Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

How do you know it is fake when it says Scotch on the label?

When the label on the back says distilled in Berlin!

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd be ramping up production of whiskies called Joannie Walkers, Infamous Grouse, Grunts etc. Same colouring on labels, same shape bottle...

Don't they already do that in lidl and aldi.

Leroy42

So we are fast approaching yet another deadline. Seems the UK are going to use the plan of doing very little with the idea that the deadline will force concessions from the EU.

Hasn't worked so far, but it only needs to work once I suppose.

Barnier seems to be becoming increasingly frustrated. I guess that he feels he has explained his side so many times why do the UK keep coming back with the same plans.

Will we see a last minute meeting of senior politicians, Johnson and Macron or Merkel, so try to avoid a no deal? Sort of like how the unions and government 'work' deep into the night before emerging, bleary eyed and exhausted, with a hitherto unexpected deal?

Or will the June deadline be allowed to pass on the basis that work is moving forward and both sides agree to work hard up to 31 December?

IMO that is what is going to happen. A fudge on the deadline.

reslfj

RobMc59 wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd be ramping up production of whiskies called Joannie Walkers, Infamous Grouse, Grunts etc. Same colouring on labels, same shape bottle...

Don't they already do that in lidl and aldi.

Often such names will be too close to existing brand names and can be forced out by a court case. GI is very different outside the EU's sphere of rule making.

Let's, however, talk about something more important than GI, like the incompetence of UK negotiators and the inability of UK ministers and politicians to read the treaties they put forward and vote for.

Or is the asymmetry a UK demand for easier negotiating with the US ?

Treaties and other contracts are very boring to read, but it is absolutely necessary to do so - and not just signing to 'get it done'.

Lars

Leroy42

The evidence, as the point above and the seeming misunderstanding of what the NI border agreement actually means, would certainly suggest that the treaty was not really read through.

And certainly the Tory government never wanted it read, and in fact did everything they could to reduce any oversight or proper review by the HoC.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

When the label on the back says distilled in Berlin!

But it wouldn't be fake, the protection it has/had would be gone.

Making a whiskey in Romania and calling it Glengoolie Blue Scotch and selling it across the EU would be fine.

Making a whiskey in Romania and calling it Irish would not be legal.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That would be called counterfeiting.

No it wouldn’t
If scotch is no longer a protected term than anyone can make it. It’s not like the Irish Distilaries would steal the branding of existing products

Professor Moriarty

reslfj wrote: »

Often such names will be too close to existing brand names and can be forced out by a court case. GI is very different outside the EU's sphere of rule making.

Let's, however, talk about something more important than GI, like the incompetence of UK negotiators and the inability of UK ministers and politicians to read the treaties they put forward and vote for.

Or is the asymmetry a UK demand for easier negotiating with the US ?

Treaties and other contracts are very boring to read, but it is absolutely necessary to do so - and not just signing to 'get it done'.

Lars

I'm absolutely fine with that if it's to the EU's advantage. Let them skim over the finer details.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

But it wouldn't be fake, the protection it has/had would be gone.

Making a whiskey in Romania and calling it Glengoolie Blue Scotch and selling it across the EU would be fine.

Making a whiskey in Romania and calling it Irish would not be legal.

Well, how about English muffins or Scotch eggs, or Cornish pasties. I think the last one might be protected.

English breakfast tea is genetic, since there is no real tea production in England. And Cheddar cheese.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

When the label on the back says distilled in Berlin!

Yes, assuming everyone looks for the country of origin when it seemingly spelled out on the front.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, how about English muffins or Scotch eggs, or Cornish pasties. I think the last one might be protected.

English breakfast tea is genetic, since there is no real tea production in England. And Cheddar cheese.

Here is the list of items that is protected,

List of United Kingdom food and drink products with protected status

No to the English Breakfast Tea, cheddar cheese is not protected either. But you do have West Country Farmhouse Cheddar Cheese that is protected.

As you say only Cornish pasties are on the list and not Scotch eggs or English muffin as their origin seems unclear.

RobMc59

Akrasia wrote: »

No it wouldn’t
If scotch is no longer a protected term than anyone can make it. It’s not like the Irish Distilaries would steal the branding of existing products

The thing with this is it would only fool the occasional purchaser,there are numerous copies of well known products but most of them are pale imitations.I no longer drink but did like Guinness, an imitation,even if it said 'Irish recipe stout'just wouldn't cut it.And why Irish whisky makers would want to pretend to be Scotch is strange as Irish whisky is a pretty good stand alone product.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

The thing with this is it would only fool the occasional purchaser,there are numerous copies of well known products but most of them are pale imitations.I no longer drink but did like Guinness, an imitation,even if it said 'Irish recipe stout'just wouldn't cut it.And why Irish whisky makers would want to pretend to be Scotch is strange as Irish whisky is a pretty good stand alone product.

I don't know why we are talking about specific cases, but it was used as an example if GI wasn't recognised any longer. It was to show as an example, if Scotch whisky had no geographical protection that an Irish company could sell their product as Scotch whisky.

The claim was made it would be counterfeit and this was disputed. I am not disagreeing with your point as to why an Irish whiskey maker would pretend to be a Scotch when it has a protected GI as well, but another countries whiskey makers would possibly see the gap to sell a few bottles that usually wouldn't if they could use the name and there was no restriction on it.

This is true of all other GI's out there. I am sure a lot of sparkling wine makers would love to be able to sell their fare as Champagne, but they are restricted in doing this.

fash

There is a reason GI if a thing-: and a European thing in particular. It's European because Europe has a long cultural and culinary history which other places do not have. By protecting GIs, the EU makes adds significant value to local food products - one immediately knows that Parmesan is parmesan.
If a product has that name it is not just a generic and not just watery copy of a great product.
An already well established brand has its own reputation to protect it to an extent, smaller and developing producers will be badly affected however.

Tropheus

If you're ever wondering why Brexit continues to be widely supported in the UK, you only have to look at rags like the Express.

I'm sure there are many people out there who only read headlines. If you're brave enough to go into the articles, there is little substance and lots of "ifs".

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know why we are talking about specific cases, but it was used as an example if GI wasn't recognised any longer. It was to show as an example, if Scotch whisky had no geographical protection that an Irish company could sell their product as Scotch whisky.

The claim was made it would be counterfeit and this was disputed. I am not disagreeing with your point as to why an Irish whiskey maker would pretend to be a Scotch when it has a protected GI as well, but another countries whiskey makers would possibly see the gap to sell a few bottles that usually wouldn't if they could use the name and there was no restriction on it.

This is true of all other GI's out there. I am sure a lot of sparkling wine makers would love to be able to sell their fare as Champagne, but they are restricted in doing this.

But it will not be an Irish company trying to sell non-Scottish Scotch whiskey. It will be Highland Scotch Whiskey (guaranteed 3 years old) from India or Belarus that can be sold within the EU (but not UK). t must comply with food standards and labelling, but nor GI.

Charles Babbage

Sam Russell wrote: »

But it will not be an Irish company trying to sell non-Scottish Scotch whiskey. It will be Highland Scotch Whiskey (guaranteed 3 years old) from India or Belarus that can be sold within the EU (but not UK). t must comply with food standards and labelling, but nor GI.

Could we not have Ulster-Scots whiskey?

Seth Brundle

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Could we not have Ulster-Scots whiskey?

I think the point is that you can have any kind of Scotch whisky, not just Scottish Scotch!

RobMc59

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Could we not have Ulster-Scots whiskey?

Rumour has it Bushmills is a protestant whisky.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Rumour has it Bushmills is a protestant whisky.

Having done some work within the distillery in the past, I can say that it used to be a predominantly protestant workforce but that has thankfully changed.
Whiskey (note the 'e') does not have a religion however.

Sam Russell

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Could we not have Ulster-Scots whiskey?

You mean Bushmills?


[Edit: Beaten to it.]

Charles Babbage

RobMc59 wrote: »

Rumour has it Bushmills is a protestant whisky.

Why do you suppose it is called Black Bush!

A fine glass it is.

johnnyskeleton

Brexit discussion perhaps? I understand trade deals can include protected designations, so might be something for the UK to seek

Spanish Eyes

Brexit to me seems to be just what the UK wanted.

An EU that is a bit scared of the consequences of a No Deal.

Don't get me wrong, I want the EU to be the good ones here. But it is looking like the UK will prevail.

Am I totally wrong or what?

Leroy42

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Brexit discussion perhaps? I understand trade deals can include protected designations, so might be something for the UK to seek

As I understand it, the WA already includes a section whereby the UK have accepted to continue with EU GI but the EU have given no such assurance. Thus the UK now, if they want it, need to bargain for it, whilst the EU already have it.

So, for sure it will part of the trade talks, but the issue was raised here as an example of either the UK not caring or not understanding.

Nate--IRL--

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Brexit to me seems to be just what the UK wanted.

An EU that is a bit scared of the consequences of a No Deal.

Don't get me wrong, I want the EU to be the good ones here. But it is looking like the UK will prevail.

Am I totally wrong or what?

Define "prevail" first.

Nate

Spanish Eyes

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Define "prevail" first.

Nate

They will just go for no deal and wait to see what the reaction might be from EU.

That ok for you?

Nate--IRL--

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

They will just go for no deal and wait to see what the reaction might be from EU.

That ok for you?

It is. As for a no Deal scenario, then I agree that they are well on course for that. They have complete control over achieving that outcome next month.

Nate

johnnyskeleton

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Brexit to me seems to be just what the UK wanted.

An EU that is a bit scared of the consequences of a No Deal.

Don't get me wrong, I want the EU to be the good ones here. But it is looking like the UK will prevail.

Am I totally wrong or what?

What does "prevail" mean here? In cold hard actual terms, rather than the spin of who is winning the negotiations?

Yes, the EU is a bit concerned about the consequences of a no deal. Yes, they are more concerned about it than the UK negotiators. But being concerned is a perfectly normal response to a very real risk. Not being concerned about it is the aberration.

Will the EU chance their stance or "cave"? I dont know. Probably not. If they agree to the UKs recently published proposals, it will mean that the UK gets all of the benefits of the single market with none of the responsibilities. In which case, agreeing to it would effectly end the EU.

Unless im taking you up wrong, it seems like youre saying that Brexit was done solely to make the EU scared. If so, it achieved its purpose. Europe is less united and we will all be poorer for it. If British people want to celebrate that, I suppose they can, but it seems like a very strange thing to celebrate to me.

Enzokk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Brexit to me seems to be just what the UK wanted.

An EU that is a bit scared of the consequences of a No Deal.

Don't get me wrong, I want the EU to be the good ones here. But it is looking like the UK will prevail.

Am I totally wrong or what?

I know Tropheus posted the picture about the Express stories about Brexit and one headline shouting the slogan again, They need us more than we need them. So imagine my surprise when they have this story as well,

Brexit warning: UK desperately needs trade deal more than EU experts believe

Despite Britain appearing to be in control of negotiations and making demands of the EU, political experts have warned that it is in fact Brussels who hold the upper hand in current trade talks.

Professor Alex de Ruyter, Director of the Centre for Brexit Studies at Birmingham City University, explained to Express.co.uk: “The EU holds all the advantage in the post-Brexit trade talks.

"As the UK conducts about half of its trade with the EU, whilst the EU in total only exports about 10 percent of its products to the UK, which will be heavily concentrated in certain sectors like automotive and fall more on countries like Germany.

"So whilst both sides would take a hit from ‘No Deal’, the effects would be far more severe for the UK.

When asked if the UK should extend the transition period beyond December 31, 2020, Professor de Ruyter added: "Yes, for all the reasons alluded to above. COVID-19 has sapped the ability of Government to devote time and resources to this.

"The prospect of a No Deal coming on top of the coronavirus disruption could tip many businesses over the edge and would devastate our manufacturing sector."

The rest of the article goes on to speak to 2 more experts who state the same view. So no, the EU is not scared of no-deal and the facts are that no-deal will be a disaster for the UK. This was true when they voted to leave almost 4 years ago and the facts has not changed.

johnnyskeleton

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

They will just go for no deal and wait to see what the reaction might be from EU.

That ok for you?

So the world will see that the UK went for no deal and then got no deal and therefore they "prevailed"? Thats about as believable as saying I intended to crash my car into this tree. Someone who claims it as a UK victory will not be considered to be a reliable partner for any other trade deals and will be seen as a difficult country to do business with