The Magic Brexit Money Tree

[MillytantForceit]

...Children! Lollipops! Lollipops if you vote for my deal!

Our very own HSE had banned high heels years before the EU ever thought of it.

HSE risk assessment for Salons state staff should "wear appropriate footware"
Salon kept tidy.
■ Cut hair swept up promptly.
■ Any water/products spilt cleaned up
immediately.
■ Matting provided for use at shop entrance.
■ No trailing cables.
■ Staff wear appropriate shoes.

Bloody Red tape eh!

1tisILeClerc
You are now being truly pathetic dragging up anything you can find

The reason I cited that particular example (hairdressers' heels) is because I've seen it used a number of times before (along with bendy bananas and cucumbers) - it appears to be synonymous with EU red-tape...

Cited by a High Level Committee, set up by the EU Commission to reduce red-tape, the UK Government's Business Task Force...

In a counter-argument blog by Simeon Djankov, Visiting Professor at LSE’s Financial Markets Group, former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Bulgaria, and co-author of Europe’s Growth Challenge (no less!)

He says;
^European institutions are perceived to generate excessive red tape. Examples abound: in 2013, for instance, the European Commission proposed legislation to ban refillable jugs for olive oil to prevent restaurants from switching virgin oil for cheap alternatives.The proposal was abandoned after widespread ridicule. In 2012, another legislative proposal called for banning hairdressers from wearing
high heels and jewellery.It, too, was scrapped.^

In a speech made by José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission in 2014;

We have not interfered with the height of hairdressers’ heels, or the ergonomic design of office chairs. We have scrapped legislation on bendy cucumbers–although the supermarkets were the first to complain.

Even by a pro-EU, but anti-Barroso blogger who said Barroso made derogatory remarks about hairdressers' heels -although I couldn't find the remarks he was referring to.

Perhaps you could drop them all a line and tell them to stop obsessing about hairdressers' heels.

One former cheif [sic] of the IOD does not equal the position stated by the organisation.

There are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK - the IOD has 30,000 members.
Although prior to the Referendum a snap poll indicated that 31% of IOD members planned to vote leave and 9% were undecided.

No calls to ban high heels. Just for footwear to be anti-slip. And not by the EU anyway.

Oh look, here’s the EU myth buster article on it.

blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-sun-barmy-eu-plans-for-hair-salons/

Even by a pro-EU, but anti-Barroso blogger who said Barroso made derogatory remarks about hairdressers' heels-although I couldn't find the remarks he was referring to.

Perhaps he was picking up some innuendo from the word interfered - who knows.

It might well be a Euro-myth - but it didn't stop all those high level officials referring to it. I haven't quoted anything from The Daily Mail.

Both funny and tragic at the same time.

“High level officials” are perfectly capable of being duplicitous twats or idiots that think they can get away with lies. Boris Johnson being a case in point.

No point in propagating untruths under the guise of “I was only reporting what high level officials said” when it is easily fact checked.

Oh look, here’s the EU myth buster article on it

Oh look - not really a myth at all but a faux pas by the EU;

www.uni-europa.org/2015/11/16/eu-commission-mocks-
agreement-to-improve-health-safety-of-hairdressers/

In a recent “explanatory” publication on better regulation, the Commission openly mocks the ongoing efforts of social partners to implement a European Framework Agreement on health and safety in the hairdressing sector

In the publication, the Commission repeats its mantra of “The EU must not be big on small things” alongside with two images, one of them being a hairdresser cutting hair and a pair of high-heeled shoes –crossed out.

The social partners in the hairdressing sector, Coiffure EU and UNI Europa are surprised by this display of mockery of their ongoing efforts to improve the health and safety of European workers in the hairdressing sector. Needless to say, these images belittle the serious health and safety risks faced by the workers in the sector, who are mostly female.

Irrespective of the fact that the graphic in the publication is incorrect (the agreement does not mention high-heeled shoes), it’s extremely worrying that the Commission puts into question its own ongoing legislative process.

Coiffure EU and UNI Europa fail to see how the protection of workers from work-related diseases, such as breast cancer, can be interpreted as a “small thing,” not worthy of the Commission’s attention.

Furthermore, the publication calls into question the Commission’s commitment to the promise it made last March, namely to re launch the social dialogue and give it priority. ...

We too have requested that they officially retract the graphic on hairdressers in the publication.

Okaaay - nice swerve there from “oh look at the nasty EU wanting to introduce yet more red tape” to “oh look at the nasty EU mocking workers health and safety”.

