Ok - but the Euro standards are there for a reason.
Not in dispute. Where we might disagree is whether the standards are always and absolutely a beneficial thing.
And if they make it more difficult to build or refurbish to old, polluting standards, is that a bad thing?
It depends on the circumstances. We need to take into account the environmental impact and cost of manufacture as well.
For example, standards often apply only to newly built products, with older items being allowed to continue in operation. It might be said it is a good thing that when a highly polluting engine wears out the locomotive it is fitted to is scrapped. But if the locomotive still has many years life left, then fitting a new engine (perhaps less polluting than the original) may avoid the cost and environmental impact of building a replacement. Or perhaps the owner might decide to fit a less polluting engine long before the old one wears out.
Now, if the regulations permit a new engine which is not compliant with the latest standards to be fitted then all well and good. But if the regulations require the replacement to comply with
all current standards, and such an engine is not practical for that locomotive, then the net result is either the locomotive carries on being used with a more polluting engine or the whole thing is scrapped. (I use this as an example that may be relevant on a rail forum, rather than saying it has or will happen to any particular class of locomotive in the UK)
Also it's worth remembering that the European standards committees are generally not populated by civil servants - they are mostly representatives of suppliers or operators.
Well yes. And that is where things get complicated because not all suppliers and operators want the same thing. Some suppliers may get a commercial advantage over a competitor if a standard is set in a specific way (cf. Dyson and the vacuum cleaner energy label ruling). That is where the civil servants and others should step in to ensure a level playing field. The reality of course is national considerations then come into play and standards get a political tinge.
And what you need to build in is a special case so that you don't have to ask for a derogation. In my experience there was virtually no push-back in a railway context against the UK having special cases.
As happens in so many cases. Here we go back to your "is that a bad thing?" question. At a political level it is sometimes very difficult to 'push-back' on something that on paper looks like a good thing. E.g. "What? UK civil servants blocked legislation which stops children being killed by pollution?" - I'm sure you are familiar with hearing or reading that kind of thing.
And sometimes politicians and civil servants support initiatives even if the science behind them is less than solid (see remarks about emissions on the car ownership vs use thread)
It's all about whether it's better to have real influence over a large market area or the theoretical freedom to do as you like.
I would suggest the words "real" and "theoretical" in that sentence can be interchanged freely depending on individual bias and preference.