Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-18-Speech-1-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070618.15.1-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to put aside my prepared text and respond to some of my colleagues who spoke earlier in the debate. Mrs McAvan tells us that this measure is designed to protect jobs, yet to the extent that it either bans or qualifies the use of the word ‘vodka’ for existing brands and existing manufacturers, it seems likely to have exactly the reverse effect.
Mr Maaten asks if we have not been to see a distillery which is a craft industry. Well, Mr Maaten, yes I have. I worked in the industry for several years and I can tell you that a malt whisky distillery is indeed a craft industry, but a vodka or grain whisky distillery is an industrial process and the process for producing vodka produces pure alcohol whether you make it from sugar or from potatoes or from anything else.
All this talk about consumer protection is nonsense. The product is identical and the reason we should not compare vodka with whisky – or brandy, as has been rightly pointed out by my colleague on the other side of the Chamber – is because in those products, the ingredients significantly affect the flavour. Whisky is only whisky if it is made in the proper way, but vodka is based on pure alcohol.
If I may make a general point, we should not be seeking to change the established meanings of words by legislation. However, in this case the compromise proposed by the rapporteur seems to be the best outcome on offer so I suppose that we must reluctantly support it. As happens so often in the European Union, we have to make the best of a bad job."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples