November 3, 1999: Seven possible explanations of the unexpected outcome of yesterday's meeting between the English and French over their beef trade dispute.

The unexpected outcome of the first series meetings between UK agriculture minister Nick Brown, his French counterpart Jean Glavany, and EU commissioner for Health & Consumer Protection David Byrne, on the beef trade dispute between the countries, challenges conventional wisdom.

The French embargo on British beef imports appears to be illegal under EU law. French claims over food safety concerns were dismissed by the EU Scientific Steering Committee last week and the issue is a very high profile one in Britain.

It was generally supposed that Britain held the better hand and would be eager to press its advantage. The joint statement following the meeting indicated that Britain will be providing the French with further information on five areas. These were listed without detail in a joint news release after the meetings as traceability, testing, derived products, controls and labelling.

This is seen by many as a "cave in." Certainly some accommodation of the French was seen as being a political necessity if the embargo was to be lifted promptly. I seemed logical, however, that such concessions would not be offered until the clock had been started in terms of formally raising the issue with the European Commission. The Treaty of Rome, the EU constitution, requires the Commission to submit a reasoned opinion to the European Court of Justice which judges these issues within three months.

The safest conclusion, on anything that does not make sense, is that it is not fully understood. Understanding politics is often challenging.

Seven areas where there may be misunderstanding follow:

1. Brown may be playing to the UK tabloids and opposition to strengthen Britain's political position. A dangerous strategy when risk taking does not seem necessary.

2. Brown may have an overwhelming priority to get the job done quickly. He sees the legal avenue as irrelevant and dangerous as with enough time all sorts of complications could arise. The reality is there is no beef going to France and nothing much is lost from some delay.

3. Science may count as nothing at the Commission or at the Court of Justice - a very sad and dangerous scenario. By agreeing to further inquiry by the French, Brown has already implicitly eroded the credibility of the science.

4. A deal has been done on some other issue. It needs to be a big one. What do the Brits want that France can deliver?

5. The French know something about the science that the Scientific Steering Committee does not. They are getting the issue into the right (political) forum before playing their card.

6. Bryne, who brokered yesterday's meeting, promised a fast track through the Commission if Brown made some initial concessions, or the converse. Whether he could deliver on such a promise is questionable.

7. The EU Parliament, which has more substantial powers on food safety issues than agriculture, could yet change the ground rules. If Britain was seen as being too stroppy, the French and Germans, who seem to be taking a "me, too" stance on the issue, might be joined by enough others to do this.

And there almost certainly are others including quite probably what time will reveal as the real reason. ©

top of page