Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Sheilbh]

Because angry letters and threats of sanctions will only work when a country is not really behind something.  The economic threats fall completely flat when the wrong doer is economically stronger then the abused.

But the Commission and the CJEU aren't national.  The Commission's goal is to advance the purposes of the EU, similarly the court doesn't really care about domestic situations.  All the court's interested in is a uniform application of European law.  As I say in 70% of cases the 'angry letters' work.  I don't know of an example of a member state actively flouting EU law after the Court's ruled

If say Latvia feels it's being treated unfairly by Germany, what are they going to do?  Is the rest of the EU really going to damage itself to punish Germany?  I doubt it, and your statements about the EU refusal to enforce the rules and the wide spread cheating indicates that they don't.

Then Latvia can sue Germany.  Member states suing each other is relatively rare, generally they prefer the Commission to step in and try and work out a solution.  But it does happen.  We've sued the French many times.

I am looking at this from the US perspective where we have had a long history of States simply ignoring Washington (and in some cases the Executive branch ignoring the judicial branch).  If left to themselves the states would not of integrated their schools.  It took soldiers to force them to do it. 

That's a difference.  The EU was created to avoid soldiers marching across Europe.

If a European state wants to harass a minority, a minority hated by the general populace like the Roma, who is going to stop them?

The EU requires that countries are democratic and broadly have respect for human rights.  But beyond that the EU is about the four freedoms which are, I think, trade, capital, labour and services.  In the French example the EU's issue with the expulsions was that it went against free movement of people.  It's never come up that a country's fallen so far from the democratic or human rights aspect that the EU's needed to get involved.  As all EU member states are members of the European Convention of Human Rights that would generally be addressed in that court which is totally separate from the EU.

Where is the mechanism for expulsion that Marty eluded to?

I've no idea.  Off the top of my head there could be something in Lisbon.  I know that's the first treaty that outlines the procedure for a state to withdraw from the EU.

[garbon]

So you are saying that sparkling wine produced in the US should be called "champagne"? 

I'm saying it is champagne.

Indeed. It isn't as though people go out and say "I'd like a bottle of sparkling wine, please."

[garbon]

If you're a food snob then the problem is you can't source your food as you want.

1) Why should that be a priority of a state?
2) I think it is called the internet - you can do research to find out where your food is coming form. Sort of like those individuals who do research to make sure that their produce is locally grown.

[Razgovory]

Because angry letters and threats of sanctions will only work when a country is not really behind something.  The economic threats fall completely flat when the wrong doer is economically stronger then the abused.

But the Commission and the CJEU aren't national.  The Commission's goal is to advance the purposes of the EU, similarly the court doesn't really care about domestic situations.  All the court's interested in is a uniform application of European law.  As I say in 70% of cases the 'angry letters' work.  I don't know of an example of a member state actively flouting EU law after the Court's ruled

If say Latvia feels it's being treated unfairly by Germany, what are they going to do?  Is the rest of the EU really going to damage itself to punish Germany?  I doubt it, and your statements about the EU refusal to enforce the rules and the wide spread cheating indicates that they don't.

Then Latvia can sue Germany.  Member states suing each other is relatively rare, generally they prefer the Commission to step in and try and work out a solution.  But it does happen.  We've sued the French many times.

I am looking at this from the US perspective where we have had a long history of States simply ignoring Washington (and in some cases the Executive branch ignoring the judicial branch).  If left to themselves the states would not of integrated their schools.  It took soldiers to force them to do it. 

That's a difference.  The EU was created to avoid soldiers marching across Europe.

If a European state wants to harass a minority, a minority hated by the general populace like the Roma, who is going to stop them?

The EU requires that countries are democratic and broadly have respect for human rights.  But beyond that the EU is about the four freedoms which are, I think, trade, capital, labour and services.  In the French example the EU's issue with the expulsions was that it went against free movement of people.  It's never come up that a country's fallen so far from the democratic or human rights aspect that the EU's needed to get involved.  As all EU member states are members of the European Convention of Human Rights that would generally be addressed in that court which is totally separate from the EU.

Where is the mechanism for expulsion that Marty eluded to?

I've no idea.  Off the top of my head there could be something in Lisbon.  I know that's the first treaty that outlines the procedure for a state to withdraw from the EU.

This all suggest to me that EU only attempts to enforce something when it won't really offend someone to much.  To quote Marty:

As I said the Commission took a political view not to enforce these particular rules. That does not mean it couldn't.

Perhaps I'm looking at this wrong.  What is the EU suppose to be?  I'm looking at it as if were a country.  In a country people with weapons (be they rifles, billy clubs or just hand cuffs), enforce the law.  You wouldn't have a criminal law enforced by lawsuits and boycotts.  If someone broke into your home and stole your stereo you wouldn't sue them.  The police would arrest them and put them on trial.

As I said, I may be looking at it wrong.  The EU really isn't a country, (though some of it's advocates seem to want it eventually become one),  What is it suppose to be.

[Ideologue]

If the tradition would be illegal, why would you want to maintain it?

There are more important things than modern obsessive food hygiene.

OK Upton Sinclair.

[Sheilbh]

1) Why should that be a priority of a state?

The EU isn't a state.  The vast majority of its purpose is to regulate the single market. 

2) I think it is called the internet - you can do research to find out where your food is coming form. Sort of like those individuals who do research to make sure that their produce is locally grown.

What's the harm in these regulations that simply define what certain things are?  I don't see the objection to them.  They aren't onerous on producers and they make the consumer's life easier.

Why should I have to do research to find out if a product is what it's describing itself to be?

As I said, I may be looking at it wrong.  The EU really isn't a country, (though some of it's advocates seem to want it eventually become one),  What is it suppose to be.

Ultimately it's a single market and it's a union of member states.  The vast majority of EU legislation is to do with the free movement of goods and people (they're still working on capital and services).  You say they don't enforce things that don't matter they've got the French in the world's largest customs union that takes enforcement.  Similarly they negotiate for all of the EU with the WTO and other countries.  You can't get a free trade deal with the UK, only with the EU.  That doesn't require enforcement but is a sign of its power.

In your example the one area of domestic law that's probably least touched by EU law is criminal law.  A more accurate analogy would be if the Federal government set minimum environmental standards how would they enforce that on, say, Alabama?

This all suggest to me that EU only attempts to enforce something when it won't really offend someone to much.  To quote Marty:

I said earlier the Commission decided not to.  It depends on your definition of important I suppose.  I disagree with you in that I think the failure of the EU to enforce the stability pact (which was political) was one of will not ability.  But I think that it points to the central problem Europe now has which is that the EU's framework was devised about 10 years ago, when things were good, and its institutional memory is to do with running a single market. 

Right now the Eurozone and its needs are far beyond what the EU has been established to do or has any experience of doing.  I think there's a tension and a difficulty because of that and the failure to resolve that is part of the problem with the Eurozone crisis.

[garbon]

The EU isn't a state.  The vast majority of its purpose is to regulate the single market.

Member states pushed for these designations, no?

What's the harm in these regulations that simply define what certain things are?  I don't see the objection to them.  They aren't onerous on producers and they make the consumer's life easier.

Why should I have to do research to find out if a product is what it's describing itself to be?

How do they make a consumer's life easier? Seems more like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.  Producer's can now get in trouble for labeling items what consumers actually call them.

Besides, there was already an easy alternative - products can list where they are made on their label. Like the cheddar I recently bought that says it was made in Vermont.

[garbon]

Ugh looks like the protesters are still basing themselves in the private park but making forays up to Washington Square park. They are now in my neighborhood.

[Sheilbh]

Member states pushed for these designations, no?

Well member states are ultimately behind all EU law, so yes.  But it's not a state.  It's about the regulations of the single market.  These fit into that.

How do they make a consumer's life easier? Seems more like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.  Producer's can now get in trouble for labeling items what consumers actually call them.

I know if I order Toulouse sausage, that's what I'll get.  That makes my life very easy as compared to having to look up online where something's from, checking the ingredients and all the rest.

I don't think this is any more onerous than any other requirement for packaging.  It's not that bureaucratic and supermarkets  can (and do) still sell, say, white feta style cheese.

Besides, there was already an easy alternative - products can list where they are made on their label. Like the cheddar I recently bought that says it was made in Vermont.

It's not just geography.  The regulations tend to cover how something's made too.  So a Melton Mowbray porkpie has specific ingredients and must be handmade (a Melton Mowbray style pie doesn't).  Lincolnshire sausages are another example.  They have to be made in Lincolnshire, I think from a certain type of pig and they've got to be a certain % pork and the only ingredients allowed are pork, sage, salt and pepper.  In that case the producers of the sausage in Lincolnshire have been pushing for EU recognition because  supermarkets were producing 'Lincolnshire sausages' that had low meat content (lots of water to make them look nicer) and often other ingredients like parsley.  The producers felt their brand was being tarnished by cheap knock-offs.

[Admiral Yi]

New York Times had a couple gushy op-eds about the protesters today.

[garbon]

Well member states are ultimately behind all EU law, so yes.  But it's not a state.  It's about the regulations of the single market.  These fit into that.

It was never my intention to suggestion that the EU is a state. I should have been more precise as far as what role should states have in advocating for such things.  Also, your first sentence - what a bureaucratic line.

I know if I order Toulouse sausage, that's what I'll get.  That makes my life very easy as compared to having to look up online where something's from, checking the ingredients and all the rest.

What makes that so special in comparison to other food items that don't have proper place names? Just as easily a chocolate cake could be prepared in many different manners and locales.  Why are special cases made for items advocated by special interest groups?

I don't think this is any more onerous than any other requirement for packaging.  It's not that bureaucratic and supermarkets  can (and do) still sell, say, white feta style cheese.

Except that it unfairly benefits certain producers because they are producing in particular locations - while others are disadvantaged because they do not.

It's not just geography.  The regulations tend to cover how something's made too.  So a Melton Mowbray porkpie has specific ingredients and must be handmade (a Melton Mowbray style pie doesn't).

Again who's interests are being served as far as sanctify the means of production? And of course, that is something that could be on packaging if producers thought it was important (and consumers actually cared). I daresay that one could have a Melton Mowbray porkpie that was produced by machines despite the bureaucratic fiction.  I'm also not sure how the legal battles that inevitably arise are in the best interests of EU consumers.

Lincolnshire sausages are another example.  They have to be made in Lincolnshire, I think from a certain type of pig and they've got to be a certain % pork and the only ingredients allowed are pork, sage, salt and pepper.  In that case the producers of the sausage in Lincolnshire have been pushing for EU recognition because  supermarkets were producing 'Lincolnshire sausages' that had low meat content (lots of water to make them look nicer) and often other ingredients like parsley.  The producers felt their brand was being tarnished by cheap knock-offs.

Now some of that is understandable but has little to do with announcing that Lincolnshire sausage must be made in Lincolnshire.  Over here we have similar concepts as well that if you have an insufficient amount of meat content you fall into categories like meat product - on the basis that consumers were being deceived as to what actually constituted the items (health and nutrition purposes).

That's a far cry from the legal fiction that only cheese prepared in an exact way in a precise location can be called Feta even though it differs only slightly (if at all) from similar cheeses produced in other regions.  I very much doubt that Feta, as produced in Greece, has seen the same unchanging recipe/preparation since the renaissance era.

[Sheilbh]

What makes that so special in comparison to other food items that don't have proper place names? Just as easily a chocolate cake could be prepared in many different manners and locales.  Why are special cases made for items advocated by special interest groups?

A chocolate cake is clearly different from a traditional local method of production or something tied to the land.  Food is a huge part of regional heritage, and even a Sachertorte is something different from a 'chocolate cake'.

Except that it unfairly benefits certain producers because they are producing in particular locations - while others are disadvantaged because they do not.

Again who's interests are being served as far as sanctify the means of production? And of course, that is something that could be on packaging if producers thought it was important (and consumers actually cared). I daresay that one could have a Melton Mowbray porkpie that was produced by machines despite the bureaucratic fiction.  I'm also not sure how the legal battles that inevitably arise are in the best interests of EU consumers.

If it's machine made then it's not a Melton Mowbray pie.  The entire point is that this is a distinctive, unique way of making something.  But I also wouldn't trust producers in terms of marketing.  In the US I believe there's no definition of 'extra virgin' so the vast majority of olive oils describe themselves as 'extra virgin'.  In Europe it means first press olives, there's a big taste difference.  Similarly before the EU protection there was a reputation around Melton Mowbray, they were famous for their pies in this country and their brand was being damaged by cheap knock offs.  I prefer the European system which seems less open to manipulation and marketing.

Now some of that is understandable but has little to do with announcing that Lincolnshire sausage must be made in Lincolnshire.  Over here we have similar concepts as well that if you have an insufficient amount of meat content you fall into categories like meat product - on the basis that consumers were being deceived as to what actually constituted the items (health and nutrition purposes).

We've got those too.  The Lincolnshire standards are higher - I think they've got to be 98% pork - the entire point is that their product is distinctive, unique and a part of the culture of the area it is different and should be protected.  So there should be rules of what qualifies a Lincolnshire sausage or you end up ruining their brand and all Lincolnshire sausages degenerating to mediocrity.

That's a far cry from the legal fiction that only cheese prepared in an exact way in a precise location can be called Feta even though it differs only slightly (if at all) from similar cheeses produced in other regions.  I very much doubt that Feta, as produced in Greece, has seen the same unchanging recipe/preparation since the renaissance era.

Again feta has specific rules on what breeds are used for the milk and method of production.  It is, like the Roquefort caves, certainly not unchanging but it is unchanging enough and distinctive enough to have a value which is like a brand name and should receive similar protection.

[garbon]

Yeah, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I don't see those so much as brand names as class items that are suddenly being afforded the status of a protected brand. Artificially introducing authenticity to so many items.

[Neil]

I guess it works out.  Sheilbh can live in Europe, where they have wacky naming laws, and we can live in North America, where the EU can't touch us.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I don't see those so much as brand names as class items that are suddenly being afforded the status of a protected brand. Artificially introducing authenticity to so many items.

Fair.  I don't think it's artificial for the most part I mean they've been making those pies in that way for a couple of hundred years and similarly with feta and roquefort - some products, interestingly, have decided against going for EU status.  The best example I can think of of something similar in the US is possibly bourbon?  From when I worked in a bar I seem to remember that it had to be made in a certain way, have certain qualities and that some states had additional regulations?