Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.5.2-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her statement on this issue. Our group has two points of view on this subject, and I do not propose to mince my words in setting them out.
The fact is that the Commission has acted – to say the least – shamelessly and unacceptably in making these concessions in the EU-US Wine Agreement, and that I say, as a Member for one of the oldest vine-growing regions in Germany, also on behalf of the vine-growers of the Moselle. You yourself stressed the obvious need for a trade agreement with unambiguous rules, and the negotiations have also been going on too long already, but what we need is an agreement with fair conditions for both parties. This document, with its long and vague deadlines and, worst of all, the concession of unconditional mutual recognition of oenological processes in wine-making, is a slap in the face for all the efforts the European Union and its Members have put in to legislation on vine products.
The Commissioner said that there is a need for further discussions, yet we have negotiated for so long that I have to ask why we are putting off such important decisions. The production and manufacturing of wine in Europe is subject to clearly defined conditions. Adding water to it is something we see is unthinkable and which the consumer would not stand for. Are we now to accept that the Americans may add water to wine up to 7%? Modern methods involving the breaking-down of wine into its individual components are a workable proposition these days, but are we, by way of mutual recognition, to accept that it can be put together industrially and any old how?
We have no need of synthetic wine! Wine is diverse, its diversity a manifestation of nature itself, owing its character to climate and vintage. Is the Commission not aware of the likely effect of such a concession, which affects future agreements, on negotiations within the WTO? The ‘most favoured nation’ principle laid down by the WTO means that, later on, the same concessions will have to be made to other states. The International Wine Institute is endeavouring to find a globally valid definition of wine, and this is being taken
.
Commissioner Fischer Boel also mentioned another organisation. The USA has left the OIV. Does that mean that the OIV has in some sense gone bust? Yet what we insist we need – the protection of geographical indications of origin without the specification of a date – is simply being put off for ever and a day. Champagne comes from Champagne, Rhine wine is grown on the Rhine, and Moselle on the Moselle – not somewhere in America. If we want fair trade, then such descriptions must be banned now rather than at some unspecified date. Even maintaining the current status quo strikes me as going too far. What I want the Commission to tell me is in what sense the negotiations around this agreement can be described as a success; as I see it, all we have done is to make concessions, and too many of them at that.
I feel – and let me say on behalf of the many winemaking families at present bringing their harvest home from the vineyards, we feel – that a deal has been done to sell us down the river."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples