How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
Sway said:
Oh indeed.
Zero need, nor desire to change.
It was all prompted by a certain poster claiming we'd lose the European market, as it was a trump card in negotiations, and no rolling over, no protections for our goods under these two schemes. Much like he could buy champagne from Cali in the US but not here, the French could buy Stilton made in Czechia and that would f
k our producers.
Then it was pointed out just three EU nations have ten times the protected goods we do, we're a massive consumer of them, and the balance wasn't tipped the EU's way (oh, and these things have been around for a lot longer than the EU...).
So then said poster switched to 'wasn't worried about the EU, but the US will ride roughshod over us' - which was then pointed out as already being the case, and nothing to do with the EU, or actually under a protection in the US (see bourbon/scotch) regardless of brexit.
As I've said, there are a couple of posters who seem to struggle with actually having a cogent argument, backed up by knowledge, experience and data. Instead relying solely on anecdote and assertion - and twisting their own argument to suit as every basis for it gets removed...
A pretty accurate summation of my understanding. Silly claims that Brexit will be either a disaster or softer than the softest puppy (both "wins" for people opposed to it), based on the fear of change.Zero need, nor desire to change.
It was all prompted by a certain poster claiming we'd lose the European market, as it was a trump card in negotiations, and no rolling over, no protections for our goods under these two schemes. Much like he could buy champagne from Cali in the US but not here, the French could buy Stilton made in Czechia and that would f
k our producers. Then it was pointed out just three EU nations have ten times the protected goods we do, we're a massive consumer of them, and the balance wasn't tipped the EU's way (oh, and these things have been around for a lot longer than the EU...).
So then said poster switched to 'wasn't worried about the EU, but the US will ride roughshod over us' - which was then pointed out as already being the case, and nothing to do with the EU, or actually under a protection in the US (see bourbon/scotch) regardless of brexit.
As I've said, there are a couple of posters who seem to struggle with actually having a cogent argument, backed up by knowledge, experience and data. Instead relying solely on anecdote and assertion - and twisting their own argument to suit as every basis for it gets removed...
I don't know how invested the hardcore Brexiteers are in instant, overnight change, or in some imagined 'perfect' trading conditions. I'm expecting a few surprises, but mainly that things will carry on 'as normal'. There won't be a special event that 'validates' Brexit - we'll continue to trade, exchange, collaborate and work with people in Europe and globally. There will be opportunities to seize and challenges to address - and the measure of Boris' government will be in how they cope with those. But anyone trying to keep score of 'wins' or 'losses' for Brexit (for either side) is just daft.
Dont like rolls said:
Sway said:
Fortunately, the expensive steak I ate was on expenses. Annoyingly, it means I've still not managed to try true Kobe wagyu beef... One day...
I have twice, both times in Japan, I can honestly say it is a pleasure I treasure, it defies description. (My host paid both time thank god)Do you know which 'grade' you had, and if different across each steak, how it effected the experience?
El stovey said:
Pretty hard to escape big food though. Pretty much everything is owned by kraft, Unilever, nestle or procter and gamble or made in their factories.
They’re even leading the way in meat free products now.
Agreed it’s hard to avoid but if you contrast Unilever with Kraft-Heinz there is a significant disparity in commitment to H&W.They’re even leading the way in meat free products now.
Sway said:
Indeed.
I'd challenge the "eat very well" but though - as explained, even in upmarket places the rules permit some stty practices (such as "lobster" that is anything but, and "Kobe beef" that's actually US produced utter ste!) - both exceptionally tasty, and damned expensive, but not "eating well".
Fortunately, the expensive steak I ate was on expenses. Annoyingly, it means I've still not managed to try true Kobe wagyu beef... One day...
Should probably plan it, to cook myself. Direct on the coals for seconds (as in 'on' the lump wood coals, not on a grill 'over' lump wood) and then served on a salt block. Perhaps I should start a GoFundMe!
I would say there is difference between eating expensively and eating well.I'd challenge the "eat very well" but though - as explained, even in upmarket places the rules permit some s
tty practices (such as "lobster" that is anything but, and "Kobe beef" that's actually US produced utter ste!) - both exceptionally tasty, and damned expensive, but not "eating well". Fortunately, the expensive steak I ate was on expenses. Annoyingly, it means I've still not managed to try true Kobe wagyu beef... One day...
Should probably plan it, to cook myself. Direct on the coals for seconds (as in 'on' the lump wood coals, not on a grill 'over' lump wood) and then served on a salt block. Perhaps I should start a GoFundMe!
I spend about a third of my working life in NY and I honestly don’t struggle to find good quality, verifiable provenance food if I want to go looking for it.
