Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

reslfj · 30-05-2020 03:35PM

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 · 30-05-2020 03:37PM

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.

30-05-2020 03:38PM

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 · 30-05-2020 04:23PM

[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 · 30-05-2020 04:25PM

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 · 30-05-2020 04:54PM

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 · 30-05-2020 05:23PM

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 · 30-05-2020 08:28PM

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 · 30-05-2020 09:04PM

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 · 31-05-2020 02:35AM

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 · 31-05-2020 10:14AM

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 · 31-05-2020 11:00AM

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 · 31-05-2020 06:29PM

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 · 31-05-2020 06:30PM

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 · 31-05-2020 06:38PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Could we not have Ulster-Scots whiskey?

Rumour has it Bushmills is a protestant whisky.

Seth Brundle · 31-05-2020 06:49PM

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 · 31-05-2020 08:14PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Could we not have Ulster-Scots whiskey?

You mean Bushmills?

[Edit: Beaten to it.]

Charles Babbage · 31-05-2020 09:57PM

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 · 31-05-2020 10:02PM

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

Spanish Eyes · 31-05-2020 10:13PM

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 · 31-05-2020 10:15PM

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-- · 31-05-2020 10:20PM

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 · 31-05-2020 10:25PM

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-- · 31-05-2020 10:28PM

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 · 31-05-2020 10:28PM

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 · 31-05-2020 10:37PM

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 · 31-05-2020 10:37PM

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

Spanish Eyes · 31-05-2020 10:40PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

I don't think I wished to celebrate anything to do with Brexit.

But the UK are playing a blinder and much as I hate to say it, they just might win out now. (the word prevail is not allowed now it seems).

We shall see. But Qui Bono is the big question.

CrabRevolution · 31-05-2020 10:40PM

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?

The UK has gone for no deal at least twice at this stage and folded each time, agreeing to extensions despite Boris stating he'd be dead in a ditch before allowing an extension.

Not to mention the numerous sub sections of the withdrawal (e.g. wanting the NI arrangements sorted after they exit, wanting a trade deal signed before leaving, "the row of the summer") they have also folded each and every time.

There's no evidence they are prevailing or will gain any advantages over the EU.

Tell me how · 31-05-2020 10:43PM

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?

Brexit was initially argued for on the basis of 'They need us more than we need them', 'the first call after we leave will not be to Brussels, it will be to Berlin', 'The german car manufacturers will never let a No deal happen', 'We will have multiple trade agreements ready to go immediately after we leave the EU', 'The US and China will be queuing up to negotiate with us', not to mention the '£250M/week for the NHS'

None of this has happened. From the days immediately after the referendum when Farage admitted the £250M/week for the NHS was a false claim, Brexiteers have been moving the goalposts. Even today Gove talking about increased food prices like it is wasn't something that they explicitly said would not be case before the referendum is more moving of the goalposts.

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments