of those laws/rules/regulations?

For simplicity, I have used the word laws, where in some cases rules or regulations might be the appropriate words to use.

Basically I think the B'rs have been selling the line that everything comes under the control of the EU, but I suspect this is to a large extent untrue,
and that there are scoping rules for where EU rules apply, and where UK rules apply. Also, my understanding is that where there are EU rules which do apply to the UK, they have been agreed by what at least might be considered a democratic process.

Without such clarification, either from knowledgeable members here, or from people who really know, rather than politicians and others who have specific axes to grind, I find I am unable to judge whether I should continue to support the EU or not.

By scoping rules I mean things like:

** Applying to specific areas of trade.

** Applying to employment

** Applying to environment

** Applying to crime and public safety

etc. etc. etc.

I do not find the media, such as newspapers, the BBC, other broadcasters etc. helpful, as they don't present honest information, but keep reiterating the same old stuff, and relying more on opinion than established facts, IMO, as do politicians and others who behave in a tribal way - whatever "truth" there is has been totally hidden from sight.

AFAIK all EU laws have to be accepted by the member countries, even before they have been formally incorporated into national law, which again AFAIK does not require parliamentay sanction, but is presented via the civil service as dictat.

EU policy originates, not from motions presented in the parliament by MEPs of all the belonging countries, but as recommendations of the Commission, which is the equivalent of our Civil Service, which then have to be agreed on the floor of the Council, ie the Parliament. While this, contrary to popular opinion encouraged by the press, is seen by EU advocates as not being policy laid down by the EU, a shrewd view persists that it is, by virtue of the effective compliance on the part of the MEPs, who in turn are experienced by the public as "distant" and therefore not subject to accountability.

[Lat-Literal]

I'll tell you why economic neoliberalism and the preceding Keynsian demand management were both "wrong": it was because neither would work with capitalism in the long run. Short term, maybe, but hasn't short term always been the problem? What is the underlying mechanism that dectates short termism over sustainability? It's as simple as this. The way capitalism works is that the less it is interfered with, eg by being taxed to allow for the socially commonsensual mollifying effects of its workings to pay for a welfare state, the less "efficient" it is on its own terms - which aren't as flexible as we've all been made to believe. By virtue of its inbuilt requirements for survival, capitalism is socioeconimic Darwinism in tooth and claw: whenever it and those who benefit the most by in by virtue of their power over all decision-making have restrictions of any kind clamped on them, they threaten to move their operations to countries where they can operate more freely, or, as is so often the case, with sweeteners from the governments of those countries. Its dog eat dog at the highest levels and the devil take the hindmost is not just a cliché. You are not naive enough to need me to tell you what those sweeteners are or the result of their impoverishment of the masses in places like Bangladesh and Thailand who have few rights or benefits of any kind, and deny how the latter is used alongside other forms of arm twisting as a pretext for divide-and-rule.

Pre-consumer capiitalism the working classes had been built out of the pre-existing rural peasantry as the wealth-creating source of capital's advances, courtesy new steam-driven, coal-powered technology. All that was required was the minimal required distribution down the income tree to keep the worker and his or her family fit enough to "man" the machinery plus a few basics, and a middle upward aspiring class to see to the policing and the accountancy, literally and metaphorically in broad terms. Everything from church denominatuions to books were recruited to artificially create the Georgian and Victorian middle class. The power for reform rested on (a) the philanthropic element whose, in that malign expression, do-gooding would remind those at the top that the working class far outnumbered themselves and could become a problem one day, so you'd better do something to improve their lot; and (b) that same working class if organised had potential to force pressure to the same ends.

That division encapsulated the shape and direction reform and reformism took - helped to no inconsiderable degree by the pre-eminent position Britain had by dint of geographical good fortune established in the formation of industrial capitalism, helped by the same slavery it was thereby and thereafter enabled to dispense with early on in the race for progress; other countries without the said benefits underwent violent revolutions to overthrow outmoded and outbidden social classes, which were not necessary here.

Two world wars had the effect of bringing the ruling classes into close proximity with the proletariat for the first time. By which time the prequels of Keysian state interventionism which had been found to work in bringing the US out of the '20s and '30 slump constituted the next stage in securing capitalism's legitimacy in the minds of those whose only solace apart from drink and the incremental forward steps rewarded by solidarity had rested in the mythologies of Church and State. To the refomist-minded welfarism coalesced both the interests of capital - a healthier workforce - and the obvious need to avoid revolution at all costs. Consumerism - at first regarded as a sap on profits taking, since value depended on the worker being the one cost above all overheads that could be controlled - by mass redundancies as well when the innate tendency of the system to go into overproduction periodically (recession) due to its overall unplanned character - demanded that well-known euphemism "rationalisation". Consumerism would appeal to the mentality inculcated in the Western mindset by its religion's stress on "results" and its asociation of need with greed. The latter charge could always be called up so as to simultaneously justify and encourage the protocols of belonging - keeping up with the Joneses, "tolerating" incomers etc - which, by the way, were not shared by other cultures prior to colonialism.

It is odd that Sir Keith Joseph should have suddenly had the scales from his eyes removed at the time he alleged this phenomenon to have happened: plenty of petty bourgeois people, not just the ruling classes, had always been vituperatively opposed to state interventionism, given that they could be liberated of their shares were potential forces leaving them sandwiched in the middle unleashed by it, with working people engaged in it as employees made aware through trade unionism's intermediary role of its workings. Such people did not appreciate the advantages of a working class advancing, not as a class with its own objectively defined interests and possibilities, but as individuals wedded to individual self-betterment through the status accorded in possessions encouraged by the fashion indistry and belief in the ultimate security of having capital, the prospect of home ownership. Once sold, the product could be held as a sword of Damoclese over the heads of anyone stepping out of line - the self-fulfilling processes of boom followed (ever more frequently) by bust ensuring enough insecurity to be "the policeman inside out heads", or at the perpetual back of our minds.

Never has the system, and its apologists and representatives, including Blairite reformers or liberal Tories, been so obviously revealed in its bankruptcy - ideological, economic, environmental. The battle for minds has returned, as it always has when capitalism has been in ostensibly terminal crisis. It never is, of course, because "ordinary people" can always be called on to make the sacrifices and pay for it in imopoverishment and the wars sired by property and scarcity. So, now with the global vision of monetary cohesion as panacea in tatters, they, those with the money, power, influence and control, are turning back once more to patrioticm, and then to nationalism, the last refuge of the scoundrel, as someone once said. The one hope remaining is that this time the voracious machine of capitalism and its insatiable appetite for exhaustible resources, and its now scientifically verified impact on the biosphere, will come home to the thick mindsets of those in charge - who are more likely than ever they have been in past situations to be at the common mercy of the consequences to their own lives, not just livelihoods - to wake up and use their self-vaunted superiority in intelligence and leadership skills to join in with whatever the solutions have to be, which this forum can play its part in discussing since we're all so open-minded. Other than that, we all descend into some kind of Third World chaos, in which sewers overflow, rats plague, bacteria uncontrolled kill, and street roaming gangs replace whatever established order was once won by the brave taking on of power.

Did you write that just now? I don't know what to say. It makes my efforts look frail. I cannot easily disagree with what you said. Home ownership as a sword of Damocles leapt out. My socialist uncle - the one who was in the print and who knew Brenda Dean and who refused to use the old person's bus pass because he found it embarrassing - described it as "a noose around your neck". Most of the relatives did it anyway. The first - and quickly on high interest rates. He ended up being booted out with his wife from upstairs in my Nan's shop because it just so happened to be in an area of slum clearance. A perfectly good building. It would still be here if in another place. He too ended his days up in the council tower block. That was around the time the nooses were loosened on the others, 25 years after they were put on, although it was he who had the money to spend on meals out. I don't know what this says.

But talking of that area of London, one might recall that friend of John Ruskin, Octavia Hill. She was either a forward-looking, do-gooder on behalf of the poor, and protector of the green environment, or an overly demanding busy body with a hard as nails approach to anyone who didn't work - or both these things. Frequently I perceive her as being on the axis of debates between left and right in any era. And then, I guess, we must consider an alternative to your overview. This needs a turning on the head of how awful everything is and to ask could it conceivably have been any better and if so in which way and how? I do agree with you on the problems with short termism but is it ever possible to have long-termism, even if desired? Arguably, it is what the world needs now. This sinking of the latest system is bad enough but climate catastrophe is on a different level. Will we - no, they - be saved?

There was philanthropy, wasn't there. A genuine capitalist philanthropy. Joseph Chamberlain. Fry. Rowntree and Cadbury. I have always assumed that it often emanated in the past because successful people were more susceptible to shame. Much later, the man who became the Earl of Stockton described how seeing housing poverty in Stockton had affected him. Between these points, he demanded more housing to be built than anyone before him or since. The parameters change. Lyrically, the Beatles were never more uncool than they were on "Taxman" but one has to bear in mind that the top rate of tax was 90 odd per cent. Some did leave our country because of it. Not all had a brain to drain. Yet the numbers that fled were minuscule compared with those who pay little today. They still leave because it is all too much for them. I don't know what this says either. But I know they have no shame.

[Bryn]

AFAIK all EU laws have to be accepted by the member countries, even before they have been formally incorporated into national law, which again AFAIK does not require parliamentay sanction, but is presented via the civil service as dictat.

EU policy originates, not from motions presented in the parliament by MEPs of all the belonging countries, but as recommendations of the Commission, which is the equivalent of our Civil Service, which then have to be agreed on the floor of the Council, ie the Parliament. While this, contrary to popular opinion encouraged by the press, is seen by EU advocates as not being policy laid down by the EU, a shrewd view persists that it is, by virtue of the effective compliance on the part of the MEPs, who in turn are experienced by the public as "distant" and therefore not subject to accountability.

I think https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-.../procedures_en sets the process out fairly clearly, including the ultimate democratic role of elected representative in deciding whether a Commission proposal goes forward.

[Lat-Literal]

OK - before I try to get a definitive answer (from where?) -

I want to know:

Are all UK laws currently subservient to EU laws?

Are some UK laws completely outside EU control?

I assume that some - possibly very many EU laws and UK laws are pretty much compatible, if not identical.

If there are differences between the EU and UK in terms of laws/rules/regulations, what are the scopes of those laws/rules/regulations?

For simplicity, I have used the word laws, where in some cases rules or regulations might be the appropriate words to use.

Basically I think the B'rs have been selling the line that everything comes under the control of the EU, but I suspect this is to a large extent untrue,
and that there are scoping rules for where EU rules apply, and where UK rules apply. Also, my understanding is that where there are EU rules which do apply to the UK, they have been agreed by what at least might be considered a democratic process.

Without such clarification, either from knowledgeable members here, or from people who really know, rather than politicians and others who have specific axes to grind, I find I am unable to judge whether I should continue to support the EU or not.

By scoping rules I mean things like:

** Applying to specific areas of trade.

** Applying to employment

** Applying to environment

** Applying to crime and public safety

etc. etc. etc.

I do not find the media, such as newspapers, the BBC, other broadcasters etc. helpful, as they don't present honest information, but keep reiterating the same old stuff, and relying more on opinion than established facts, IMO, as do politicians and others who behave in a tribal way - whatever "truth" there is has been totally hidden from sight.

When I have looked at this in the past, it has been in the form of a debate/disagreement on what percentage of our legislation is in effect EU law. Nick Clegg became embroiled in it during the referendum campaign. He cited a percentage, People fact checked it. Disagreed. Some even went into it in the HOC Library. It came down to "it depends on how you define it". I don't think there is an authoritative answer other than that some legislation is clearly separate. Even quite a chunk of it. The lawyers on this forum will know best. The democratic process is also a bit like that in my opinion. You could talk in terms of which EU bodies take the decisions and pass the laws. To what extent is it down to, quote, "faceless bureaucrats", and many do. But more "at root", all main parties have gone into most general elections with a policy of being in EU, so voters have signed up to that whether they intended to or not.

Actually, I can sort of give you an example of where there could be a grey area that is beyond purely domestic law. In my day, the UN produced the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. This was regularly transposed over a 2-3 year period into ADR, RID, the IMDG Code and the ICAO Technical Instructions for road, rail, sea and air respectively. All were tomes the size of telephone directories with international applicability, some European and some global. Once done, these were not simply recommendations but had legal force in cross-border transport. If you were a country which signed up to the relevant convention, you signed up to what had been agreed. But additionally, individual countries could take sections from these legal documents and place them into their own domestic legislation for internal journeys. Here there was more scope for them to do what they wanted. It didn't involve others but obviously having the international documents to refer to - they were based on immense international expertise - meant that it saved them a whole lot of work.

Cue the arrival of the EU as a delegation at the UN. They say "well, all of this is lovely although we have questions as the rest of you do and our own thoughts about where all these documents could be improved." That's all ok in a way. It is what each country does as a part of the regular cycle. Where the wariness sets in is if there is a sense the EU are observing how it is done with a view to embarking on an almost identical system themselves, albeit with differences in the detail. The UN is not going to drop its system. Consequently, this EU thing raises issues about whether there is going to be confusion where there was previously clarity. Furthermore, European countries are asking themselves if there is to be a new legal requirement for a different routeing via EU into any individual country's legislation with the EU deciding what its member countries should include. This was all 1990s. Things may have changed now. For all I know, the EU may be firmly in there to the extent that we have to do what they say. If so, I would argue it is overlayering, meddlesome and probably inefficient.

[Lat-Literal]

There is another point here. I'd almost call it emotional. Everyone's stances on Brexit derive in part from their own identity and what they feel they identify with. Take me back to the 1970s/1980s and I am very much EEC boy/man. That hasn't changed with the EU by the early 2010s although it has significantly diminished. There is sufficient carry over from the early days to the referendum to make me an undecided. But when it comes to the weighing up and then the staunch acceptance of a result which was not in line with what I did on the day, what comes in is the six and a half years in and out of the UN and zero years at the EEC/EU in my career. I see I identify as UN man and may have done so unknowingly for 20 years.

The public do not have these benefits in the main. They feel they are presented with a binary choice. It's in the EU or Britain on its own mate for better or for worse. But if they were to think it through or to talk it through, they would become more aware of all the other international bodies which are mentioned in the news. On climate change, for example, or common defence, or whatever. But the links are not encouraged by either side. To highlight the broader contexts doesn't help any of their arguments. To my mind, it's all part of the phony war.

[oddoneout]

OK - before I try to get a definitive answer (from where?) -

I want to know:

Are all UK laws currently subservient to EU laws?

Are some UK laws completely outside EU control?

I assume that some - possibly very many EU laws and UK laws are pretty much compatible, if not identical.

If there are differences between the EU and UK in terms of laws/rules/regulations, what are the scopes of those laws/rules/regulations?

For simplicity, I have used the word laws, where in some cases rules or regulations might be the appropriate words to use.

Basically I think the B'rs have been selling the line that everything comes under the control of the EU, but I suspect this is to a large extent untrue,
and that there are scoping rules for where EU rules apply, and where UK rules apply. Also, my understanding is that where there are EU rules which do apply to the UK, they have been agreed by what at least might be considered a democratic process.

Without such clarification, either from knowledgeable members here, or from people who really know, rather than politicians and others who have specific axes to grind, I find I am unable to judge whether I should continue to support the EU or not.

By scoping rules I mean things like:

** Applying to specific areas of trade.

** Applying to employment

** Applying to environment

** Applying to crime and public safety

etc. etc. etc.

I do not find the media, such as newspapers, the BBC, other broadcasters etc. helpful, as they don't present honest information, but keep reiterating the same old stuff, and relying more on opinion than established facts, IMO, as do politicians and others who behave in a tribal way - whatever "truth" there is has been totally hidden from sight.

The regulatory framework - for want of a better term - that the EU requires its members to adhere to has not always been the regulatory framework that we in the UK have been told the EU requires of us is my take on the situation. I had personal experience of this many years ago when I had to get to grips with rules around food producing, and when accessing information was rather more difficult. There is no doubt that other EU countries are sometimes more 'creative' in their adherence to regulations, but that doesn't account for all of the differences as far as I can see. There are also different levels of the framework - directives, regulations, recommendations, etc - and I sometimes wonder how many of those have been needlessly 'gold-plated' (as I believe the term is) by UK civil servants to have effect beyond the original intention.
An anomaly in this approach is the, by now well known, one of the Home Office and the decision about immigration controls; there was presumably some reason for this, but I'm afraid I don't have the stomach for trying to find out what it was.
My Dutch father in law was always somewhat amused/bemused by the UK approach to EU rules.

[french frank]

OK - before I try to get a definitive answer (from where?) -

I want to know:

Are all UK laws currently subservient to EU laws?
Are some UK laws completely outside EU control?

Well, just as laws passed by the devolved governments of the UK don't apply to the whole of the UK, not all EU legislation is relevant to all member states and only in areas agreed in the treaties does the EU have competence to legislate anyway. I'm sure, somewhere, there are 1,978 A3 pages devoted entirely to documenting all this in minute detail, but if there are, I haven't read them.

[Dave2002]

AFAIK all EU laws have to be accepted by the member countries, even before they have been formally incorporated into national law, which again AFAIK does not require parliamentary sanction, but is presented via the civil service as dictat.

That is roughly how I understand it too. However, are there not any guiding principles which have/should be observed when new laws/regulations are proposed?

Such as not proposing "silly" laws/rules/regulations, or ones which clearly disadvantage some member states, or some seemingly pointless regulations which in practice may have hardly effect at all.

Some of the regulations arguably serve limited purposes. One I can think of is the standard relating to electricity supply.

See http://www.twothirtyvolts.org.uk/pdf...n_230Volts.pdf and

http://coffeetime.wikidot.com/uk-eu-mains-voltage-harmonisation

In the UK the standard voltage for years has been 240V. Whenever I have tried to measure the voltage it has been very close to 240V, even after the harmonisation "rules". The "standard" actually permits a significant range of supply voltage, so that no country AFAIK has actually had to change - or at least that is my belief. There would though be problems with equipment made for different markets. Some equipment made for a UK market may not perform to the optimum level if connected to a different power system, while some equipment made for other European markets may fail if connected to the UK power system. In the first case, devices such as heaters will deliver less heat if connected to lower voltage supplies, while in the second case equipment optimised for 220V (say) may overheat and possibly burn out if connected to a UK 240V supply. I have no idea how these issues have been handled by equipment manufacturers. Possibly they might still try to operate in different geographical markets, but that approach would fail if many people moved around and took their equipment with them, expecting it to work well and also safetly. An alternative approach would be to make equipment which would always work safely on any supply voltage up to and exeeding (slightly) 250V, and perhaps to lower the specification so as to reduce consumers' expectations. There could be more complicated technical solutions, such as equipment which would detect the actual supply voltage, and change its behaviour accordingly. That however might increase development and manufacturing costs considerably.

Many standards are in fact what I would call "multi-standards" - they include/incorporate many of the other previous standards. That approach can work with some modern equipment, such as mobile phones, where new developments permit the devices and systems to behave adaptively. These are often worked out by industry consortia, or perhaps one dominant player in an industry creates a "new standard", which then may be somehow built into a wide range of equipment and adopted.

Perhaps there really isn't a need for a supra national body such as the EU to be involved in many standards discussions, as the "standards" will emerge and evolve due to market forces, and to co-operation and competition between major players in the markets. Or maybe not?

[french frank]

This seems a useful legal description of 'Directives'. Especially:

'For example, directives which directly affect businesses, enacted through domestic legislation in the UK, include:
The Working Time Regulations, which implement the Working Time Directive.
The Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which implements the Equal Pay Directive.
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which enacts a Directive.

Directives can be used to set minimum EU standards to be applied at national level, but also leave member states free to apply more stringent national measures, provided these do not conflict with free movement and free market rules.

For example, the Waste Water Directive sets out minimum standards for the treatment of water and sewerage, but member states can, and often do, apply higher standards than those minimum requirements set out in the directive.

EU Directives, once adopted and passed into EU law can also have legal force even when not yet enacted in national legislation. '

This passage, at least, illustrates that most EU 'law' is directed at protecting the interests of citizens. Who would object to that? The 'silliest' laws turn out mainly to be hoaxes (straight bananas, children not allowed to blow up balloons, passengers required to get off buses half way through their journey, and then get on again)

[Lat-Literal]

That is roughly how I understand it too. However, are there not any guiding principles which have/should be observed when new laws/regulations are proposed?

Such as not proposing "silly" laws/rules/regulations, or ones which clearly disadvantage some member states, or some seemingly pointless regulations which in practice may have hardly effect at all.

Some of the regulations arguably serve limited purposes. One I can think of is the standard relating to electricity supply.

See http://www.twothirtyvolts.org.uk/pdf...n_230Volts.pdf and

http://coffeetime.wikidot.com/uk-eu-mains-voltage-harmonisation

In the UK the standard voltage for years has been 240V. Whenever I have tried to measure the voltage it has been very close to 240V, even after the harmonisation "rules". The "standard" actually permits a significant range of supply voltage, so that no country AFAIK has actually had to change - or at least that is my belief. There would though be problems with equipment made for different markets. Some equipment made for a UK market may not perform to the optimum level if connected to a different power system, while some equipment made for other European markets may fail if connected to the UK power system. In the first case, devices such as heaters will deliver less heat if connected to lower voltage supplies, while in the second case equipment optimised for 220V (say) may overheat and possibly burn out if connected to a UK 240V supply. I have no idea how these issues have been handled by equipment manufacturers. Possibly they might still try to operate in different geographical markets, but that approach would fail if many people moved around and took their equipment with them, expecting it to work well and also safetly. An alternative approach would be to make equipment which would always work safely on any supply voltage up to and exeeding (slightly) 250V, and perhaps to lower the specification so as to reduce consumers' expectations. There could be more complicated technical solutions, such as equipment which would detect the actual supply voltage, and change its behaviour accordingly. That however might increase development and manufacturing costs considerably.

Many standards are in fact what I would call "multi-standards" - they include/incorporate many of the other previous standards. That approach can work with some modern equipment, such as mobile phones, where new developments permit the devices and systems to behave adaptively. These are often worked out by industry consortia, or perhaps one dominant player in an industry creates a "new standard", which then may be somehow built into a wide range of equipment and adopted.

Perhaps there really isn't a need for a supra national body such as the EU to be involved in many standards discussions, as the "standards" will emerge and evolve due to market forces, and to co-operation and competition between major players in the markets. Or maybe not?

Thank you for your correspondence concerning your small plug company.

European Union Regulation 1025/2012 on European standardization, which has replaced the standardization parts of Directive 98/34/EC, places requirements on BSI as a National Standards Body of an EU Member State. These requirements concern transparency of processes, facilitation of participation of relevant stakeholders and reporting. BSI makes available draft and published national standards to other NSBs, European Standardization Organizations and the European Commission on request and allows other NSBs to take part in BSI’s standards development work. It publishes its annual work programme as defined in Regulation 1025/2012. This contains information on the national standards that are in development or have been published during the reporting period. It does not include identical or equivalent transpositions of international or European standards but does contain the references of ISO and IEC (international) standards used as a basis for national projects. You can download the 2018-9 work programme from the BSI website. BSI is committed to helping small and medium-sized businesses to get more involved in standards development and to gain the greatest possible benefits from the use of standards. The company operates by royal charter.

I hope this is helpful.

[Lat-Literal]

This seems a useful legal description of 'Directives'. Especially:

'For example, directives which directly affect businesses, enacted through domestic legislation in the UK, include:
The Working Time Regulations, which implement the Working Time Directive.
The Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which implements the Equal Pay Directive.
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which enacts a Directive.

Directives can be used to set minimum EU standards to be applied at national level, but also leave member states free to apply more stringent national measures, provided these do not conflict with free movement and free market rules.

For example, the Waste Water Directive sets out minimum standards for the treatment of water and sewerage, but member states can, and often do, apply higher standards than those minimum requirements set out in the directive.

EU Directives, once adopted and passed into EU law can also have legal force even when not yet enacted in national legislation. '

This passage, at least, illustrates that most EU 'law' is directed at protecting the interests of citizens. Who would object to that? The 'silliest' laws turn out mainly to be hoaxes (straight bananas, children not allowed to blow up balloons, passengers required to get off buses half way through their journey, and then get on again)

When I think back, I should know more. I have been involved in environmental impact assessments and equalities assessments; have produced initial drafts of SIs for Government lawyers to scrutinise; and was even at one time a - literal - Cabinet Office gold card holder on which it was indicated I had been approved as some sort of risk register manager. You know the sort of thing. If we widen that road in Dorking, would you apply a red, amber or green traffic light in terms of the likelihood of work being seriously stalled by a tsunami?

