How Brussels Regulates our Daily Lives (EU)

[Nono]

Well it's a matter of deciding when the macro becomes too micro: how much is too much.

People by and large want someone to ensure that live in a safe, well-ordered environment -- Americans too, for all their the bravado about rugged individualism.

So far I think the EU has been a pretty good deal for most people, though it's badly in need of more democratic control.

[bishop]

Well it's a matter of deciding when the macro becomes too micro: how much is too much.

People by and large want someone to ensure that live in a safe, well-ordered environment -- Americans too, for all their the bravado about rugged individualism.

on the latter, i don't disagree - and doubt most americans do either.

the crux of the issue revolves around your answer to the former - how much is too much? and for you europeans, should nations be free to disobey EU dictates?

once the most acceptable of regulations are out of the way (food/water quality, air quality, etc.), these bureaucrats seem to suffer from too much time on their hands.

i just stumbled across another one where the EU dictated that children under 12 years of age must be in a car seat when traveling by car. is this truly necessary? don't seat belts sufficiently do the job? can't parents be free to make such decisions themselves?

i'm just giving EU examples here because of the gist of this thread. we certainly have plenty of stupid nanny state laws here as well, not that our own sheep mind either.

[Nono]

Well, rest assured that the one about non-toddlers in car seats is universally ignored.

I must say there's a huge industry that consists in sifting through EU regulations looking for such absurdities to trumpet in the press. The guys in Brussels who decreed these things could probably explain all the horse-trading and subtending objectives involved.

As I've pointed out on Volconvo before, there's a law on the books in the Canadian province of Ontario requiring any car moving at night to be preceded by a man carrying a lantern.

A storm in a teacup.

[bishop]

we have our own stupid laws here as well..

one important distinction, however, is that the example you just mentioned refers to old/antiquated laws - while the EU equivalents have been recently created.

[Nono]

No, I believe you have the odd recently-created stupid law as well. Think about it.

The point is, if you have a body trying to harmonize a technologically sophisticated society with hundreds and hundreds of millions of members, you're going to see some pretty detailed regulation. And a few of those regulations (invevitably) are going to look pretty dumb. All you need are some jingos to cherrypick them for you. (See above.)

As Volconvo threads will attest, I'm plenty critical of the EU on some scores. But this sort of thing amounts to a cheap shot.

I spent Friday with a room full of EU functionaries. They were serious, lucid and hardworking. Funny how nobody present seemed to fit this caricature.

[Praxius]

how is it that topics like these always get cast in the most diametrically opposed positions - heavy government regulation vs. no regulation?

You know, I ask myself that same question each time.... like when people refer to Canada as Socialist because we allow the government to regulated the trivial or obvious.

They start to regulate what most agree with, and then others start screaming bloody murder that it's gonna be one step closer to them controlling our live entirely or something. Well if they regulate nothing, then when something happens, who gets blamed?

The Government, for not doing anything. The Toys from China are a good example of them not regulating and expecting the companies to do so.... clearly this isn't happening, so someone has to step in.

the article showed one example - child-safe disposable lighters.. what business does a child have with ANY lighter, regardless of its design? but, of course, this doesn't apply to the high-end ones that the euro fat cats use to light their churchills.

I agree, but most of those fancy lighters are on the person all the time anyways, while disposables, most couldn't care less.

some other examples of unnecessary regulation include banning mercury in barometers. the "unfair commercial practices directive" is banning certain terms used in marketing campaigns such as “superb”, “a masterpiece” and “the greatest thing since sliced bread”.

He he... our commercials have a way around that.... in the last few years when I heard a commercial refer to that, they say "The Greatest thing since.... you know."

next thing you know, nanny might even try to enact certain bans against alcohol: Combating alcohol-related harm in Europe - evidence of effective and cost-effective measures - European Public Health Alliance

I'd blame that partially on the anti-smoking campaigns. The liquor stores in my province are actually run by the provincial government and is a good income for them.... I don't see the same thing happening here where I live anytime soon.

i too would feel a little uncomfortable if some relatively unknown (but massive) bureaucracy was suddenly enacting all sorts of edicts, micro-managing the most petty aspects of my supposedly free life.

to me, it all depends on how far they plan on going and what they plan on enforcing. The examples I saw were mainly trivial.

[Praxius]

the crux of the issue revolves around your answer to the former - how much is too much?

Don't forget, these guys who make these regulations and such have to live in the same environment as everyone else... whatever the impose, they too have to follow. If they didn't, then they'd be opened up to throwing all kinds of foolish regulations which wouldn't affect them and then you could begin to worry.

and for you europeans, should nations be free to disobey EU dictates?

Not really, hence why they are part of a "Union" ~ If you're not going to follow what everybody else is doing, then why be a part of it in the first place? Separate from the Union if you don't like what's going on.