So which is it?

ContinuityError
You ought to check your facts as well.

I can't see; EU Commission mocks agreement to improve health & safety of hairdressers mentioned in EuroMyths.
Slippery toads.

Re Grenfell - perhaps important regulations were overlooked because everyone was too busy dealing with unimportant ones.

Perhaps NOTHING. Eric Pickles scrapped some regulations, and that coupled with cuts to the fire services was a tragedy waiting to happen.
I sincerely hope that in the future someone is charged with corporate manslaughter for this.

in 2013, for instance, the European Commission proposed legislation to ban refillable jugs for olive oil to prevent restaurants from switching virgin oil for cheap alternatives.

Perhaps you don't remember the Spanish cooking oil scandal some years back, where some inferior product was passed off as olive oil - causing illness if not death?

The red tape when it comes to health and safety is there for a reason.

ContinuityError

Did you click on the link?
There's an image of high heels. .

{ (along with bendy bananas and cucumbers) - it appears to be synonymous with EU red-tape...}
I have had lunch with one of the EU officials involved in the 'bananas' story. Unlike the stuff that appeared in the press it was about the EU taking a dim view of farmers being sprayed with poisonous pesticides, causing various illnesses and death while they worked. It took years of fighting the WTO, who initially won, but the ruling was overturned eventually. It nearly caused him a nervous breakdown.

Or perhaps you don't remember the news more recently of the Chinese baby formula, which poisoned babies. Oh yes, we must scrap red tape.

The EU official website has a section on 'euromyths'. Some lighthearted reading before you settle down to the WA agreement.

Peregrina

I think we will have to wait until the outcome of the inquiry for Grenfell - 200,000 documents still to disclose;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46540392

You're struggling Clavinova - lets wait how many years until we find that yes, it was an avoidable tragedy, as are many others. But meanwhile EU red tape is BAD, so we scrap it. After all we plebs are just collateral damage.

The EU official website has a section on 'euromyths'. Some lighthearted reading before you settle down to the WA agreement.

ContinuityError has already linked to it - there's no mention of the high heels image or the complaint from Coiffure EU and UNI Europa;

Needless to say, these images belittle the serious health and safety risks faced by the workers in the sector, who are mostly female

Irrespective of the fact that the graphic in the publication is incorrect (the agreement does not mention high-heeled shoes), it’s extremely worrying that the Commission puts into question its own ongoing legislative process.

clav

Yes, I did look at your link - except that the link it contained to the “offending article” didn’t exist so can’t actually see exactly what they are complaining about.

And if you’d actually read the hairdresser’s draft proposal you’d realise that the points raised are already covered in existing H&S legislation or would be industry good practice anyway, so would be pretty pointless and unnecessary legislation.

At one stage the UK was something of a leader in Health and Safety legislation. It appears to have gone by the board now, and it's a race to the bottom as long as wealthy Tories can make money.

You're struggling Clavinova

Not at all - I am being respectful of the Fire Service by not copying what is said in the link - you can read it yourself. I have no idea who will be found culpable for Grenfell - perhaps multiple organisations and individuals.

Dear President Juncker
Dear Commissioner Thyssen ,

We write to you on behalf of Coiffure EU and UNI Europa, the social partners of the hairdressing sector, following the recent European Commission publication entitled “Better Regulation and Transparency1”(30 October 2015).^

Page 3 of the above-mentioned publication reads, “The EU must not be big on small things” and alongside this statement are two images: one of an olive oil can, and another of a hairdresser cutting hair and a pair of high-heeled shoes. Both images are crossed over implying that they are small things that ought to be scrapped.

The social partners feel that this graphical depiction is mocking their ongoing efforts to implement a European Framework Agreement on health and safety in the hairdressing sector.

The images belittle the serious health and safety risks faced by the, mostly female, workers in the sector.

It promotes a negative and erroneous interpretation of the ultimate goal of the mentioned Social Partner Agreement.

The re launch of social dialogue was coined as a priority for the Commission; yet this graphic most certainly calls that into question, leaving us in doubt about the Commission’s true commitment to social dialogue.

Clavinova
The UK is leaving, get over it.

Having dug out the EU report, it seems it was just that one graphic that caused the Coiffure etc complaint.

And it still doesn’t negate the fact that the proposals were pretty much already covered either under existing legislation or industry good practice, so rather pointless and didn’t meet the Better Regulation aims (and were scrapped).