The most popular media example of EU regulatory silliness was a rule about how much curvature bananas were allowed to have. In fact, this is only a half of an example because it is untrue, a comically disingenuous version of an actual EU rule, widely reported in the part of the British media that delighted in inventing news to acquire and enrage readers. More true, and just as ridiculous, was the EU recommendation to member states that bottled water manufacturers be prohibited from advertising that their product prevents dehydration.
More serious, to the point of killing people, is the EU ban on sale of snus. Yeah, snus, I'd never heard of them either. It is a tobacco product that everyone agrees is less dangerous than cigarettes. Some people who smoke cigarettes were turning to snus as a safer substitute. But the EU, being wiser than the people, made the Decision of Enlightenment that you would be better off dying from cigarettes than using snus. Serious analysis is largely missing on this matter, but it seems possible that some thousands of people have died as a result.
I once worked for a startup company with more than 50 employees. We were in a mad dash to bring a product to market, burning money at a rate that would frighten most millionaires. Everyone was in a frenzy. Since everyone was a stockholder who had the possibility of becoming rich if we succeeded, there was no shortage of proposals for how to get things done better. We were consulting with each other almost as much as we were working like madmen. We were all experts in our various fields, and could better be compared to a football team (each person is a specialist, all are respected) than to a shoe factory. Having this law imposed on us would have eaten the hours of our day and lowered our chances of success.
Now, the "Consultation of Employees" law all by itself is not enough to kill all startup businesses. But a couple hundred laws that have similarly good intentions and comparably bad side effects is enough to kill innovation through the classic "death of a thousand cuts" process. So getting rid of the EU Uber Nanny is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of bringing back the entrepreneurial spirit that once made England the center of the Industrial Revolution.
Realizing that the only way to really really guarantee no more crashes was to never certify another airplane for flight, they created a regulatory regime that effectively prohibited new aircraft designs. Boeing, Lockheed, and other American aircraft vendors filled the void, with Boeing eventually taking the position once held by the Brits. Britain's loss was Seattle's gain. Today, Britain is so incapable of advanced tech development that they have turned to the Chinese to build nuclear reactors for them -- a comical turn of events, since the Brits were once able to build nuclear submarines and the Chinese still can't.
So there won't be a flowering of new businesses after throwing out the EU. For this reason, if I had been in Britain, I would have voted against Brexit.
The most entertaining possible outcome is that Scotland secedes from Britain, joins the EU , and the London Stock Exchange moves to Edinburgh (really: one big trading house in London is already scouting prime real estate as a contingency plan). This would work out great for the Scots ... not so great for the English. But there would be some justice to it, since the Scots voted by a large majority to stay in the EU.
Oddly enough, there could be a best-of-all-worlds outcome for Britain. The British pols understand that they need the open market. The EU leaders have already asserted categorically that Britain will not be allowed to have an open market unless they accept an open border. So it is barely conceivable that the new deal, once negotiated, will have an open market and an open border, and no EU bureaucrats imposing new laws. This would give Britain all the good parts of EU membership while stripping off the absurdist parts.
But to get to this nirvana, the Brits will probably need the luck of the Irish.
<< Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, for my Daughter <<
>> Trump: An Artifact of Flawed Voting Algorithms >>