Quebec likes to do this once in a while here in Canada, but mainly because they feel they should get special treatment over other provinces because of their so-called "Distinct Society"

Newfoundland is more distinct then Quebec

once the most acceptable of regulations are out of the way (food/water quality, air quality, etc.), these bureaucrats seem to suffer from too much time on their hands.

i just stumbled across another one where the EU dictated that children under 12 years of age must be in a car seat when traveling by car. is this truly necessary? don't seat belts sufficiently do the job? can't parents be free to make such decisions themselves?

Nope, as the same sort of regulations were placed here in Canada (Where I live anyways) just this year. The main reason is because seat belts are designed for a full sized adult and studies have shown children end up with worst injuries related to the seat belt then what adults do:

News Release: Department of Transportation and Public Works (to Oct. 23 2007)

On Jan. 1, 2007, a new child safety seat law will require anyone transporting children to make sure they are properly secured in an infant seat, child seat or booster seat.

The Department of Transportation and Public Works is reminding parents and caregivers to prepare for the law.

"The holiday season is a time to reflect on our blessings. Children are life's greatest blessing, and must be cherished and protected," said Angus MacIsaac, Minister of Transportation and Public Works. "Let us give our children the gift of safety this holiday season by investing in proper child car seats."

Once children have outgrown their child car seat, they must be in a booster seat until their ninth birthday, unless they have reached a height of four foot nine.

Booster seats can cost between $30 and $160. A higher price does not guarantee a safer booster seat. Families who receive income assistance may be eligible for booster seats and should contact case workers for further information.

When used correctly, booster seats can reduce the risk of serious injury by more than 60 per cent. A booster seat keeps the seatbelt positioned correctly over a child's shoulder, chest and hips -- areas of the body that can better withstand the forces of a crash.

"At IWK Child Safety Link we believe that informed parents are one of the best preventions against serious injuries and deaths among young children," said Sandra Newton, manager for Child Safety Link. "Keeping children safe is our priority, and we are working with families to help them understand and comply with the new booster seat regulations."

i'm just giving EU examples here because of the gist of this thread. we certainly have plenty of stupid nanny state laws here as well, not that our own sheep mind either.

Before many jump to conclusions, it is best to look into the reasons why each law is passed.

The booster seat thing is no different then back in the early 90's where everybody was required to wear helmets when riding their bikes, etc.

I felt those helmets looked stupid, much as I think booster seats and an older child in them that we are not used to seeing looks/sounds kinda stupid....

but if studies show that these sort of things reduce injuries in accidents, etc., then I don't see this as them wasting our money putting in laws, but rather saving money by reducing the number of people having to be placed in hospitals after an accident.

Seat belts became law years ago.... not too many question it anymore....

Instead of over worrying about the collective of laws that MAY come to be, I would recommend worrying about each law as they come into play and regulate the regulators in this fashion.....

is it more work? Well keeping a country or union in check isn't supposed to be easy.

[Nono]

Newfoundland is more distinct then Quebec.

In some ways maybe. But you can't deny Quebec's unparallelled distinctiveess. Seriously I mean.

What Newf is is the single greatest beneficiary of Canadian Confederation. (I believe seven of the 10 provinces are net beneficiaries in terms of wealth redistribution.)

Lashing a federation together -- whether in North America or Europe -- involves some odd-looking measures. And the new down-east members of the EU are like Canada's Newfoundland once was: poor and backward. Standards have to be set to bring them into line with the others and give them a chance to take part in the continent-wide economy.

[brien]

i just stumbled across another one where the EU dictated that children under 12 years of age must be in a car seat when traveling by car.

I know some 12 year old "kids" who are bigger than most grannys. What's next Granny seats?

We really need Nanny restraints!

[HelioPrime]

I know some 12 year old "kids" who are bigger than most grannys. What's next Granny seats?

We really need Nanny restraints!

The laws are more ass covering for car makers...

If they didn't require it and left it to "the knowledgeable parents" then we would have accidents with deaths because children were not properly protected by a seat belt designed for small children. The victims parents despite the fact its their fault would sue the car maker.

There are plenty of idiots, this law just tries to protect people from their own bad judgement. Bad judgement is not a natural right.

[brien]

If they didn't require it and left it to "the knowledgeable parents" then we would have accidents with deaths because children were not properly protected by a seat belt designed for small children. The victims parents despite the fact its their fault would sue the car maker.

And juries could find negligence upon the part of parents and not hold the automakers liable.

[HelioPrime]

And juries could find negligence upon the part of parents and not hold the automakers liable.

Finding a parent guilty of killing their child doesn't change the fact their child is dead because of their ignorance.

Negligence is tough to prove unless child safety is cars was a taught part of every mandatory driving course.