Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Dec 2011 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		Definition of Vodka Plenary Speech - Tuesday, 19th June 2007 Mr. President Vodka tasting in the European parliament   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 whiskey 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 whiskey - 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. Whiskey is only whiskey 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. Here is the speech originally drafted Mr. President, I am known as a frequent critic of the European project, but even I see the benefits to industry of a Single Market, and a Single Market requires common definitions, so that products and brands can be legally sold across the EU. However, when we legislate for such definitions, we should not at the same time seek to change the plain meaning of words. Colleagues will recall that British MEPs fought for many years against a restrictive definition of chocolate, which would effectively have destroyed large parts of the UK confectionary industry, or at least required old-established and well-loved brands to carry a bizarre neologism -- "Vegelate" -- when generations of English speakers knew them as chocolate. We finally saw off the challenge to British chocolate, but now we see a similar challenge to established vodka brands. And it is driven by the same motivation -- naked protectionism. It is designed to destroy a level playing field, and to advantage Scandiwegian manufacturers at the expense of other producers in the EU. As a general rule, we should respect the existing meaning of words. However in this case, the compromise proposed by the rapporteur seems to be the best outcome on offer, so we must reluctantly support it. As happens so often in the European Union, we have to make the best of a bad job.