UK referendum - EU membership

[xoggoth]

And why is this bollocks? I'm pretty sure that you'll find just as many rules, regulations and laws in each countries own make-up. Maybe you could try reading the 12 notes that make up the Water Framework Directive

There may be good examples of excessive regulation, but this isn't a good one and the Water Framework Directive was, in many ways, a very good thing.

You are both missing the point. I am not saying that this or any other EU law is necessarily bad. But in general, detailed legislation like this needs to take account of local needs and priorities and existing procedures. What is the point of all that analysis if a country already has good regulation of its water industry? It may be a good idea for Romania et al where water quality is very poor but for the UK and other more advanced countries this is just imposing unnecessary red tape.

We are quite capable of legislating on those things ourselves, as we had been doing for many decades before we joined the EU, we do not need to replace our existing laws and pay another layer of overpaid civil servants to do so, especially when we, or others, may have specific requirements that these blanket laws do not address.

[xoggoth]

Yet another example of EU lying and deceit here.

Britain will be liable for close to £1 billion of emergency loans to Greece, it can be revealed, after Jean-Claude Juncker tore up a “black and white” deal to protect UK taxpayers from Eurozone bailouts.

EU demands Britain joins Greek rescue fund - Telegraph

PS But it's nice to see the DT seems to be sensible again. At one point, from a number of articles, it seemed to be swinging to the loony left.

[jamesbrown]

You are both missing the point. I am not saying that this or any other EU law is necessarily bad. But in general, detailed legislation like this needs to take account of local needs and priorities and existing procedures. What is the point of all that analysis if a country already has good regulation of its water industry? It may be a good idea for Romania et al where water quality is very poor but for the UK and other more advanced countries this is just imposing unnecessary red tape.

We are quite capable of legislating on those things ourselves, as we had been doing for many decades before we joined the EU, we do not need to replace our existing laws and pay another layer of overpaid civil servants to do so, especially when we, or others, may have specific requirements that these blanket laws do not address.

Actually, you seem to be missing the point. We're not capable of (effectively) legislating on those things independently because the environmental sources, sinks and flows between them are completely unrelated to administrative borders, so policies taken in one jurisdiction can directly impact those taken in others. There are countless examples of this w/r to water pollution, river basin management, North Sea fisheries and many other areas of environmental protection/exploitation. Governments will look after their own citizens with one eye on election cycles. Environmental management requires a longer term approach based on cross-border agreement and coordinated action.

[xoggoth]

environmental sources, sinks and flows between them are completely unrelated to administrative borders

Each Member State shall produce:
•an analysis of the characteristics of each river basin district;
•a review of the impact of human activity on water;
•an economic analysis of water use;
•a register of protected areas, that is, areas identified as requiring special protection (areas identified for drinking water abstraction and other areas listed in Annex IV of the Directive);
•a survey of all bodies of water used for abstracting water for human consumption and producing more than 10 m3 per day or serving more than 50 persons.

North Sea fisheries I would agree but that is not mentioned. Otherwise can you explain which of our river basins or protected areas, let alone bodies used for producing 10 m3 per day impacts anyone in Europe, even our closest neighbours? Perhaps if we were dumping sewage in our rivers it might, but then we already had very strict laws on that. The only time small quantities of sewage get into the channel, it's due to accidents or serious flooding. Nothing in that list to stop that.

This is simply regulation for the sake of it that does useful nothing for us. It might show up problems in places like Romania but it would not actually address them. That requires money.

[minestrone]

I doubt leaving the EU will make any significant difference to life in the UK.

That is not an argument to stay in however but the general premise that we will suddenly be throwing off chains of incarceration or becoming fantastically wealthy on account of this proposed split is complete tulip.

[minestrone]

North Sea fisheries I would agree but that is not mentioned. Otherwise can you explain which of our river basins or protected areas, let alone bodies used for producing 10 m3 per day impacts anyone in Europe, even our closest neighbours? Perhaps if we were dumping sewage in our rivers it might, but then we already had very strict laws on that. The only time small quantities of sewage get into the channel, it's due to accidents or serious flooding. Nothing in that list to stop that.

This is simply regulation for the sake of it that does useful nothing for us. It might show up problems in places like Romania but it would not actually address them. That requires money.

I use as evidence this kind of tripe, xoggoth has probably never been near a fishing boat in his life but likes to lecture everyone on river basins and European fishing policy.

[xoggoth]

Some things like laws on competition or closer cooperation on tackling crime are sensible, it is just that there is so much unnecessary nonsense.

Another example of utter EU bollux here. The EU set a deadline for switchover to digital TV.

EUR-Lex - l24223a - EN - EUR-Lex

Sure digital TV is good but was that seriously an issue important enough for EU politicians and civil servants to spend time and probably a lot of money on? Especially when most EU countries have different languages and there is little trade of programs. That time and money could have been better spent.

[jamesbrown]

North Sea fisheries I would agree but that is not mentioned. Otherwise can you explain which of our river basins or protected areas, let alone bodies used for producing 10 m3 per day impacts anyone in Europe, even our closest neighbours? Perhaps if we were dumping sewage in our rivers it might, but then we already had very strict laws on that. The only time small quantities of sewage get into the channel, it's due to accidents or serious flooding. Nothing in that list to stop that.

If your point is that river basins in the UK are geographically separate from continental Europe, that seems pretty trivial on the face of it, but you'd be wrong in several specific areas where the UK doesn't have a good record at all, with consequent impacts on the wider region (e.g. N pollution of the North Sea coast causing coastal eutrophication). However, you're missing at least two wider points. First, it makes sense to standardize a lot of the language and approaches to calculating various costs and benefits because that facilitates scientific cooperation among states. There are things that can be studied in other countries and applied more easily to the UK if they're speaking the same language. Second, even though you've cited a specific example (river basins), they are part of a much larger picture of interconnected systems, and it makes no sense, in that context, for the UK to "opt out" of specific regulations in a partial way.

Europe does many things badly, and cooperation doesn't necessarily guarantee a better strategy, but lack of cooperation almost always guarantees a bad strategy in areas where administrative boundaries are not the important ones (such as environmental law). It's convenient for Euroskeptics (of which I am one in many ways) to cite examples of over-zealous legislation or failed cooperation, but there are areas where cooperation makes a lot of sense.

[jamesbrown]

It's also worth noting that, through our involvement, we can encourage other countries with poorer standards to adopt improved standards. If we opt out of everything, we have little basis to argue that other countries should adopt stricter standards. For example, take a look at the history of acidification of forests and water bodies throughout Northern Europe, including the UK (i.e. "acid rain"). These problems were only reversed through cross-border cooperation on air pollution.

[DodgyAgent]

Actually, you seem to be missing the point. We're not capable of (effectively) legislating on those things independently because the environmental sources, sinks and flows between them are completely unrelated to administrative borders, so policies taken in one jurisdiction can directly impact those taken in others. There are countless examples of this w/r to water pollution, river basin management, North Sea fisheries and many other areas of environmental protection/exploitation. Governments will look after their own citizens with one eye on election cycles. Environmental management requires a longer term approach based on cross-border agreement and coordinated action.

What makes the European Union capable of making decisions on behalf of multiple member states? I find it quite astonishing that people like you can be so naive to think that an undemocratic institution can make any sort of decision for the benefit of people who have no say in how it is elected. Water management in the Uk is our own business. we do not share rivers with other countries. Because an institution sets itself out to be a benign corporation it never is unless it has the harsh levers of democracy controlling it. I would challenge you to give one example of where an institution with minmal accountability has ever exerted its authority in a way to benefit the people it is supposed to serve.