So much stuff is done. Do this. Learn that in the next 24 hours. Get this completed by Friday. Even by the most junior people on average salaries. There isn't a lot of time to question whether the EU requires it or often any real need to unless there is good reason to be on the back foot. Probably it was simply noted at the time but it was all now a very long time ago.

Three times!

Mr Blair has said that his only regret as PM was introducing the Freedom of Information legislation. This implies, among other things, that liberal reform wasn't always demanded by EU. However, transparency where it can safely be applied must surely help to protect the public in many cases where the amount of regulation and its layers of detail naturally mind boggle.

This is an interesting article for those of us who think that after any Brexit the Conservatives could only hope to win an election with policies very close to the centre.

The Guardian:

Heidi Allen (a remainer) - 'I've absolutely had enough': Tory MP embarks on anti-austerity tour with Frank Field': https://www.theguardian.com/society/...austerity-tour

[Dave2002]

Thank you for your correspondence concerning your small plug company.

European Union Regulation 1025/2012 on European standardization, which has replaced the standardization parts of Directive 98/34/EC, places requirements on BSI as a National Standards Body of an EU Member State. These requirements concern transparency of processes, facilitation of participation of relevant stakeholders and reporting. BSI makes available draft and published national standards to other NSBs, European Standardization Organizations and the European Commission on request and allows other NSBs to take part in BSI’s standards development work. It publishes its annual work programme as defined in Regulation 1025/2012. This contains information on the national standards that are in development or have been published during the reporting period. It does not include identical or equivalent transpositions of international or European standards but does contain the references of ISO and IEC (international) standards used as a basis for national projects. You can download the 2018-9 work programme from the BSI website. BSI is committed to helping small and medium-sized businesses to get more involved in standards development and to gain the greatest possible benefits from the use of standards. The company operates by royal charter.

I hope this is helpful.

¿Que?

Maybe, but not reallly to me. Most people don't know, or don't care about loads of stuff, nor should they. When I buy a product and find descriptions of its specification, and also perhaps brief instructions in around 30 languages am I bovvered? Well - yes - if the one language that gets missed out is English, which seems to happen sometimes.

Most people do things on the basis of faith or trust - the hope that they won't be ripped off by a supplier, that goods supplied will be OK, that there won't be any major adverse consequences, and that if there is a need for refund, or compensation that things can be worked out.

Sadly, in some extreme cases this doesn't happen, even despite everything looking good. I have heard of drugs being made which turned out to be very high quality, which were actually made in a witch doctor's hut somewhere in Africa, yet I have also heard of faults in a supply chain for the supply of anti-malarial drugs where everything looked in order, documentation OK, packaging OK - yet ultimately some fake "drugs" had been supplied. I wasn't quite sure what the effect was in the last example, but I don't think it was good. Perhaps the "drugs" caused bad effects, or maybe they were just not effective against malaria. Either way that would't have been good.

Most of us who write and read here live in societies where most things appear to work. Behind the scenes there may be a whole lot of infrastructure, or regulation, designed hopefully to help us to live useful and comfortable lives, though in some cases they may also be intended to provide companies with profits (excessive in some cases), and sometimes the "behind the scenes" stuff actually either goes wrong, or is subverted.

So yes - standards and regulations are desirable, but most people don't know, or care, how they are done - until things obviously go wrong. As such, should we care whether our laws and regulations are by the UK or by the EU, or by other bodies? Depends on the scope and nature of the rules, I'd suggest.

[Bryn]

Thank you for your correspondence concerning your small plug company.

European Union Regulation 1025/2012 on European standardization, which has replaced the standardization parts of Directive 98/34/EC, places requirements on BSI as a National Standards Body of an EU Member State. These requirements concern transparency of processes, facilitation of participation of relevant stakeholders and reporting. BSI makes available draft and published national standards to other NSBs, European Standardization Organizations and the European Commission on request and allows other NSBs to take part in BSI’s standards development work. It publishes its annual work programme as defined in Regulation 1025/2012. This contains information on the national standards that are in development or have been published during the reporting period. It does not include identical or equivalent transpositions of international or European standards but does contain the references of ISO and IEC (international) standards used as a basis for national projects. You can download the 2018-9 work programme from the BSI website. BSI is committed to helping small and medium-sized businesses to get more involved in standards development and to gain the greatest possible benefits from the use of standards. The company operates by royal charter.

I hope this is helpful.

If the relevant equipment was (as it very probably is) designed to operate at 230V, with a tolerance of at least plus or minus 5%, the problem simply would/does not arise to any significant extent.

[Dave2002]

If the relevant equipment was (as it very probably is) designed to operate at 230V, with a tolerance of at least plus or minus 5%, the problem simply would/does not arise to any significant extent.

Agreed, except that some manufacturers/designers might try to work with lower voltages or different tolerances. There are cost implications for designng for 240V versus 230V. Also, the supplies may have an effect. My experience of UK supplies is that they are pretty good, and mostly, as far as I can tell, within a fraction of a percent of the stated voltage and frequency. If though the tolerance on supply were also comparable to those on equipment, then there could - perhaps infrequently - be problems.

There are also standards which are applied to other areas of our lives, such as ceramics. These can give rise to compatibility problems between different countries - for example Sweden, where white ceramics are popular, and Italy where coloured ceramics are popular. I don't know the technical details, but it is possible that it's difficult to make ceramics which work in both markets and satisfy all the health and safety regulations.

As I hinted before, most of us don't worry about these things, but some people do. Also, mentioning Sweden, one design of "bed" which IKEA were developing was to be made and sold in different markets. In the end it could not be sold as a bed, because it was also intended to be sold in the USA, and even after extensive design and material changes (also to satisfy German regulations IIRC) to ensure fire and smoke safety it was not allowed to be sold as a bed. It's probably in the catalogue under a different heading now.

[Lat-Literal]

¿Que?

Maybe, but not reallly to me. Most people don't know, or don't care about loads of stuff, nor should they. When I buy a product and find descriptions of its specification, and also perhaps brief instructions in around 30 languages am I bovvered? Well - yes - if the one language that gets missed out is English, which seems to happen sometimes.

Most people do things on the basis of faith or trust - the hope that they won't be ripped off by a supplier, that goods supplied will be OK, that there won't be any major adverse consequences, and that if there is a need for refund, or compensation that things can be worked out.

Sadly, in some extreme cases this doesn't happen, even despite everything looking good. I have heard of drugs being made which turned out to be very high quality, which were actually made in a witch doctor's hut somewhere in Africa, yet I have also heard of faults in a supply chain for the supply of anti-malarial drugs where everything looked in order, documentation OK, packaging OK - yet ultimately some fake "drugs" had been supplied. I wasn't quite sure what the effect was in the last example, but I don't think it was good. Perhaps the "drugs" caused bad effects, or maybe they were just not effective against malaria. Either way that would't have been good.

Most of us who write and read here live in societies where most things appear to work. Behind the scenes there may be a whole lot of infrastructure, or regulation, designed hopefully to help us to live useful and comfortable lives, though in some cases they may also be intended to provide companies with profits (excessive in some cases), and sometimes the "behind the scenes" stuff actually either goes wrong, or is subverted.

So yes - standards and regulations are desirable, but most people don't know, or care, how they are done - until things obviously go wrong. As such, should we care whether our laws and regulations are by the UK or by the EU, or by other bodies? Depends on the scope and nature of the rules, I'd suggest.

Yes - this is all very reasonable.

I suppose a starting point might be "why in this undeniably international world should a regime (can't think of a better word) of international regulation be restricted to just most of one continent?" (In some other things, national regulation will always find a logical purpose). Answers might include convenience for European travellers or the establishing of an "EU brand" which is recognised across the globe as representing a standard; a sort of continental update of "Made in Britain". So that's an argument against it and a couple of arguments for it. Some get het up about such things. I made it clear that I don't. EU regulation is not high up on my list of concerns when it comes to wanting the referendum outcome to be delivered.

If the relevant equipment was (as it very probably is) designed to operate at 230V, with a tolerance of at least plus or minus 5%, the problem simply would/does not arise to any significant extent.

Happy to take your word for it!