SHARE
COPY LINK

POLITICS

French winemakers demand €300 million compensation over US tariffs

French winemakers hit by US tariffs imposed in a transatlantic trade war over airplane subsidies on Tuesday demanded help from their government and European planemaker Airbus.

French winemakers demand €300 million compensation over US tariffs
Photo: AFP

French wine exports to the US have plunged since President Donald Trump in October imposed 25 percent tariffs on a range of European delicacies in retaliation for EU subsidies of Airbus, arch-rival of America's Boeing.

The French finance ministry last week announced that wine exports to the US – the second-biggest export market for French wines after Germany – had fallen by 44 percent in value from October to November.

On Tuesday, the vice-president of France's Federation of Wine and Spirits Exporters, Louis-Fabrice Latour, said exporters were seeking €300 million in compensation.

“We're demanding the creation of a €300-million compensation fund… to compensate those who have suffered,” Latour, who is also head of the Louis Latour estate in Burgundy, told the Wine Paris-Vinexpo trade fair.

A delegation of winemakers will meet Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury on Friday to discuss their losses in a battle which is “not of our making”, producers at the fair told AFP.

They did not say whether they wanted Airbus itself to provide compensation or merely to support their demands.

The French government has said it wants the European Union to pick up the tab for any compensation.

Jerome Despey, head of the wine council at the FranceAgriMer farming agency, said the €300 million in compensation sought was made up of €250 million in tariffs imposed as well as €50 million in lost revenues.

He called for “dialogue” with Airbus.

“We are the victims of a conflict that is completely out of our hands,” Miren de Lorgeril, president of the Languedoc winegrowers board complained.

The tariffs imposed by the US targeted $7.5 billion worth of goods, including Spanish wines and olive oil, Irish and Scottish whiskies, German industrial tools, British cashmere and a wide range of European cheeses.

Civilian aircraft from Britain, France, Germany and Spain – the countries with shares in Airbus – were also targeted.

The tariffs, which France labelled a “hostile act” were imposed after the World Trade Organisation faulted the EU for failing to remove illegal subsidies for Airbus, a long-standing gripe of Boeing.

Trump has threatened to hike wine tariffs even further unless there is a deal on a digital tax which European nations want to impose on American giants such as Amazon and Facebook.

Last month, France agreed to further talks with the US to establish a global framework among members of the OECD group of free-market democracies

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

JOHN LICHFIELD

ANALYSIS: Who is winning the battle over French pension reform?

As the French government and unions continue their increasingly bitter struggle over pension reform, John Lichfield looks at who is winning the battle for public opinion and which side will back down first.

ANALYSIS: Who is winning the battle over French pension reform?

Over one million people took to the streets of France again on Tuesday to protest against the “cruelty” and “brutality” of a modest pension reform.

The crowds – 1.27m  in total –  were probably the biggest of their kind since December 1995 when the late President Jacques Chirac was eventually forced to dump a similar (but more radical) change in the French retirement system.

On the other hand, a second 24-hour strike against the wicked notion of working to the age of 64 was substantially weaker yesterday.  Trains, schools, oil refineries, power stations and government offices were disrupted but much less so than on the first “day of action” on January 19th.

Who is winning the war?

The government has certainly lost the communications battle. It had hoped that opposition to its pension reform would be melting by now. The numbers opposing the change have grown on the street and in the opinion polls.

And yet President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne show no signs of giving way.

Cold feet among the government’s parliamentary troops and allies on the centre-right will no doubt grow colder. There will be some extra concessions for women who have broken their careers to start families and, maybe, for people who started work in their teens.

But Macron is determined to stand by the “cruel, brutal, unjust” proposal that by the year 2030 French people should work officially until they are 64 – when most Europeans  already work until they are 65 are older.

He has little choice. He has painted himself into a corner.  His second term, scarcely begun, will be a domestic wasteland if he gives way.

We are therefore only at the start of the conflict. There will be two further days of action, or inaction, on Tuesday, February 7th and Saturday, February 11th. The text of the reform will go before the National Assembly on Monday.

The country is likely to be disrupted, periodically and maybe continuously, until the end of March.

Both sides now face awkward decisions on strategy.

The eight trades union federations have been unusually united so far. They have agreed a pattern of one-day strikes and marches of increasing frequency in the hope that rising numbers on the streets will somehow convince Macron that he cannot reform France against its will.

The small increase in the size of marches nationwide on Tuesday was a victory for the unions of sorts. But it fell short of the kind of mass revolt – 1,500,000 or more on the streets – that some union leaders had hoped for.

Radical voices within the union movement, including Philippe Martinez, the leader of the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) now suggest that it is time to shift to a strategy of continuous strikes in key industries, from railways to oil refineries to power plants. Some sections of his federation are already threatening open-ended stoppages to try to bring the country to its knees.

It was, they point out, long strikes on the railways and elsewhere which forced Chirac to back down in 1995, not the scale of the marches on the street.

The more moderate union voices, led by Laurent Berger of the Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT), say such a strategy would be a calamity. Long queues at petrol stations or a long shut-down on the railways and Paris Metro would anger public opinion.

The February holidays are approaching. A collision threatens between two French popular obsessions: the right to go on holidays and the right to retire early.

If the unions disrupt holiday travel, Berger points out, they will lose the support of part of the public on the sanctity of early retirement.

There is therefore a strong possibility that the united union front will shatter in the next couple of weeks.

Macron also face a strategic choice between soft and hard lines. That choice may already have been made.

Macron and especially his Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne have tried so far to make the consensual argument that reform is needed to make the state French pension system more “fair” and to protect it from eventual collapse. That may be true but it is not immediately true.

Their hope was that voters of the centre and moderate left could be persuaded reluctantly to support a just and necessary reform. That approach has failed.

There are signs that Macron is switching to a different argument.

The French pension system is in permanent, massive deficit – €33 billion a year, equivalent to half the defence budget, is taken from general taxation to stop the pensions system for retired public workers from going bust.

The present system is a kind of official Ponzi scheme which only survives if active workers and their employers  pay the pensions of the retired. But there is a  permanent imbalance, which will grow worse in the years ahead. Only massive subsidies from the taxpayer keep the Ponzi scheme alive.

The pension system therefore acts as a ball-and-chain on the French economy, Macron and his government argue. It needs to be reformed, not just for the sake of future pensioners but for the sake of creating jobs now.

There is a great deal of truth in that. But it is, in French terms, the kind of unashamedly “right wing” or liberal argument, which Macron and Borne had hoped  to avoid.

The new government communications strategy abandons all hope of persuading the broad Left. It is aimed at centre-right voters and especially at centre-right opposition deputies whose votes the government needs to push the reform through the National Assembly.

The centre-right Les Républicains have long made exactly the economic argument about pension reform that Macron is now making. He hopes to galvanise, or embarrass, the waverers in their ranks.

Whether that works any better than the previous “just reform” argument remains to be seen. The French centre-right has never been celebrated for its consistency.

In any case, the government appears to be preparing not just one but two constitutional “jokers” or “trumps” to ensure that it wins the parliamentary card game on pension reform.

On top of Article 49.3 (which allows some legislation to be approved by decree without a normal vote), the government is considering cutting debate in the Assembly to 20 days by using the rarely employed “guillotine” powers under Article 47.1.

Either would be cue for much shrieking by the opposition and much anger, and some violence, on the streets. Macron’s popularity, already shrinking, would doubtless collapse.

In a sense, he has nothing to fear. He cannot run again. Après moi le déluge. It would be left to his potential centrist successors to pick up the pieces in 2027 against an emboldened Far Right.

But what a mess. What extreme methods – and what potentially extreme consequences – to enact what is, in all conscience, a sensible and modest reform.

SHOW COMMENTS