‘A Europe that protects’, or Europe the scapegoat?
In France, left-wing, right-wing and far-right-wing political parties are beginning the European election campaign by fighting over the slogan ‘A Europe that protects’. In the midst of an economic crisis, this is precisely what the French expect of Europe. What is more astonishing, and more distressing, is that everybody always seems to jump on the bandwagon and make ‘Brussels’ the scapegoat for all our ills, whether real or imaginary. All those who are having a good laugh at the commotion surrounding the composition of rosé wine draw the same conclusion: ‘Why on earth is the EU concerned with such trivial matters, rather than focusing on what is important?’
The most famous case that comes to mind and is being talked about once more is the European Regulation on the manufacture of cheeses made from raw milk. Seventeen years later, Charles Pasqua’s impressive diatribe still strikes fear into the hearts of the weak-minded. What! The technocrats in Brussels think that they can teach our fine producers how to make Vacherin cheese? Bellow, you cattle, ring those bells! What bee was in those penpushers’ bonnet? Quite simply … the representatives of French producers. For a cheese made from raw milk that has been poorly manufactured could cause the dreadful infection known as listeriosis, a potentially deadly disease which still occasionally occurs in humans. Our European partners seized upon this pretext to ban imports of these French cheeses. The only way to appease them was to convert the French rules on the manufacture of cheeses made from raw milk into an EU regulation. This was done, allowing our farmers to expand their client base, much to the satisfaction of producers, consumers, our trade balance … and anti-European rabble-rousers.
The current situation reminds us that the health risk is neither imaginary nor, unfortunately, limited to cheese: recent reports tell us that dozens of people in Marseilles are suffering, and two people have died, from food poisoning after eating Figatelli, a type of spicy Corsican sausage. Will the technocrats in Brussels now need to teach Corsican pig farmers how to make sausage? No, but if the Corsicans want to continue exporting, they will need to provide some sort of guarantee, one that is valid outside the island…
Then we have this decision that has been taken on rosé wine. Here, I must pay tribute to the Sunday edition of the Sud-Ouest, the Bordeaux region’s official newspaper, for daring to give some serious thought to the issue, rather than simply adding its voice to the general clamour. Who asked Europe to interfere with oenological practices? Well, … it was France, in the first place, as all of its producers were calling for the rules to be harmonised. It is this harmonisation that allows us, among other things, to retain the right to chaptalise our wines – a process that involves adding sugar to the fermentation process in order to increase the alcohol content – much to the intense disapproval of our Italian and Spanish competitors. Is the coupage, or blending, of red and white wine synonymous with poor quality? Surely not, since it has always been permitted for AOC wines (Vins d’Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée, i.e. with a registered designation of origin), including, therefore, both champagne and Provence wines, whose producers have nevertheless been the first to shout out loud! This is because coupage has nothing to do with quality: it was prohibited at a time when European subsidies varied according to the colour of the wine, providing an opportunity for some clever tricksters to cheat by mixing different shades. Moreover, it has always been legally possible, for any type of wine, to blend red and white grapes at an early stage in the wine-making process! As the Secretary-General of the Spanish Wine Federation says: ‘What right does Brussels have to prohibit a practice in connection with table wines that is already permitted for wines with a registered designation of origin? Do these AOC wines, which are usually subject to stricter rules than are other types of wine, justify such special treatment?’
The solution is obvious: appropriate labelling and a marketing campaign to promote quality wine. This approach proved to be remarkably successful for chocolate: a decade ago, France had been up in arms, not because ‘Brussels’ intervened to regulate the amount of additional vegetable fats used in the make-up of the finished product – which is what the French were calling for – but because it authorised the use of other fats in the manufacture of chocolate. The marketing people had a field day over the matter: real dark chocolate and quality chocolates have never sold so well as they did back then.
Three conclusions can be drawn.
The first is that it is clear that the EU should deal only with important issues; their importance should be gauged not by the technical nature of the subject but by the potential economic, social, health and environmental consequences. When it comes to the operation of the Common Market, fair competition and, more importantly, consumer safety, seemingly minor points can prove decisive. An example might be the thickness of the doors of commercial aircraft in the field of aviation safety.
The second is that, the day when the audio-visual mass media have the courage of some of their regional colleagues to do their job against the prevailing wind, Europe’s image will change for the better. Public debate stands to gain a great deal from such a development.
The third concerns politics. When discussing Europe, there are some who speak only of trivial matters because they want the EU’s extraordinary achievements, especially with regard to major issues, to be forgotten. In this unprecedented financial crisis, what is it that has saved France from being affected by the turmoil in the currency markets? Its membership of the euro area. However, it is difficult to admit that when we voted against the Maastricht Treaty or when we used the President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, as an institutional scapegoat. Who was it who devised the energy/climate plan which places Europe at the forefront of the world’s fight against global warming? It was the European Commission, led by France’s other favourite scapegoat, José Manuel Barroso, and not ‘Saint’ Nicolas Hulot. Careful. We are starting to become politically incorrect here.
Alain Lamassoure, 14 April 2009