Google Ad

Eurosceptic Bloggers

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

EU Regulation

Its a fairly bland press release, but it has a number of important points to make.

The perception of many is that chemical volumes increase year on year and so heath and environment risks must be increasing. In reality this is untrue. Over the last two years the movement of chemicals in the United Kingdom alone has reduced by up to 100 million tonnes!
So the common fallacy behind the push for regulation is wrong.
Governments are relying less and less on science and more on opinion. The problem with regulatory groups is that their existence relies on regulating! They seldom allow time to complete a task before offering more regulation.
There is always a stock reason though
When using a 'precautionary principle' it is not too difficult for them to justify their actions.
And to finish on a positive note.
The number of legal actions being taken against the EU is growing.
I won't hold my breath, but I am happy to support anyone fighting back.

5 comments:

Gillibrand said...

The Commission just pick off one sector after another. There is no systematic opposition from the business side and individual sectoral groups actually collaborate with the Commission in the implementation of the regulations.

See also my letter in the Times on the chemical sector with which I have been most involved.

Serf said...

I once went to a seminar given by the head of an EU industry body. He explained how it was unhelpful to tell EU power brokers that they were mistaken and how it was better to assist them in the hope of influencing their decisions.

The result is the same for individual industries as it is for the UK. We kept taking off our clothes, but it somehow hasn't sated the EU's lust.

FranceSucks said...

The false assumption is that global industry will adapt to the new regulations. I don't think they will completely. It will raise all prices, put small manufacturers out of business in droves and do little or nothing to clean up the environment. If Wallstrom really wants impact why not start mandatory battery recycing programs. I think they merely want a new regulatory fiefdom.


"There is no systematic opposition from the business side "

Big business is in because it will assure them a monopoly. They can afford the regulation and it is a far more effective way to rub out competition from new firms than actually competing or paying for advertising.

james higham said...

"Governments are relying less and less on science and more on opinion."

On consultation, I presume that means.

Ross F said...

"heath and environment risks"

Sadly the biggest Heath risk was Ted taking us into the EEC in the first place.