Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-18-Speech-1-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070618.15.1-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the discussion on the Schnellhardt report is being hijacked by the discussion on vodka, which is unfortunate, because it is a report that says so much more in many areas that are so crucial to Europe and to this industry in Europe. This is why I should like to single out a number of those other points.
The directive’s first concern is, of course, the quality of the European drinks industry. It also says something about Europe, because wherever you go in the world, we see European drinks, distilled in Europe, available in all shapes and sizes, and with a recognition of the quality which we produce in Europe. This is important in a situation in which not everything that is said about Europe is always positive, because this is something in which Europe excels. What the rapporteur has done is to reinforce this very element, more so, it has to be said, in his original report than in the compromise which was eventually struck with the Council. It is, to my mind, a fantastic achievement and something we should hold onto.
Distillation is a craft, a truly traditional craft. Anyone who visits distilleries – and I recently visited some gin distilleries in my own country – can see for themselves that it is a craft. It is an art to make these products well and in a way that the quality is retained at all times. This is without a doubt the most important element in this report. Rather than adding sugar or flavourings at random, we have clear definitions for these drinks, even very strict definitions, not least at the industry’s request. This is how consumers receive sound information about the product. They know what they buy, and can rely on the fact that what they are getting is quality. This directive also allows the European drinks industry, thanks to this quality, to remain a strong contender in the competition.
It also says something about Europe, namely about the regional origin of many of these drinks. In this respect, this directive is almost like a microcosm of the European Union, as it demonstrates the diversity of the European Union and how we together, in this very diversity, can all still be European. This too is very important to my mind.
I will now briefly turn to the subject of vodka, on which the rapporteur has tried to reach a compromise which received my wholehearted support during the discussion. He has, as I see it, made a valiant attempt at trying to strike a sound compromise between the old vodka industries in the European Union, which existed at the time the definition was drafted – even before Sweden, Finland, Poland and all the other countries joined the Union – and these more recent Member States, and has done a reasonable job of it.
Despite this, most of my group are in favour of a much stricter definition of vodka, and I have to say that their arguments are valid. This is why it is good that this issue is on the table, so that it can be thrashed out. Firstly, as regards consumer information, my group takes the view that every consumer must be able to rely on the fact that vodka is made from potatoes or cereals – these are of the essence – and sugar beet perhaps. As the majority in my group see it, consumers should be able to take this as read.
It goes further than this though. This is not just about the product. There is also a discussion about the individuality and identity of the countries where it is produced. After all, what would our reaction have been if this discussion with these countries had been held before? Would we have said: for the sake of consumer information, it is also possible to introduce onto the market cognac made from potatoes or whiskey made from grapes? No, of course we would never have done this, and my group wants us to be consistent in the case of vodka too. They have a point, of course.
I would like to see us reach agreement at first reading. I welcome the fact that this argument is on the table, and in this respect, I support my group’s amendment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples