4 ms·

From my article: [France] also sought [but failed to get] permission to ban imports of crops grown with pesticides, which are banned in the EU. So foreign farm

From my article: [France] also sought [but failed to get] permission to ban imports of crops grown with pesticides, which are banned in the EU. So foreign farmers are permitted farming practices forbidden to EU farmers. And now get to compete in the same market.

blell 10mo ago
What’s even worse is that even though France voted against, they will have to receive the imports anyway. This kind of stuff only grows discontent. The EU desires to kill itself I guess.
- hermanzegerman 10mo ago
  You can't work out sensible deals, if a single country can throw a wrench into the wheel. A Union that works is better than one, which is in a permanent gridlock 21 Countries voted for it, 5 Countries against it For things like these agreements you need a majority of 55% of the states which represent at least 65% of the EU Population.
  - blell 10mo ago
    When the EU inevitably collapses because of this undemocratic behaviour, let’s see what’s sensible.
    - philippgerard 10mo ago
      How is a majority vote (of both states and represented population) and a parliamentary vote undemocratic?
      - blell 10mo ago
        How is someone from across the continent voting to destroy your agricultural sector democratic?
        pjc50 10mo ago
        Isn't this a question the US faces every day by having California and Iowa in the same union?
        blell 10mo ago
        Yes? Isn’t this a source of discontent in the US?
        ben_w 10mo ago
        You appear to be asserting that California and Iowa disagreeing about stuff is sufficient by itself to say the US is engaged in undemocratic behaviour. Was that your intention?
        wang_li 10mo ago
        Yes, which is why we have two houses in the legislature and there are limits on the number of seats in the house and electoral college votes. No polity should be able to procreate their way to political dominance over a peer polity nor should they be able to incentivize law breaking for the same purpose. And more on point to the subject, imports should be tariffed so that there are not wage benefits to importing products from overseas. It's major bullshit for a country to say "you must have all these employment standards, safety, wage, retirement, health, holidays, etc." for any business in their area and then go and buy competing goods from outside their area with completely different labor standards.
        hermanzegerman 10mo ago
        Because the french agreed to those terms when they entered the European Union, that they would negotiate their trade deals together, and a qualified majority is sufficient to make these deals. They're also free to leave at any time. "Destroying the agricultural sector" is stupid hyperbole, especially given the small quotas in sensitive parts of the agricultural sector.
        Balinares 10mo ago
        Exact same way someone from across the street voting in a way you disagree with is democratic. Nice try appealing to xenophobia though.
hermanzegerman 10mo ago
First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. The Trade Deal also doesn't change legislation around the Food Safety Standards Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). They always cry about everything, even while doing very well. So complaining about an unfair advantage for Brazilian farmers is not an argument to take very seriously In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young"
- LunaSea 10mo ago
  > In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young" Does that saying also apply to non-competitive car companies and solar panel makers?
- like_any_other 10mo ago
  > First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports. > Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). "Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing/cap-expenditure_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing... Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation: "No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to" Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not. "It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?" I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.

blell 10mo ago

What’s even worse is that even though France voted against, they will have to receive the imports anyway. This kind of stuff only grows discontent. The EU desires to kill itself I guess.

hermanzegerman 10mo ago
You can't work out sensible deals, if a single country can throw a wrench into the wheel. A Union that works is better than one, which is in a permanent gridlock 21 Countries voted for it, 5 Countries against it For things like these agreements you need a majority of 55% of the states which represent at least 65% of the EU Population.
- blell 10mo ago
  When the EU inevitably collapses because of this undemocratic behaviour, let’s see what’s sensible.
  - philippgerard 10mo ago
    How is a majority vote (of both states and represented population) and a parliamentary vote undemocratic?
    - blell 10mo ago
      How is someone from across the continent voting to destroy your agricultural sector democratic?
      - pjc50 10mo ago
        Isn't this a question the US faces every day by having California and Iowa in the same union?
        blell 10mo ago
        Yes? Isn’t this a source of discontent in the US?
        ben_w 10mo ago
        You appear to be asserting that California and Iowa disagreeing about stuff is sufficient by itself to say the US is engaged in undemocratic behaviour. Was that your intention?
        wang_li 10mo ago
        Yes, which is why we have two houses in the legislature and there are limits on the number of seats in the house and electoral college votes. No polity should be able to procreate their way to political dominance over a peer polity nor should they be able to incentivize law breaking for the same purpose. And more on point to the subject, imports should be tariffed so that there are not wage benefits to importing products from overseas. It's major bullshit for a country to say "you must have all these employment standards, safety, wage, retirement, health, holidays, etc." for any business in their area and then go and buy competing goods from outside their area with completely different labor standards.
      - hermanzegerman 10mo ago
        Because the french agreed to those terms when they entered the European Union, that they would negotiate their trade deals together, and a qualified majority is sufficient to make these deals. They're also free to leave at any time. "Destroying the agricultural sector" is stupid hyperbole, especially given the small quotas in sensitive parts of the agricultural sector.
      - Balinares 10mo ago
        Exact same way someone from across the street voting in a way you disagree with is democratic. Nice try appealing to xenophobia though.

hermanzegerman 10mo ago

First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. The Trade Deal also doesn't change legislation around the Food Safety Standards Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). They always cry about everything, even while doing very well. So complaining about an unfair advantage for Brazilian farmers is not an argument to take very seriously In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young"

LunaSea 10mo ago
> In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young" Does that saying also apply to non-competitive car companies and solar panel makers?
like_any_other 10mo ago
> First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports. > Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). "Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing/cap-expenditure_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing... Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation: "No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to" Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not. "It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?" I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.