On 03/06/16 10:25, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:38:51 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 02/06/16 22:49, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 19:59:30 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 02/06/16 19:18, David Rance wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:26:30 Martin wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:03:54 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Latest from Commission he
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...16-2011_en.htm

For those unaccustomed to Eurospeak, it says:

SNIP

It is in normal English. We don't need your interpretation.

Yes we do. It was an excellent précis.

David

Yes and no. What I think Les missed was the interesting comment
"minimise the use of the substance in public parks, public playgrounds
and gardens". Now I thought it had been decided that glyphosate was to
be *banned* from public use, and that decision had already been made. If
so, why is the word "minimised" used, rather than "stop"?

It isn't banned yet, but will be unless 100% of member states agree to allow it
before July 1st.

I'm still puzzled by the use of "minimised". Maybe something lost in
translation?

The phrase you mention was one of three recommendations to be made if the use is
approved to continue after July 1st.

Sorry - I'm a bit confused here. You mentioned in an earlier thread that
glyphosate had been banned in The Netherlands for non-professional use.

Any country can ban herbicides without needing EU permission. However if there
is no scientific evidence to support a ban the EU can make a country lift a ban
as the EU did in the case of the Dutch banning copper based antifouling.

Ah, yes, you've mentioned that before.

According to your comment, unless *all* MS agree to allow it, then it
will be banned throughout the EU. So is this effectively a negative
veto? If one MS doesn't want it, and the rest do, it is banned? And if
one MS wants it, and all the rest don't, it is banned? Looks like
one-sided democracy to me.

"Indeed, under the EU law, the last word belongs to the ECHA (European Union's
Agency for Chemical Products), this is why the Commission proposes to ask ECHA
for its scientific assessment on the carcinogenicity of the glyphosate and to
extend the current approval of glyphosate until it receives ECHA's opinion.
Next Monday, Member States will therefore be asked to vote on such a measure.
Once again, this is a collective decision."

See my reply to Timothy Murphy.

--

Jeff