The DSE regulations are UK regulations that are designed put an EU directive into force, not an EU regulation. Although UK regulations are are derived from EU directives, think it's highly unlikely that any current UK H&S legislation would be revoked due to a Brexit. Removing existing H&S legislation would be a huge step backwards. I would continue forward assuming the legislation will stay the same.

I agree that no-one knows what we would be voting for if we voted to leave. For example, does anyone imagine that if we did decide to leave we would be able to trade with the EU without having to comply with many of their regulations? Could we sell chemicals or equipment into the EU that did not comply with EU standards just because we were not part of the EU. Ask the Norwegians about that. One question I have failed to get an answer on is to do with REACH. Registrations for chemicals under REACH must be held by someone resident within the EU. At the moment, therefore, UK chemical suppliers can register for themselves. Anyone selling into the EU from outside must appoint a sole representative as the holder of their registrations. If we left the EU would our suppliers have to do this and would they be able simply to transfer their current registrations, or would they have to start all over again? Anyone know the answer to this? Chris

Another issue for us and i would imagine it's the same for a lot of organisations We have people travelling to and from our European offices ( we are a global Legal Practice) sometimes at very short notice. My question is would they need a work permit or would they only get a visitors visa at the boarder and not be allowed to work? If they had to get a work permit would this mean extra home office resources to process the thousands of EU citizens coming to visit or work in the UK?

We might no longer need them to comply with the EU, but we would have to intentionally go out of our way to revoke them, which would be entirely illogical and counter-productive. It would only affect how we would create legislation relating to future directives, which we would probably only choose to mimic if they suited the UK, or if they affect anything we trade with the EU.

OR The teenager has had enough of his Mum & Dad having more and more kids who can't pay their way at home. Mum & Dad lack any ability to discipline the siblings that lie and cheat. So all the expense of maintaining the home falls on 4 or 5 members of a still growing dysfunctional family.

Frankly, the scare mongering rhetoric that comes from the politicians warning of the dire consequences on trade if we left the EU reminds me of the early days of our membership of the EEC (or the 'Common Market' as it used to be known). Not too long after joining, a national referendum was held on whether to remain members. We were told how it would be terrible to leave, as we had cut off our former trading links with our commonwealth, and we needed the EEC as the only ones we could now trade with. Well, that just wasn't true, and is not true now, but the public ran scared and voted to stay in. History repeats itself, and once again the rhetoric and political spin appears. Do we honestly believe that companies in the EU will cease to trade with us, or put ridiculous barriers in our way (VW have recently agreed to buy back half a million cars in the US, so they'll be looking for all the sales they can get, for instance). As for health and safety legislation, since we led the way on this long before joining the EU, what makes us think we won't continue to do so? We don't really need EU directives to tell us what needs to be done, and while we're on that subject, it has been my observation that many EU members sign up to the same directives as us, but simply don't implement them, so I doubt that it would make much difference. We can well do without some of the nonsense that comes out of Brussels, and we can certainly do without the expense of being a member of this club. It would pose a problem for politicians wanting a second career when their credibility has been shot in this country, but that's their problem.

I should point out thats from an interview with a journalist (I think evening Standard) not a conversation with me

Mike, I'm not intending to be anti-Australian, or anti-US, or even anti-foreigner; after all, I want us to stay in Europe. But put it this way; you live here, your interests are bound up in our membership of the EU (for better or worse). The teenager I mentioned is a US citizen, domiciled in the US. So I repeat, I fail to see why his opinion should matter on this, John

Basically I'm voting out because I'm fed up at the amount of money we are wasting with this corrupt "Club" The past couple of days sees the UK hosting a Corruption Summit With country's saying that the UK help them be corrupt by pumping millions into them yearly. Why do we do it? couldn't health or schools do better with money like that? How many time does someone have to die because you can't have the drugs because its expensive, but we put 148 million quid to the Afghan Government whose major export is heroin? look here https://uk.news.yahoo.co...om-britain-09112012.html lets get out of the EU and start making this country great again, Our Grandfathers fought and won this country from the Germans, Don't give it to them now.....

I think that there is a perception that only the EU is corrupt; and should we decide to leave we can rest assured that our good, honest national politicians will be able to govern in the clear and honest way that they always used to before we were tarnished by the Europeans. Instead we will be able to negotiate with decent, honest regimes, like say, China for instance. I believe the truth is that for most of us, things will remain the same - the economy may take a dip for a few years - whilst those at the top of the ladder are able to line their pockets with lucrative deals which will in no way filter through to us.

Sometimes it is better the devil you know. I would rather work in close alliance with Europe than wit the US and I feel that being part of the European Union gives us a bigger voice on a global scale.

Undoubtedly I'd rather be part of the EU than part of the USA, but that's not the question being asked. Not being part of the EU does not of necessity imply being part of (or even 'working in close alliance with') the USA, so that comparison seems irrelevant. I also don't understand this argument that we have more say on the global scale if we're a part of a larger body - that would be true only if we consistently sway the group opinion of the larger body, and I see no evidence of that. The UK alone may not sway global opinion, but the UK as a minority opinion within EU opinion won't sway it any more.

quote=David Bannister]Large chunks of what Europe has given us appears to have originated on these shores anyway, including much H&S law and all the money. I see the gigantic edifices that comprise the EU institutions as expensive vanity and those that inhabit them as largely unnecessary. The OP mentioned DSE regs. They are outdated and in need of major revision. I am still undecided, leaning towards BREXIT but looking at the characters on that side of the argument makes me wonder whether the Remain side may be right.

We buy more than we sell to the EEC (remember how that was changed to EU) So "they" are hardly likely to muck that up are they? Free movement; yeh ! I can see the Spaniards Italians etc telling us they dont want British holiday makers over there spending our filthy British pounds.

You should look at statistics closely. UK export percentage to EU is 45% of our exports. EU exports to UK, percentage, is 16%. The EU GDP percentage that exports to UK represent is 3%. If you feel like complaining about a lack of facts, feel free to utilise Google/Bing etc. There is a world of plentiful facts out there.... https://www.cer.org.uk/s...shtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf http://www.niesr.ac.uk/b...trade-be-eu#.VznqMNR4WrV http://researchbriefings...ents/SN06091/SN06091.pdf Don't bother with "news"papers, their billionaire owners dictate their content.

The whole debate seems to have, at a minimum, sunk into the protectionist way of thinking. And that's being polite. A more accurate description of the "leave" or "getoutofit" campaign would be racism, of a general form: "British jobs for British people" Strange really, Since there would seem to be no pure-bred "British" people in the country..and since "the British" seem to have elected to have fewer children, therefore making it necessary to import others children!

And ad-hominem along the line of "if you want to leave the EU you must be a racist", of course. You can also substitute 'crazy' or 'conspiracy theorist' for racist. A resort to ad-hominem generally indicates an absence of any good arguments, in my opinion. If the EU is such a good thing, why have the remain campaigners singularly failed to come up with a good reason for remaining? Their argument is entirely negative - it's all about 'if we leave bad things might happen'. Where are the positive reasons for remaining? 'If we leave it might trigger a recession' - the day after the figures confirm we're back in a recession anyway. Something bad might happen is not a good argument - it might not happen. Or something good might happen instead. The remain campaign is built on nothing but FUD - fear uncertainty doubt. It's a very poor argument, it's basically relying on nothing but fear of change. Given that they can't say for certain what will happen if we remain, an argument that boils down to we can't say for certain what will happen if we leave is pretty lame.

Would it be that you don't want "them" in here at all? Or that you don't want "them" in here unless they work? Or that you don't want "them" to get any benefits as a result of work? Our benefits are not free for all, they are only available to residents....as is general medical care...I think, at the moment, about 200,000 UK citizens return from foreign residence to find they no longer qualify for major benefits and healthcare... The cost of provision of healthcare for non-residents is here: https://www.gov.uk/gover..._FULL_REPORT.pdf#page=63 Not really that bad. Oh, and passport-free travel does not exist either coming-in or going-out, to visitors to the uk. We didn't sign-up to the Schengen Agreement. Why would youngsters from Turkey want to come here, as anyone who has been there will tell you, they already get full use of the visitors to Turkey from the EU.... At best, this scaremongering is discrimination, at worst.....

After a lifetime of working in small biz, I can happily state that the vast majority do good H&S paperwork, and that's it. The practical side is little more than a lethal joke. How I get fed-up with reading the endless reports of falls-from-height....with the endless reports of how unnecessary it was. So, Europe is not alone. As I've pointed out before, the route to leaving is documented at length. After telling them we want out, we negotiate trade agreements with the EU. Two years for that. If not agreed, WTO tariffs apply. The alternative route to leaving is the same, except we leave and join another trading partner of the EU. EU trade rules apply, including EU directives (and financial contribs) If we want to continue trading into the EU, then we have to abide by their trade requirements. It really is that simple. What is not simple is what the reaction will be from separate member states....after all, to continue trading we need negotiated agreements to avoid tariffs. Within the first two years we only need a qualified majority of states to agree. To CONTINUE negotiating for longer, in the case of no agreement, we need a unanimous vote of all member states. That is the route.

Exactly right, no body knows what will happen if we leave, or what the EU will look like in two years time. Everyone is spinning numbers to suit their prejudices.