It hasn't, NotTooOld, and I'm sorry for leading the thread up the banana path. However, it's a classic case where the EU has been misinterpreted and has been wrongly blamed for local economic problems.
Ironically, the EU could have protected Madeiran banana growers by imposing import tariffs on bananas from other markets, but it hasn't, because it didn't want to bankrupt third world countries and because it wanted to protect the price of bananas for its citizens.
My own interest in bananas was inspired by an article I read years ago about bananas distorting trade deficits. I was very cynical at first, but the more I looked into it, the more I realised that bananas are an important crop.
Despite what Madeiran banana growers think, this is a case which shows how it would be if there were no EU and everybody were left to trade in global free markets.
For anybody interest in history, something similar happened in the mid nineteenth century. Remember the Corn Laws from your history lessons at school? British wheat growers were protected by high import tariffs (like the EU), but this meant that prices for consumers were kept high. America could produce wheat much more cheaply than Britain could, but the price was kept high to discourage import. This meant that British farmers were protected but people were paying high prices for their bread. Tories (farmers) were bitterly opposed by free trade Liberals (Whigs), who wanted to make the price of basic foodstuffs, such as bread, cheaper.