In many countries, including Poland, there have been legitimate objections to this agreement. Most commentators point out that the massive influx of low-cost agricultural products from the Mercosur countries will pose a serious threat to European farmers that they do not manage specified competition and that the collapse of many farms will result. The protection of European producers is called for by imposing customs duties on agricultural products from South America. Postulates seemingly justified. Why seemingly? due to the fact that Poland did not join the EU for this and Europe, united within the Union, did not make a strong common marketplace to now scope for protectionism. Unfortunately, as is frequently the case in a corrupted ideology of the world, 1 tries to treat the effects alternatively than the cause. And the origin of the problem is completely different, and the threat posed by the EU-Mercosur agreement is far greater than the threat of the collapse of European agriculture.
In many areas, the European Union has introduced various standards, directives and regulations related to the quality and safety of products placed on the EU market. Each specified device shall bear a CE mark indicating that it has been examined by the maker and deemed to satisfy the EU health, safety and environmental requirements. This marking is required not only for products manufactured in the European Union but besides anywhere in the planet if they are to be placed on the marketplace in the EU.
In agriculture, too, the EU has introduced many sensible regulations. I will only mention restrictions on usage in pesticide crops or in antibiotic farming as growth promoters. The consequence of pesticide usage in agriculture was an increased hazard of heart illness and stroke. In the United States, the Government Environmental Protection Agency of the EPA introduced a complete ban on the usage of the most common pest preparation (methyl parathion) in 2000 and the usage of another pesticides was either legally banned or severely restricted. In Europe, too, it has been decided over time to introduce government to increase production costs in order to defend consumers' health. This is what the European Union is now putting on a European market, which is harmful to health, contaminated food, alternatively of protecting us from harmful food through a partnership agreement with Mercosur.
possibly that's what the free marketplace is about. possibly the consumer should decide whether to buy cheaper foods contaminated with chemicals or a small more costly but healthy. A small more expensive? Here's another problem. While erstwhile EU regulations have mostly been aimed at protecting consumer health, the Union now imposes purely ideological regulations, which force European producers to bear high, unwarranted costs. This in turn causes a drastic increase in food prices. With the Mercosur agreement, next to Europe's high-priced products, goods will appear on the shelves not somewhat cheaper but respective times cheaper. In addition, even a conscious consumer, if he can afford the luxury of buying specified costly products at all, he will have problem distinguishing which products come from. Importers and brokers will guarantee that, alternatively of information about the country of origin from South America, the symbol of the European country in which any form of product packaging will take place before retail sale appears in the barcode.
Without reducing the risks this agreement poses to agricultural producers throughout Europe, wellness issues should be raised first. Why is the European Union, which has been so afraid for a while that food is not contaminated with chemistry, now seeking an agreement that will introduce poisonous products into European shops? Why are non-Union producers not subject to the same requirements as Union producers? Why is the work to have a food mark ‘CE’ not introduced as industrial products? It is besides worth asking why negotiations have been undertaken with South America, Argentina and Brazil. After all, there are many another directions, specified as Asia, where you could bring equally inexpensive and equally harmful food. Did Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen choose South America due to the fact that the countries of this continent are peculiarly many German diaspora?
Shortly before the end and just after the end of planet War II, thousands of Germans emigrated to countries specified as Argentina and Brazil. Among them were many celebrated people. Let me quote a fewer names. Adolf Eichmann, who managed a network of German camps facilities where respective million people were murdered. Josef Mengele called “The Angel of Death”. Erich Priebke, SS commander and associate of the Gestapo. Walter Rauff, who introduced mobile gas chambers and was guilty of at least 100,000 deaths. Franz Stangl, who worked on Action T4 euthanasia programmewhere people with intellectual and physical disabilities were killed. Gerhard Bohne, who was liable for the administration and logistics of the Action T4 program. He's the 1 who said the disabled killed out of pity. The list is terribly long, no column can hold it. These criminals blended in with South American society, had children, had grandchildren. Local economies supported their “capacity”. possibly it is worth asking, in what language did Ursula von der Leyen communicate with advisers to Mercosur governments during the negotiations?
Mr Bogdan
Klaus Barbie, Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele or Erich Priebke.
As early as 1942, Joseph Goebbels deposited over $12.8 million in a Buenos Aires bank.
