How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
The USA has not taken away the rights of the people who have for many many years used Champagne (USA made) on their bottles.
They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
Dont like rolls said:
The USA has not taken away the rights of the people who have for many many years used Champagne (USA made) on their bottles.
They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
Who said anyone was a bad guy? They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
It is just a discussion on the market dynamics of having or not having food product protection for your exports.
If we decide to negotiate to prevent EU nations making & selling their own Melton Mowbray pork pies or Scotch whiskey, is that us "walking over them"?
crankedup said:
Yes it’s so facile, eight days ago the beeb were stating that the Australian bush fires were due to burn for at least another two months. Today it’s pissed down with rain and almost (thankfully) extinguished the annual bush fires. One could say it’s rained on the beebs parade, obvious pun sorry about that 
Is that true? If so I blame the Tibetans.DeepEnd said:
Dont like rolls said:
The USA has not taken away the rights of the people who have for many many years used Champagne (USA made) on their bottles.
They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
Who said anyone was a bad guy? They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
It is just a discussion on the market dynamics of having or not having food product protection for your exports.
If we decide to negotiate to prevent EU nations making & selling their own Melton Mowbray pork pies or Scotch whiskey, is that us "walking over them"?
Vanden Saab said:
DeepEnd said:
Dont like rolls said:
The USA has not taken away the rights of the people who have for many many years used Champagne (USA made) on their bottles.
They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
Who said anyone was a bad guy? They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
It is just a discussion on the market dynamics of having or not having food product protection for your exports.
If we decide to negotiate to prevent EU nations making & selling their own Melton Mowbray pork pies or Scotch whiskey, is that us "walking over them"?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protecting-food-and-dr...
the actual government said:
Protection of UK GIs in the EU
In a no deal Brexit, it’s possible that the EU may not continue to protect UK GI products. You’ll need to be prepared to apply to the European Commission to regain:
EU protection
the right to use the EU GI logo
You’ll need to show that your product is protected as a GI in the UK. The UK government will provide support and guidance for your application.
Under a deal, if we decided not to protect their GIs (e.g. UK champagne), do you think they'll agree to respect ours?In a no deal Brexit, it’s possible that the EU may not continue to protect UK GI products. You’ll need to be prepared to apply to the European Commission to regain:
EU protection
the right to use the EU GI logo
You’ll need to show that your product is protected as a GI in the UK. The UK government will provide support and guidance for your application.
Like I said it is one of many areas where we will likely agree with the EU to carry on as before with no change, with all that entails.
DeepEnd said:
Vanden Saab said:
DeepEnd said:
Dont like rolls said:
The USA has not taken away the rights of the people who have for many many years used Champagne (USA made) on their bottles.
They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
Who said anyone was a bad guy? They have agreed to ban NEW producers but they also have respected their peoples rights unlike the Eu who are happy to walk over whoever they wish for their own ideology.
Any attempt to portray the USA as the bad guys in that particular instance is just incorrect.
Typical of the Eu.
It is just a discussion on the market dynamics of having or not having food product protection for your exports.
If we decide to negotiate to prevent EU nations making & selling their own Melton Mowbray pork pies or Scotch whiskey, is that us "walking over them"?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protecting-food-and-dr...
the actual government said:
Protection of UK GIs in the EU
In a no deal Brexit, it’s possible that the EU may not continue to protect UK GI products. You’ll need to be prepared to apply to the European Commission to regain:
EU protection
the right to use the EU GI logo
You’ll need to show that your product is protected as a GI in the UK. The UK government will provide support and guidance for your application.
Under a deal, if we decided not to protect their GIs (e.g. UK champagne), do you think they'll agree to respect ours?In a no deal Brexit, it’s possible that the EU may not continue to protect UK GI products. You’ll need to be prepared to apply to the European Commission to regain:
EU protection
the right to use the EU GI logo
You’ll need to show that your product is protected as a GI in the UK. The UK government will provide support and guidance for your application.
Like I said it is one of many areas where we will likely agree with the EU to carry on as before with no change, with all that entails.
DeepEnd said:
Whilst I don't think the protected food thing is a particularly big issue, it is still a basically valid concern & bargaining chip.
And this is exactly the sort of discussion we'd have after the referendum, where Chicken Littles would point out that the world was changing, fear, uncertainty and doubt and it could only possibly come out badly for the UK because we're weak and helpless without the EU.The thing is, most of these discussions just highlight that so many of these matters are not 'handled by the EU' - they're handled by global organisations and agreements (WIPO etc.), and the EU implements a local version (sometimes well, sometimes badly). There's strong incentive on all sides to maintain those hard negotiated relationships, because just as much as we want to protect pork pies, France wants to protect fizzy wine and the US wants to protect Coca-Cola.
And as for change, well... get a grip.
Tuna said:
And this is exactly the sort of discussion we'd have after the referendum, where Chicken Littles would point out that the world was changing, fear, uncertainty and doubt and it could only possibly come out badly for the UK because we're weak and helpless without the EU.
The thing is, most of these discussions just highlight that so many of these matters are not 'handled by the EU' - they're handled by global organisations and agreements (WIPO etc.), and the EU implements a local version (sometimes well, sometimes badly). There's strong incentive on all sides to maintain those hard negotiated relationships, because just as much as we want to protect pork pies, France wants to protect fizzy wine and the US wants to protect Coca-Cola.
And as for change, well... get a grip.
Coca-Cola is a brand, Champagne is a controlled method of production from a specific geographical area like Melton Pork Pies, nobody protects Cola or Pork Pies.The thing is, most of these discussions just highlight that so many of these matters are not 'handled by the EU' - they're handled by global organisations and agreements (WIPO etc.), and the EU implements a local version (sometimes well, sometimes badly). There's strong incentive on all sides to maintain those hard negotiated relationships, because just as much as we want to protect pork pies, France wants to protect fizzy wine and the US wants to protect Coca-Cola.
And as for change, well... get a grip.
Tuna said:
And this is exactly the sort of discussion we'd have after the referendum, where Chicken Littles would point out that the world was changing, fear, uncertainty and doubt and it could only possibly come out badly for the UK because we're weak and helpless without the EU.
The thing is, most of these discussions just highlight that so many of these matters are not 'handled by the EU' - they're handled by global organisations and agreements (WIPO etc.), and the EU implements a local version (sometimes well, sometimes badly). There's strong incentive on all sides to maintain those hard negotiated relationships, because just as much as we want to protect pork pies, France wants to protect fizzy wine and the US wants to protect Coca-Cola.
And as for change, well... get a grip.
In the example above, it appears the issue was exactly handled by EU influence in 2004 in their trade talks with the Swiss. The thing is, most of these discussions just highlight that so many of these matters are not 'handled by the EU' - they're handled by global organisations and agreements (WIPO etc.), and the EU implements a local version (sometimes well, sometimes badly). There's strong incentive on all sides to maintain those hard negotiated relationships, because just as much as we want to protect pork pies, France wants to protect fizzy wine and the US wants to protect Coca-Cola.
And as for change, well... get a grip.
Posters say “it predates the EU” etc. but the Swiss were labelling a product with the words champagne until they were stopped by pressure in trade talks.
There is no need to start calling people names - “chicken littles?” really? - and fearful of change when discussing these facts. Discussing the actual facts implies none of those things.
crankedup said:
Yes it’s so facile, eight days ago the beeb were stating that the Australian bush fires were due to burn for at least another two months. Today it’s pissed down with rain and almost (thankfully) extinguished the annual bush fires. One could say it’s rained on the beebs parade, obvious pun sorry about that
Are you implying that the bushfires were just an annual thing ? Nice.
Jimboka said:
crankedup said:
Yes it’s so facile, eight days ago the beeb were stating that the Australian bush fires were due to burn for at least another two months. Today it’s pissed down with rain and almost (thankfully) extinguished the annual bush fires. One could say it’s rained on the beebs parade, obvious pun sorry about that
Are you implying that the bushfires were just an annual thing ? Nice.crankedup said:
Not implying at all, I am stating the fact, ‘bush fires are an Australian annual event’. Did you not know that?
Indeed. So much so, they're a critical element in the life cycle of many aussie plants. That's not to suggest they weren't particularly bad this year (nor did I get any hint you were trying to state they were normal in severity/extent).
Sway said:
crankedup said:
Not implying at all, I am stating the fact, ‘bush fires are an Australian annual event’. Did you not know that?
Indeed. So much so, they're a critical element in the life cycle of many aussie plants. That's not to suggest they weren't particularly bad this year (nor did I get any hint you were trying to state they were normal in severity/extent).
crankedup said:
Indeed, no normal person wants to see death and distruction nor play down major events. One of the major players in the intensity of this season’s bush fires is the fact that the australians decided several years ago to stop the ‘bush thinning’ work. This allowed a much more dense undergrowth meaning a higher ferocity of fire, that is my understanding from news reports. I think of it as drainage ditches not being maintained in the U.K. leading to greater flooding when the heavens open.
Ahhh, but the Beeb tell me the flash floods are a "once in a 100 year event", tell that to my mate who lost his house a few years ago (just outside Sydney)Dont like rolls said:
Ahhh, but the Beeb tell me the flash floods are a "once in a 100 year event", tell that to my mate who lost his house a few years ago (just outside Sydney)
To be fair, the nature of statistics does mean such events tend to "cluster" - that doesn't change the long term average frequency... crankedup said:
Indeed, no normal person wants to see death and distruction nor play down major events. One of the major players in the intensity of this season’s bush fires is the fact that the australians decided several years ago to stop the ‘bush thinning’ work. This allowed a much more dense undergrowth meaning a higher ferocity of fire, that is my understanding from news reports. I think of it as drainage ditches not being maintained in the U.K. leading to greater flooding when the heavens open.
I seem to remember this' bush thining' method is also used some European countries as well.Norway, Sweden perhaps?
gooner1 said:
crankedup said:
Indeed, no normal person wants to see death and distruction nor play down major events. One of the major players in the intensity of this season’s bush fires is the fact that the australians decided several years ago to stop the ‘bush thinning’ work. This allowed a much more dense undergrowth meaning a higher ferocity of fire, that is my understanding from news reports. I think of it as drainage ditches not being maintained in the U.K. leading to greater flooding when the heavens open.
I seem to remember this' bush thining' method is also used some European countries as well.Norway, Sweden perhaps?
One of the issues, is it's been a multi year (worse than normal for Aus) drought - so the typical winter burns with at least damp-ish brush in many cases simply couldn't be done safely.
There does seem to have been some areas where homeowners have skimped on clearing a break around their properties, and some examples where planned burns were prevented by protestors.
Anyways, there's a thread for talk of Aus...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff