But snark about non-Europeans being more qualified than Europeans to decide what they consume.
The last two paragraphs in the article are:
In fact, a broad majority of officials on both the Commission and in the European Parliament is convinced that the tenacious pursuit of more and more protections against calories, alcohol and the dangers of driving is both popular and an ethical obligation. At least, that is, as far as Europeans are concerned. Everyone else in the world can drive at high speeds, smoke and drink to their hearts' content. In fact, to encourage the rest of the world to drink more European wine, Brussels generously subsidizes colorful, happy liquor ads in foreign markets.
At least, that is, as far as Europeans are concerned. Everyone else in the world can drive at high speeds, smoke and drink to their hearts' content. In fact, to encourage the rest of the world to drink more European wine, Brussels generously subsidizes colorful, happy liquor ads in foreign markets.
Of course, wine is far less addictive and destructive than opium.
In March 1839 the Emperor appointed a new strict Confucianist commissioner, Lin Zexu, to control the opium trade at the port of Canton. <...> In 1839 Lin took the extraordinary step of presenting a letter directly to Queen Victoria questioning the moral reasoning of the royal government. Citing what he understood was a strict prohibition of the opium trade within England, Ireland, and Scotland, Lin questioned how Britain could then profit from the drug in China.
In 1839 Lin took the extraordinary step of presenting a letter directly to Queen Victoria questioning the moral reasoning of the royal government. Citing what he understood was a strict prohibition of the opium trade within England, Ireland, and Scotland, Lin questioned how Britain could then profit from the drug in China.
It is, however, a disingenuous side-swipe in that final paragraph, which is really complaining about Europeans being (yet again) tyrannised by Brussels (while freedom reigns elsewhere in the world).
Freedom for the consumer to make up her/is own mind, how noble. In fact the article's true thrust sponsors freedom for large corporations to sell deleterious goods any way the admen tell them they will sell.
The difference between "red and white wine", the example is telling because it addresses a certain consumer and a specifically prestige-bearing product and savoir-faire. Meanwhile, obesity is rising among children and among lower income groups, tobacco and alcohol abuse cause problems, again, rather more among social groups whose prime interest is not exactly wondering whether it should be red or white with this evening's dinner.
But the strategy of the article is to build resentment against regulation of advertising by flattering the reader's self-image as a free-spirited, savvy consumer on an open market, mischaracterising regulation as bureaucratic red tape (a standard strawman), and railing about hypocrites in Brussels (brother to the previous strawman).
The article bears the mark of its sponsor: the German automobile industry. It is exporting well in the Eurozone thanks to wage depression. It firmly opposes regulation concerning mileage and GHG emissions. Previous promises to self-regulate on these questions have not been kept, but advertising regulation that might favour smaller, lower consumption-and-emissions cars must be resisted. Which is what this piece is all about.
PS Your point about opium is well taken. But (don't know the details) I suppose the British Empire shucked off its responsibility by using colonial companies to force the opium trade on China, in a similar way to what I suggest in my first paragraph. Back then was, of course, the first wave of globalisation. And finally, the EU's authority outside its borders derives only from the soft power of setting standards within its very large marketplace. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
But I don't read the final paragraph as a complaint about Europeans being deprived of freedom which the rest of the world gets to enjoy.
Rather, I think it is pointing out the moral dubiousness of imposing regulations to protect "people", where "people" only means those who have EU passports. The implication is that the moral basis ("ethical obligation") for these regulations is weak.
The inconsistency is easily remedied either by getting rid of the regulations, or by making them apply to markets outside Europe as well as within. Of course, I favor the latter approach.
Interestingly, despite the article's implication that European companies are free to seduce consumers outside of Europe with ads for cigarettes, booze, cars, and so forth, I was surprised to find that no European car companies are mentioned in this (granted, short) article, "Car makers pour advertising dollars into China". Even so,
Volkswagen's high-end line, climbed 25 percent to 30,188, while Bentley sales soared 137.8 percent to 126 units. ... Sales of imported BMW sedans, including the much-more expensive 7 Series flagship cars, jumped 83.9 percent. ... Mercedes-Benz also reported strong growth, with sales up 40 percent in China. Global auto makers report soaring Q1 China sales_English_Xinhua
Sales of imported BMW sedans, including the much-more expensive 7 Series flagship cars, jumped 83.9 percent. ...
Mercedes-Benz also reported strong growth, with sales up 40 percent in China.
Global auto makers report soaring Q1 China sales_English_Xinhua
which utterly jibes with what I see every day on the streets of Hangzhou.
And finally, the EU's authority outside its borders derives only from the soft power of setting standards within its very large marketplace.
I think I must not be reading your point correctly, but surely the EU can impose laws and regulations on the activities of EU-based companies even outside its borders, right? A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
I think I must not be reading your point correctly, but surely the EU can impose laws and regulations on the activities of EU-based companies even outside its borders, right?
No, not really: unlike the US, the EU doesn't seem to consider itself entitled to regulate the acts of legal entities based in other countries in those countries. It's very likely Volkswagen China Inc that is adveristing and selling there.
Everyone else in the world can drive at high speeds, smoke and drink to their hearts' content.
The main point in it (to me) is that elsewhere people are free, (while in Europe, as the entire article has underscored, they are told what to do like children). Compared to this, the final point about EU companies applying (or profiting by) local laws outside the EU, seems to me, as I said, a side-swipe.
As to your reading re "moral dubiousness", then we'd have to say that it was morally dubious to abolish the death penalty in one country (or state of the US) because it didn't apply to citizens elsewhere. That democracy and the rule of law themselves were morally dubious, because they don't apply to all people, everywhere.
I think you did misread me: I was pointing out that corporations can and do establish subsidiaries or sister companies that are based in the countries they want to do business in, or in tax or corporate havens, and those companies operate under the law of the land they're set up in. To what extent the original corporation can be monitored and held to account for the activities of foreign-based companies it can take care to be legally separate from, seems moot. Not that I'd personally be against it. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
I understand better now: just as the EU cannot impose democracy, the rule of law, the abolition of the death penalty on countries outside its borders, it cannot impose business regulations on companies operating outside its borders (even if they are based within Europe).
Still, in order to be eligible for subsidies, the EU must make it a condition for European companies (and their overseas subsidiaries and partners) to follow the same advertising and marketing regulations that they are bound to within Europe. Otherwise, I feel such inconsistency does undermine the "ethical obligation" supposedly behind these regulations to protect consumers (unless we admit that people outside the EU are not worth protecting, too). A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
it cannot impose business regulations on companies operating outside its borders (even if they are based within Europe).
No: when they are not based within Europe.
Do you know of any country (since, in this case, EU legislation must be transposed into each member state's legislation, it's the countries that have sovereignty) that can legislate on business activities in another sovereign state?
Yes, of course the EU can bring pressure to bear in other ways. And should. But, when a major trading area improves regulation within its borders, that looks to me like progress, not an ethically dubious position re the rest of the world. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