Tuna said:
Silly claims that Brexit will be either a disaster or softer than the softest puppy (both "wins" for people opposed to it), based on the fear of change.
Again with this "resistance to change" myth. It's presumably thrown around as a mild insult but missing the mark in an amusingly ironic way. There are of course many leavers who actually "hanker back to simpler times" (pre-changes they clearly can't it seem cope with) and being against immigration is fundamentally a fear of change position. That is should be not worth refuting......
The recognition of food names will be mutually agreed for the reasons that drive much of our current alignment - actually confirming the position that "the ability to diverge if we want to" is a pretty holly & pointless "victory" when in practice no leaver here has yet come up with a cogent area in which divergence will boost our fortunes, quality of life or economy. The floor is still open on that, and no, it hasn't been addressed many times.
Edited by DeepEnd on Sunday 19th January 12:07
Brooking10 said:
I would say there is difference between eating expensively and eating well.
I spend about a third of my working life in NY and I honestly don’t struggle to find good quality, verifiable provenance food if I want to go looking for it.
Fair enough. I found it difficult (didn't realise quote what restaurants were permitted to "get away with" in their labelling). I spend about a third of my working life in NY and I honestly don’t struggle to find good quality, verifiable provenance food if I want to go looking for it.
Haven't been back for an appreciable time for a few years though. Now, it's typically bulls
t conferences in a hotel complex, trapped with whatever they give you (although last trip to Grapevine/Dallas I did escape via Uber to a bloody superb smokehouse BBQ joint... Simply incredible, and superb quality provenance of the beef and pork). If I ever go back to the "proper" extended project trips in a decent city - I'll give you a shout for some tips!
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.
Champagne is an interesting choice as there is a real world example of the impact food protection rules can have - there used to be a Swiss champagne that sold over 100,000 bottles a year but when food protection rules were put in place - preventing them putting the word "champagne" on the bottle - sales fell to 30,000. This may seem a harsh example given the Swiss village that made the drink was called "champagne"......but it illustrates the point.
The US do put Champagne on their bottles, and have actually done so it seems with agreement of the EU - highlighting US influence in negotiations perhaps the swiss could not call upon in their own.
The potential brexit issue comes with how the UK decides it wants to implement protected name rules - of course we can do what we wish to prevent the sale of imported/fake melton mowbray branded pork pies in the UK - but what control/protection the name has in the EU is down to what the EU bargains for in any negotiation. If we want our own UK champagne then the EU might not agree to e.g. protect "Scotch" Whiskey and allow that to be made and labelled as such in the EU - probably hurting Scotch exports as the Swiss example demonstrates. The Swiss product which dropped to 30,000 sales will have been the same wine but the name clearly impacts sales.
The likely outcome is we'll agree to replicate what we have now in a deal with the EU.
Mind, not all EU controls on fake goods are implemented it seems - look at this cheeky topical Austrian knock off!
Perhaps a quick look at the Treaty of Versailles may provide you with a better understanding as to why we cannot use the term Champagne and the USA can/could.Champagne is an interesting choice as there is a real world example of the impact food protection rules can have - there used to be a Swiss champagne that sold over 100,000 bottles a year but when food protection rules were put in place - preventing them putting the word "champagne" on the bottle - sales fell to 30,000. This may seem a harsh example given the Swiss village that made the drink was called "champagne"......but it illustrates the point.
The US do put Champagne on their bottles, and have actually done so it seems with agreement of the EU - highlighting US influence in negotiations perhaps the swiss could not call upon in their own.
The potential brexit issue comes with how the UK decides it wants to implement protected name rules - of course we can do what we wish to prevent the sale of imported/fake melton mowbray branded pork pies in the UK - but what control/protection the name has in the EU is down to what the EU bargains for in any negotiation. If we want our own UK champagne then the EU might not agree to e.g. protect "Scotch" Whiskey and allow that to be made and labelled as such in the EU - probably hurting Scotch exports as the Swiss example demonstrates. The Swiss product which dropped to 30,000 sales will have been the same wine but the name clearly impacts sales.
The likely outcome is we'll agree to replicate what we have now in a deal with the EU.
Mind, not all EU controls on fake goods are implemented it seems - look at this cheeky topical Austrian knock off!
Edited by DeepEnd on Friday 17th January 21:32
Sway said:
Fair enough. I found it difficult (didn't realise quote what restaurants were permitted to "get away with" in their labelling).
Haven't been back for an appreciable time for a few years though. Now, it's typically bullst conferences in a hotel complex, trapped with whatever they give you (although last trip to Grapevine/Dallas I did escape via Uber to a bloody superb smokehouse BBQ joint... Simply incredible, and superb quality provenance of the beef and pork).
If I ever go back to the "proper" extended project trips in a decent city - I'll give you a shout for some tips!
By all means Haven't been back for an appreciable time for a few years though. Now, it's typically bulls
t conferences in a hotel complex, trapped with whatever they give you (although last trip to Grapevine/Dallas I did escape via Uber to a bloody superb smokehouse BBQ joint... Simply incredible, and superb quality provenance of the beef and pork). If I ever go back to the "proper" extended project trips in a decent city - I'll give you a shout for some tips!
I think they key thing is that it needs searching out.
The default settings in the US are as I said earlier cost, volume and convenience, hence the proliferation of corner Delis all selling “Boars Head” meat based sandwiches etc.
In grocery I would suggest that Europe and the UK are way ahead in terms of proliferation of choice in store as regards all things H, W, and ethical.
DeepEnd said:
Tuna said:
Silly claims that Brexit will be either a disaster or softer than the softest puppy (both "wins" for people opposed to it), based on the fear of change.
Again with this "resistance to change" myth. It's presumably thrown around as a mild insult but missing the mark in an amusingly ironic way. There are of course many leavers who actually "hanker back to simpler times" (pre-changes they clearly can't it seem cope with) and being against immigration is fundamentally a fear of change position. That is impossible to refute but I expect an attempt will be make.
The recognition of food names will be mutually agreed for the reasons that drive much of our current alignment - actually confirming the position that "the ability to diverge if we want to" is a pretty holly & pointless "victory" when in practice no leaver here has yet come up with a cogent area in which divergence will boost our fortunes, quality of life or economy. The floor is still open on that, and no, it hasn't been addressed many times.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Most Brexiteers are not against immigration, they support controlled immigration. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two.
They still have a fear around immigration which leads to their obsession with it - controlled. legal, illegal or otherwise. You don't seem able to understand your own fixation - uttering "controlled" in front of immigration doesn't make you any less fanatical about it.
DeepEnd said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Most Brexiteers are not against immigration, they support controlled immigration. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two.
They still have a fear around immigration which leads to their obsession with it - controlled. legal, illegal or otherwise. You don't seem able to understand your own fixation - uttering "controlled" in front of immigration doesn't make you any less fanatical about it.
gooner1 said:
DeepEnd said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Most Brexiteers are not against immigration, they support controlled immigration. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two.
They still have a fear around immigration which leads to their obsession with it - controlled. legal, illegal or otherwise. You don't seem able to understand your own fixation - uttering "controlled" in front of immigration doesn't make you any less fanatical about it.
Indeed! It looks like he really does not understand the distinction I referred to,
He appears to believe he is the PH pseudo psychologist as well. where he can feel a patients bumps via an internet forum. and expertly interpret them. What fun!
DeepEnd said:
Tuna said:
Silly claims that Brexit will be either a disaster or softer than the softest puppy (both "wins" for people opposed to it), based on the fear of change.
Again with this "resistance to change" myth. It's presumably thrown around as a mild insult but missing the mark in an amusingly ironic way. DeepEnd said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Most Brexiteers are not against immigration, they support controlled immigration. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two.
They still have a fear around immigration which leads to their obsession with it - controlled. legal, illegal or otherwise. You don't seem able to understand your own fixation - uttering "controlled" in front of immigration doesn't make you any less fanatical about it.
It's all just dog-whistle stuff.
Pan Pan Pan said:
gooner1 said:
DeepEnd said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Most Brexiteers are not against immigration, they support controlled immigration. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two.
They still have a fear around immigration which leads to their obsession with it - controlled. legal, illegal or otherwise. You don't seem able to understand your own fixation - uttering "controlled" in front of immigration doesn't make you any less fanatical about it.
Indeed! It looks like he really does not understand the distinction I referred to,
He appears to believe he is the PH pseudo psychologist as well. where he can feel a patients bumps via an internet forum. and expertly interpret them. What fun!
Tuna said:
Is there any point, ever, in the last few hundred pages where you have said an element of Brexit would provide a positive outcome? You seem peculiarly resistant to that idea. You have, in the last few pages however said that any changes to GI protection would be bad and implied that if the government fails to deliver change (aka a 'soft brexit'), then the Brexiteers will have failed. You really will argue black is white (wacist!!) if it suits your agenda.
Can any positive outcomes yet be guaranteed?loafer123 said:
I’m a Leaver who believes that immigration has added huge value to this country and should continue, but which should be controlled closely by government.
Where do I sit in your binary world?
Do you feel strongly about the need for controlled immigration, or are you relaxed about freedom of movement with the EU?Where do I sit in your binary world?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff