Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by tjs282, Nov 1, 2019.
That's a ridiculous rumour that should be scotched.
I am a Dutchman if that is true.
Talking about Scotch - Boris Johnson agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement to continue to recognise and protect EU geographical indicators - so champagne sold in the UK will have to come from Champagne in France, Parma ham will have to come from Parma etc. But he failed to get (failed to ask probably) for the same treatment for UK GIs so anyone will be able to market a product called Scotch Whisky, whether it is made in Scotland or Romania, within the EU.
Not just unrealistic and dishonest, incompetent as well.
But at least hes consistently unrealistic, dishonest and incompetent.
I think people within the EU will be pissed if the romanians start selling "scotch whisky". It's not a concession the UK needed to extract, the EU will enforce it voluntarily. Trying to sell false champagne in the UK wouldn't go down well either even without any treaty saying it is nono.
But who would enforce it and how if it isn't protected?
If someone somewhere can make a buck by selling rubbish for sale in nightclubs (for example) that is called Scotch, and the term Scotch isn't protected what is anyone to do?
Drunk patrons aren't going to question it, they are just going to say scotch is rubbish and not worth a premium price. Damage is done and Scotland loses out. The alcohol might as well come from India or China if the term isn't protected. Discerning consumers will know the difference but enough will be fooled.
As for the UK, if a bar owner (like for example the owner of Wetherspoons and its 900 pubs) wants to sell sparkling Australian white wine as Champagne or Cava or Prosesso to make a few more pounds, he can't as the UK have agreed in a treaty to protect those terms.
A random bit of globalization history:
Containers were first used widely by the US army. It was then standardised by an American trucking company whose first international customer was Scotch exporters protecting their products from theft.
And the term false is key. Yes in the UK passing off something as Champagne would breach the international agreements Boris Johnson has made. But as he failed to protect UK products anything labelled as Scotch is as entitled to use that name as much as something produced by Johnnie Walker or Glenlivet.
The UK is asking for this now as they have realised that they dropped the ball. The EU negotiators were well ahead of them, if the UK gov had listened to anyone outside their bubble they would have realised it too.
I think you might just have said that the EU is better than the UK. Where's me tinfoil hat?
Making Britian Great Again !
Anyway good on the UK for admitting its former colony citizens a way out, taking in 3 mil at the same time though is going to be a monumental challange.
No, that’s simply not how the human mind works. If it were, all that origin label laws wouldn’t have been necessary at the start. And it’s actually not “false” champagne. The product tastes the same, may even be better. They don’t have better recepees in these regions, they just invented the thing.
The interesting tidbit here though is that you immediately try to defend a clear negative as a positive. The EU got something, the UK didn’t. Even if it were just a deadweight letter in the treaty and your argument holds, this may change and the UK has something less on their side of the negotiating table.
The real takeaway here though is that the right-wing government in London doesn’t care about protecing an industry and their jobs - in the case of Scotch those are in Scotland.
Lets see, the earliest EU regulation on "geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs" was created in 1992.
Champagne has been sold internationally as a "luxury product", considered distinct everywhere from other sparkling wines and paid at a premium, since at least the early 19th century.
What I think, but didn't bother explaining in the previous comment, is that we have an excess of laws, regulations and bureaucracy and this is one fine example of it. Sure, there's more international trade now, and we do need laws to identify the precise origin of products sold. But we never needed and do not need specific laws to create "region brands". Consumers create and sustain brands. The oldest laws demarcating regions were done only define which producers were "in" and "out" of the profitable regional branding, setting the moving a few kilometers here or there. Not to create or "promote" the brand abroad. No consumer ever needed a law saying that Port wine came from the lower Douro valley, that Bordeaux came from vineyards in Bordeaux. France and Portugal had laws setting the precise borders of those regions and the rules for production, but international buyers need no domestic laws to enforce the distinction between the genuine products and imitations.
If, say, a 19th century british merchants tried selling italian wine saying it was Port wine or Bordeaux, their costumers who wanted and knew the real thing would dump them and buy elsewhere. A false label wouldn't last long before it became known as an imitation and the reputation of the seller was destroyed. Bering known as an imitation is toxic for brands of luxury products and for their sellers.
And there are already laws to protect brands. There is no need for more laws to identify regions to buyers of products, the ones who care are perfectly capable of doing it on their own, as they did before the bureaucracy grew. This is just more "intellectual property" bullcrap, more bureaucracy creating yet another set of regulations to be busy with. The bureaucracy looking out for the bureaucracy, making sure that its bloat is necessary and it deserves an ever greater cut of the production of society. Because the gatekeepers of these laws and regulations will make sure of setting up a series of institutions to enforce them and to employ themselves and friends there pushing paper (or electrons) Taking a cut from the sales of the products for payment for the service.
The world does not need more of this crap. The world needs more locally-produced stuff, less shipping around of food because of fashion fads, and better care for quality produce everywhere, not on this of that "demarcated region". This is theater, brought to us by the same people who would have us panic because of CO2 emissions, while promoting branding and increased long-distance trade of foodstuffs as "gourmet" things and "demarcated quality regional products".
And the world also needs fewer people living as parasites from doing the "paperwork" on this stuff, and more people working on real stuff! We must have factory farming because labour costs, huh? But we can pay the much more expensive wages of the armies of bureaucrats sitting on offices overseeing the thing and "fixing" its problems through these schemes...
@mitsho please understand, I have been - for decades now - very much pissed at the EU pretending to create (useless) solution for the problems it created.
My country was "less developed", more agrarian, until recently. Meaning we had little "factory farming". I know, and can still find, good food. But consider the humble potato, and read what I've seen happening.
Before we entered the EU, potatos were a good crop for farmers. Imports were slapped with tariffs. Sure the local production was somewhat more expensive for consumers, but they were tasty. Then we entered the EU, and we got big supermarket chains. Turns out that international trade (long-distance trade) was good for price squeezing on suppliers and that was the necessary condition for big chains to show up. Who'd have guessed huh? But that's another issue...
Back to the story of the potato. Imports of cheap potatoes from France and Holland jumped. Thing is, soon all the potato offered for sale on the supermarket chains was imported. All. And didn't became much cheaper either. But carried a higher margin for the sellers. Many people refused and refuse to buy that tasteless crud they sell as potatoes, sure. Others do buy. I pity them, some grew up or moved here knowing no better.
Now, why is this status quo better that the previous one where the local produce, better quality, was consumed? Why do we need truckloads and truckloads of potatoes crisscrossing Europe? We don't, the supermarkets are the only ones interested in that. To complete the absurd of the picture, we do export some good potato to other countries!
Oh but for those who complain of the bad quality, they have a "solution". A "gourmet shop", or a "biological products section", where you can pay triple the price for all those bureaucrat-approved "products of controlled origin". Which are indeed better, but in terms of quality correspond merely to what was being produced locally before we had this whole international food supply chain pushed on us! And we didn't have to pay the bloody bureaucrats for the branding then. Only a fiscal guard inspecting the border trade. As for the producers of these "gourmet" products, they're on the same situation as any others: small scale, squeezed on price and lucky if they get paid no later than three months after delivering the product to the supermarkets' logistics!
What has the EU given is in agriculture? Farmers who now mostly produce lower-quality products for bulk sale because that's what the supply chain prefers. Greed on margins, an oligopoly of large buyers versus small producers, and price pressure from international trade do that. That too was brought us by the EU's wonderous internal market rules and liberal trade order. Just marvelous...
And easier trade on seed and stock but along with that comes easier imports of Xylella fastidiosa and other such niceties! Because the thing is, the current status quo is employs lots of bureaucrats to make regulations, but when it comes to enforcing them where boots on the ground are necessary... states can't overspent! Must live whiting their means! Let all containers enter unsuspected, just tick those boxes on the form. And I could get started on what I was being done to the national "regulator" on meditations here: complete dismantling of its labs and fill replacement with paper-stampers. But that's be another example...
It's crapification everywhere. I have no patience for supposed solutions from the same people who have done and are enforcing the conditions that lead to crapification. Denominations of origin are not a solution!
Another thing that irritates me is people in the UK saying "I fear that if we leave the EU we'll be importing chlorinated chicken".
Damn it, it's your country! Inside the EU you must swallow whatever the EU cooks up on trade, and are bound to a huge market with an inherent pressure towards crapification. Outside it, you alone make the rules! You don't have to make any trade agreements, with the US or any other country. It's possible to trade without giving away a country's ability to regulate what is brought in. Oh people of little faith in yourselves and your own country!
And if you have a bad government, it's because those who feared the chlorinated chicken pushed the better government alternative into political suicide over brexit.
This is pure fantasy and delusional wishful thinking not based on any facts or reality
Not only has the UK no idea how its agricultural policy will be post brexit, the UK government has shown that it is incompetent and not up the the challenge.
More promises broken.
I have a suspicion that if "I told you so" was a physical good, it would become in as short supply as loo roll was six weeks ago.
Fwiw, this does not at all match what I'm seeing in Estonia. Our trade is absolutely dominated by supermarkets (see this graph, we have 1/4 of Portugals gross leasable area in supermarket floor space with just 1/10th of the population), but there is definitely no shortage of locally produced potato. In fact, I just looked at e-stores of larger chains with following results:
1) 5 varieties of Estonian potatoes, 1 Moroccan;
2) 9 varieties of Estonian potatoes, 1 Swedish, 1 Greek;
3) 4 varieties of Estonian potatoes;
4) 2 varieties of Estonian potatoes, 2 of unspecified origin.
I find it weird that French and Dutch potatoes are so totally able to outcompete your local produce. Shouldn't work costs be comparably higher there?
When governments make incompatible promises,
it is inevitable that some must get broken.
Well I read the link and Greenpeace's tiresome sophistry.
Firstly; It is not "our" .... standards", it is "EU" ... standards.
Secondly; bargaining chips are what you put to the table to start with,
it is a misnomer to call them that if the other side first requests that change.
Thirdly; it s not about animal welfare, it is about protectionism for the EU.
Besides which Britain couldn't even keep the colonies from keeping slaves,
when it was nominally responsible prior to 1776, and the idea that we ought to or
can simply impose EU standards on US agribusniess is complete nonsense.
And there is Greenpeace trying to impose EU standards on the UK contrary
to the fact that the UK electorate actively voted to leave the EU in June 2016.
So you are just going to ignore the fact that the government promised that standards would remain as high or be even higher than EU standards in its manifesto and in parliament since the election?
As few of the manifestos had much to do with reality, yes; I am going to ignore them.
Backtracking on manifesto promises is one thing,
Backtracking on international commitments is another:
Article is vague on details, ultimately talking about what amounts to agreements to agree and agreements
to agree are at best a commitment to discuss, they are not othewise agreements in themselves.
Separate names with a comma.