kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Akrasia wrote: » nitrogen makes 78% of the air we breath. I think Guinness could build a few freezers in Dublin and extract plenty of it from the air if they needed to
Sam Russell wrote: » Not sure what quality of nitrogen they need. Ox free nitrogen is a bt tricky. Anyway, Nitogen is supplied by BOC (British Oxigen Company) so that might have a bearing. With he nitrogen missing, the head will be a bt flat.
lawred2 wrote: » How'd they manage the nitrogen in 1798?
L1011 wrote: » Sam Russell wrote: » Not sure what quality of nitrogen they need. Ox free nitrogen is a bt tricky. Anyway, Nitogen is supplied by BOC (British Oxigen Company) so that might have a bearing. With he nitrogen missing, the head will be a bt flat. Its a nitrogen/co2 mix; and Air Products have a fractional air still somewhere in North County Dublin anyway as far as I remember. And yes, its a modern enough aberation to provide the head previously obtained from the mix of very fresh stout with stale stout from two different casks. The absolutely nonsense "two part pour" was also developed at the same time because the old fresh/stale system required time to settle. Nitro Guinness does not require time to settle. The change was already unsettling auld lads used to the old system - if a pint had been delivered in seconds rather than minutes they would have rioted. If you think you can tell the difference between two part and one part poured draught Guinness, you're either deluded by marketing or actually insane. Double blind testing shows there is no difference.
Leroy42 wrote: » Sorry to go OT, but are you saying that Guinness can be poured the same as a pint of lager and all that faffing about with waiting us cosmetic only? I don't drink it myself so have no idea
RobMc59 wrote: » More importantly,Guinness-a British owned company with Britain as it's biggest market and the majority of its other major consumers none EU countries-a sobering thought.
MrMusician18 wrote: » No, that's not what I'm saying. For example: a product costs x to import from the UK and (y+z) from the continent. X is less than (y+z), therefore it is economically efficient to import from the UK. Post Brexit it is expected that importing from the UK will get more expensive and cost (x+T) due to tariffs. (x+T) is greater than (y+z) so importing switches to the continent.Its still more expensive than the present day so prices HAVE to rise for those products. People are saying here that substitution with continent sourced products will be at worst cost neutral and potentially cost reducing. What I'm saying, is that if that's the case then why aren't companies doing that now? And we have people saying that Irish companies are overpaying for imported goods (because relationships!) that could be sourced cheaper on the continent, or could be imported cost neutrally or cheaper on direct ferries. And I'm saying that's bull****. Brexit has to mean prices rise here for certain goods. Ignoring the reality makes some of the posters here no better than brexiteers for their fantasies.
lawred2 wrote: » And? That's just another logistical problem that a British company has had foisted upon itself by poorly informed and easily led electorate. These problems are repeated up and down the length of the United Kingdom for British companies. I sense though that you seem to be taking some sort of delight out of the fact that this production facility is in Ireland...
L1011 wrote: » Realistically no. Irish ops can run alone. And it's not the 1930s, if Guinness supplies had troubles the country (bar Cork) wouldn't close down.
UsedToWait wrote: » It's just another little dog whistle from that poster, imo. Paddy won't get his Guinness. The other day he was posting some crackpot op-ed calling Ireland a 'failed post-colonial state'.
RobMc59 wrote: » Raising a valid point shouldn't be a reason to attack.If you actually read what I said the EU market isn't the most important for Guinness-what's "crackpot"about that,
Anthracite wrote: » Why should the travails of one particular 'British' company be of such a concern to us? It's not even the case that they are supplying a staple, or something that doesn't already have like-for-like replacements on the market. I'm sure if Diageo runs into specific Brexit-related troubles, they will soon be a 'Dutch' or 'Irish' or 'French' company anyway.
RobMc59 wrote: More importantly,Guinness-a British owned company with Britain as it's biggest market and the majority of its other major consumers none EU countries-a sobering thought.
RobMc59 wrote: » Why should they?-the EU isn't the biggest market for Guinness.
Gerry T wrote: » Ehhhhm, Guinness in Dublin is an Irish legal entity, owned by a UK family. In '97 sold to diageo, which again incorporated in Dublin in 1923. So Guinness and Diageo is Irish and hence EU. There could be a Guinness in UK, they used to produce in park royal. There's also the possibility of a Guinness legal entity in Africa, they manufacture there also. With regard to brexit what's your point. Are you saying that Guinness will suffer as the pint will cost 5 or 10% more in the UK or that the average man in the UK is now going to pay that bit more for his Guinness. Honest if Guinness went up by 20% I'd still drink it, because I'm too old to change, not mad on largers and don't go out as much as when I was 20. I'm prob the target market, young people drink all sorts, whiskey, gin, craft beers, Heineken 🀢......
RobMc59 wrote: » You still don't get it do you-the EU isn't the biggest market for Guinness so any penalties on British companies could,from a purely business point of view influence their future strategies .Personally I think there's only one place Guinness should be brewed and that's Dublin.
Call me Al wrote: » Is your sentiment a bit like thinking that Bentleys should really only be made in GB?https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/brexit-bentley-could-shift-production-europe-‘worst-case-scenario’;
Sam Russell wrote: » So do Diageo. They closed the Park Royal brewery and moved all Guiness brewing to Dublin. The UK already pay a premium for Guinness - in Ireland Guinness is generally the cheapest pint, but in the UK it is not. Price is not an issue in a pub, because it is mostly someone else's round.
RobMc59 wrote: You still don't get it do you-the EU isn't the biggest market for Guinness so any penalties on British companies could,from a purely business point of view influence their future strategies .Personally I think there's only one place Guinness should be brewed and that's Dublin.
Gerry T wrote: » So many holes in your argument. 1.8b pints a yr are sold, the UK isnt that important to guinness. First the top ranking Guinness sold countries are Africa (40%), Nigeria, Ireland, Cameroon, USA. Don't know where the UK comes. Second, the EU has trade deals all around the world, these protect guinness markets, bar UK and it's brexit strategy 😂😂😂, or lack of strategy. Possibly Guinness might reopen park royal for the local market, time will tell. But what is the point your making, what are we talking about, it's just nonsense.
RobMc59 wrote: Please provide your information source regarding where Guinness is sold and why would the EU "protect" Guinness markets?
Gerry T wrote: » Google irisharoundoz, i cant do a link from my phone. You made a claim, what's your source. In that article it says outside ireland the next biggest market for guinness is the UK where Guinness is 5th best selling beer, but that's not translating into qty of Guinness pints sold. The EU doesn't protect markets per say, it provides markets. Not just to guinness but to all EU businesses. As it stands when the UK leaves next April it trades on worse than agreed wto terms, it's submitted wto tariff schedule is not agreed. Why oh why would Guinness move production from the EU to little england.
RobMc59 wrote: » Please provide your information source regarding where Guinness is sold and why would the EU "protect" Guinness markets?
