That officials in Brussels have decided that France can legally require British beef to be labelled as such has been hailed as a way out of this trade dispute. More important is the potential loss of the common market if it sets pecedent.

As the Union Jack, if not the Tricolor, has featured widely in the debate, a focus on immediate winners and losers was to be expected. This should, however, not be allowed to get in the way of rational decision making.

The real test is not who will be seen to have been the winner tomorrow, but who the winners are in the long term. The upside of the long term is that both parties can come out ahead. The difficult part is assessing what the long term prospects are, and giving them the weighing they deserve against the more certain short term outcomes.

The French line of reasoning is probably that if British beef is superior, then acceptance of the labelling compromise suits both parties. It asks nothing of the British that would not be in their best interests. Even without compulsion, clear identification of the superior product would pay. The converse of it being inferior is a difficult one for the British to accept.

The reality is almost certainly that some is superior, particularly as all British beef is from less than 30-month animals. Some will not be, but all will need promoting if British markets are to be reestablished in Europe reasonably quickly. National pride aside, there is good reason to accept the deal.

The case against accepting it rest on longer term implications and not just for beef.

Discussions between the UK and French agriculture ministers and European commissioner for health and consumer protection have been on-going for nearly three weeks. Labelling was an issue identified at the outset. It is odd that only now has it been suggested as a way out.

The likely scenario is that earlier a conventional interpretation of EU law, that mandatory labelling of country of source was not legal as it was designed to be, held sway. As it became apparent that a messy legal action would be required to resolve the issue, the commission was able to find an interpretation that allows such labelling.

This could create a dangerous precedent. The French would been able to enforce mandatory labelling of English beef simply because it did not meet their specific health standards. British pig farmers would surely want the same for pork coming from countries whose animal welfare standards are lower than those in the UK.

This scenario suggests the European Union rather than England or France as the short term losers. In the long term everybody would be a loser as member states found, or created, reasons for protecting their domestic markets.

top of page