The European Union bureaucracy is on a roll: After imposing restrictions on how tobacco, alcohol and food products can be advertised, it has set its sights on gas-guzzling cars. But German manufacturers and media conglomerates warn the financial impact could be devastating. Only a select few VIPs are allowed to park on the paved lot directly next to the entrance to the enormous Berlaymont building in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission. The luxury sedans lined up in the parking lot include Audis, BMWs, Jaguars and Mercedes. The chauffeurs keep the engines running in the winter to stay warm, and in the summer to keep their energy-consuming air-conditioning systems going. The contents of the Berlaymont's parking lot are especially impressive on Wednesdays, when European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and the 26 European Union commissioners gather around the conference table on the 14th floor. They often discuss climate protection, and what ought to be done to promote it.
The European Union bureaucracy is on a roll: After imposing restrictions on how tobacco, alcohol and food products can be advertised, it has set its sights on gas-guzzling cars. But German manufacturers and media conglomerates warn the financial impact could be devastating.
Only a select few VIPs are allowed to park on the paved lot directly next to the entrance to the enormous Berlaymont building in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission. The luxury sedans lined up in the parking lot include Audis, BMWs, Jaguars and Mercedes. The chauffeurs keep the engines running in the winter to stay warm, and in the summer to keep their energy-consuming air-conditioning systems going.
The contents of the Berlaymont's parking lot are especially impressive on Wednesdays, when European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and the 26 European Union commissioners gather around the conference table on the 14th floor. They often discuss climate protection, and what ought to be done to promote it.
"We commissioners travel a lot," says one of them, "and we need large, comfortable and fast cars." <...> French and Italian makers of small cars are likely to welcome the plan with open arms. German automakers and the advertising industry that depends on them, on the other hand, are about to go on the warpath. Such restrictions, they argue, mean they might as well cancel their advertising altogether. <...> Wernhard Möschel, a law professor at the University of Tübingen in southwest Germany, is incensed over the way the EU's producers of rules and regulations treat the consumer "as a pathological idiot in need of supervision, as someone who can't tell the difference between red and white wine." <...> And now this "moral terrorism," as Holger Krahmer, a liberal member of the European Parliament, calls it, is about to reach what is perhaps Europe's most sensitive and possibly most important industrial product:
French and Italian makers of small cars are likely to welcome the plan with open arms. German automakers and the advertising industry that depends on them, on the other hand, are about to go on the warpath. Such restrictions, they argue, mean they might as well cancel their advertising altogether. <...>
Wernhard Möschel, a law professor at the University of Tübingen in southwest Germany, is incensed over the way the EU's producers of rules and regulations treat the consumer "as a pathological idiot in need of supervision, as someone who can't tell the difference between red and white wine." <...>
And now this "moral terrorism," as Holger Krahmer, a liberal member of the European Parliament, calls it, is about to reach what is perhaps Europe's most sensitive and possibly most important industrial product:
The article makes an interesting point at the end: why do all these proposed regulations only apply to advertising in Europe? Are non-Europeans somehow more qualified than Europeans to decide what they eat, drink, smoke and drive? A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
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
From breakfast cereal to Coca-Cola, everything is being classified as being either good or bad for citizens, who apparently have lost the ability to make that judgment on their own.
If only citizens were also allowed to make that judgement about 'reform' and financial policy.
Or does SPIEGEL ONLINE believe that's different?
"We commissioners travel a lot," says one of them, "and we need large, comfortable and fast cars." <...>
Do the commissioners travel from Brussels to their respective member states by car? For local travel Brussels has an excellent mass transit network, Belgium is not bad either, there is high-speed rail... When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
The pernicious advertising of food that creates helath problems, but is immensely profitable, the relentless pushing of cheap and nasty alcohols (I could go on at length how eurofizz lager was sold to the British public during the 70s and 80s), not to create choice but, like some form of advertising NewSpeak, to actually restrict the ability of the consumer to choose anything else.
And they know this. The article points to the EU commissioners justification of their use of cars as natural and reasonable to underline that this is exactly what has already happened.
A ban of the ads and a tax on the use of the things. keep to the Fen Causeway
...or we could pursue the utopian dream of actually educating people to ignore advertising.
