US Milk - WTF?

[motorbiking]

Given how devastating the UK outbreak was, is it any wonder Germany and France were cautious.

Do try and at least do some research first. 3 sentences 0 truths. Well done

Its well documented that France had an illegal ban of British beef. How much compensation did France have to pay? zero - Why is that I wonder?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/eu_fine_re_british_beef
At the same time they had over 300,000 cases themselves which were entirely covered up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ch-mad-cow-disease-cases-went-undetected.html
what sactions were imposed on French beef?

 

[securespark]

Gerry

I don't see it that way.

Pre 1973, we had our own rules, regulations and laws.

I think that when we leave the EU, we will retain the standards that we have acquired. Any new ones will be drawn up like they used to pre '73.

 

[noseall]

Its well documented that France had an illegal ban of British beef

Poor old Moto forgot that he was attempting to blame the EU and has conveniently changed tack.

Remember this.....

Yes the EU is never motivated to ban produce based political agenda........

Poor old forgetful Moto, loves peddling myths.​

 

[motorbiking]

so why was there no ban on French beef? 300,000 cases? or were we just stupid to go public?

 

[noseall]

so why was there no ban on French beef? 300,000 cases? or were we just stupid to go public?

I'll help you with that....


.......Cases went undetected.......We estimate....... "There is uncertainty about estimates of the number of cases........ Published by the Telegraph.

 

[motorbiking]

Based on a French report, produced by French people - well documented elsewhere.

Put this another way - Imagine you're an EU "judge".. your objective is the safeguarding of your EU citizens.
country 1 says it has a problem with a product. You rightly put restrictions in place
country 1 fixes the problem so you lift the ban
country 2 has a similar problem
country 2 hides the problem
country 2 refused to adhere to the lifting of the ban.
country 1 brings a claim against country 2
after 3 years country 2 drops its ban.

It is clear that the actions of country 2 put citizens at risk, in fact there were times when the illegally banned produce of country 1 would have been safer than that of country 2.

What do you think you should do about it?
Bring US style prosecutions against the naughty people for millions and billions?
have a gallic shrug and say there is nothing to do now?

What is to stop country 2 from doing something similar again?

It is for this reason I say the EU is not immune to political motivation. I'm not suggesting its on a scale similar to Eurovision, but states are not treated equally,

 

[noseall]

Based on a French report, produced by French people - well documented elsewhere.

Put this another way - Imagine you're an EU "judge".. your objective is the safeguarding of your EU citizens.
country 1 says it has a problem with a product. You rightly put restrictions in place
country 1 fixes the problem so you lift the ban
country 2 has a similar problem
country 2 hides the problem
country 2 refused to adhere to the lifting of the ban.
country 1 brings a claim against country 2
after 3 years country 2 drops its ban.

It is clear that the actions of country 2 put citizens at risk, in fact there were times when the illegally banned produce of country 1 would have been safer than that of country 2.

What do you think you should do about it?
Bring US style prosecutions against the naughty people for millions and billions?
have a gallic shrug and say there is nothing to do now?

What is to stop country 2 from doing something similar again?

It is for this reason I say the EU is not immune to political motivation. I'm not suggesting its on a scale similar to Eurovision, but states are not treated equally,

You are arguing with yourself. I made my point clear when I discredited your "the EU banned......" nonsense.

 

[motorbiking]

So your point is that the ECJ acted fairly and impartially?

 

[Notch7]

I'll help you with that....


.......Cases went undetected.......We estimate....... "There is uncertainty about estimates of the number of cases........ Published by the Telegraph.

Other sources say cases went undetected. So not just the Telegraph.

 

[noseall]

So your point is that the ECJ acted fairly and impartially?

If the French covered it up, what do you expect the EU to do?

I think the UK had something like 4 million 'suspected' contaminated cows.

Other sources say cases went undetected

Precisely.

 

[motorbiking]

What do courts normally do, when people break the law and try to cover it up?

 

[noseall]

What do courts normally do, when people break the law and try to cover it up?

Uncover it 13 years later and have a moan?

 

[JohnD]

save a lot of time. Tell us what YOU think should happen

 

[motorbiking]

At the time they should have mandated EU wide testing and precautions. Surely experts were warning that this wasn't peculiar to British breading. But that has the benefit of knowing how things turned out.

I think an impartial and fair judiciary would have:

1. Enforced the fine that was imposed and due. Even then it was known to be mostly about filling a gap in the market with French beef : £100k per day for the illegal ban - it was never enforced or paid.
2. Ordered a review to identify the wrong doers, be it individuals or state, I suspect there was a cover up. "Lets not test in case we find something we don't want to find"
3. prosecute individuals or sanction states found in the wrong.

They are doing a good job of going after some of the Eastern European states right now. But then they aren't bank rolling the EU, like France and Germany.

 

[SirGalahad]

Christ this exchange was painful to read. ihatemyjob's point was that if alcohol did not exist and someone invented it tomorrow, the EU would ban it.
The power to ban stuff is not a virtue, it is a dangerous privilege that should be constantly scrutitnised, reviewed, and kept on a leash. A sovereign system is easier to manage in that regard than a distant continental one. We made regulations before we joined the EU, there's no reason we can't make them after leaving it.

As an aside, it's fun to watch how the Remain argument flip flops. Before the referendum it was all "The EU doesn't prevent us from making our own regulations and laws! That's just Daily Mail propaganda about bendy bananas. We have lost no sovereignty at all, you dumb Brexiteers."
Now the narrative is "but if we leave the EU who will set our standards? We'll have none at all! We need the EU to do it for us."

So let me get this straight.

You have a hypothetical straw man argument that the EU would ban alcohol if introduced now and by implication the US would not without providing any reasoning.

The EU uses the precautionary principle in its food risk assessment, whereas the US approach is based more on a cost-benefit approach when reviewing food safety standards. The precautionary principle "In practice, it determines that when there is uncertainty about specific risks but you don’t have all the data, nonetheless you have the authority to address those risks. As such, the Commission can regulate, restrict, and ultimately ban a food if the risk of damage to the population is too big to wait for more data. Whereas the US would wait for the damage to take place before acting. But both would act, one perhaps sooner than the other.

So your argument which has no evidence is also based on a incorrect understanding. It's no wonder I didn't understand it as its wrong.

The rest of your points is misplaced its not about sovereignty or continental but the principles in risk management.

Another straw man argument about setting standards. If we leave the EU and want to trade with the EU we will need to meet their standards, not hard to fathom. It would not exclude us from setting our own standards but whoever we traded with we would need to meet the agreed standards. As we would have less negotiating power vis a vis a trading bloc what is likely is that we would have standards dictated to us.