|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 26, 2009 17:35:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Sept 27, 2009 7:44:50 GMT
Apparently, sending waste out of the EU to be disposed of is rife - legally and otherwise - due to the EU's massively restrictive anti-waste laws.
Isn't that a tendentious formulation?
Anyway, the laws aren't just 'anti-waste' (that'd be on the minimization of waste by reducing its 'production') but - in good European administrative tradition - by defining what is 'waste' and what is 'scrap' and thus resource!
And while waste must be disposed of (in principal locally), resources can be traded globally...
But, complicated laws notwithstanding, I will not blame the EU for the abuse, misuse, criminal profiteering - and I cannot see the North Americans as glorious examples for being 'less restrictive' in this context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 27, 2009 7:47:08 GMT
Given the amount of red tape that strangles everything else in the EU, it seemed a reasonable deduction...
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Sept 27, 2009 8:02:56 GMT
No contradiction on the abundance of red tape - but one could concede that more often than not this is due to 27 variations and exemptions requested by members on originally simple and basically good intentions for purely national ego (=> electoral public).
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 27, 2009 8:14:42 GMT
One could... but given the tendency of the EU to seek control of all areas in every way possible, as proved on many occasions, that would be unduly charitable, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Sept 27, 2009 8:22:46 GMT
Well, it's an administration, so Cyril Northcote Parkinson's laws apply - in potence 27!  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 27, 2009 8:29:20 GMT
And the Peter Principle to a level undreamed of... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Sept 27, 2009 8:30:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 29, 2009 18:21:37 GMT
Heh. I can see how that works... And it pretty much does.
|
|
.com