EU referendum today

Dano1977 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:27 pm

Aesma wrote:
Accusing the EU of having caused the Brexit is disingenuous. You did it, own it.

Attacking Merkel on her austerity obsession and her supposed treatment of Greeks too, considering the UK wanted to dump Greece altogether !

Pushing for TTIP while talking about "protecting culture" is quite funny also, the US doesn't recognize protected designations of origin and wants to sell us parmesan that doesn't even look like the real thing, champagne made anywhere but in Champagne, etc.

Apologies to drag up an old post...

I do like the EU protected designations of origin rule...

Simply because I can make a Cornish pasty in Cornwall from pastry made with US grain flour, potatoes from Spain, meat from France and Veg from Italy. But because I assembled it in Cornwall, I can call it a Cornish pasty.

But....

I can use Cornish products but make it in Devon (the county nextdoor) I can't call it a Cornish pasty.

How warped is that....

TheSonntag · Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:21 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
How warped is that....

Well you will find rediculours rules everywhere. This is NOT EU specific. Bureaucracy can be annyoing and flawed everywhere. I am a lawyer and the complexity of a modern Society makes it simply impossible to adopt rules which are without any contradiction.

Also, if you want to make a common market, you naturally MUST make harmonised rules. Otherwise every state will just enact rules that discriminate against foreign products. The French are quite famous for that, but you find it at many other places, too.

The typical Thing is just that for every rule the EU enacts, it is easy to bash them. That 500 experts are looking at new regulations for several years before they adopt a rule. But this is necessary if you want to get rules that are working AND acceptable in a market with 350 Million People.
Believing your own government would be better at doing it alone is naive.

Dreadnought · Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:21 pm

TheSonntag wrote:
Also, if you want to make a common market, you naturally MUST make harmonised rules. Otherwise every state will just enact rules that discriminate against foreign products. The French are quite famous for that, but you find it at many other places, too.

Bullcrap. When you have a very simple tariff-free trade zone, manufacturers can adapt. Japanese automakers have managed to largely dominate automobile markets in the US, Europe and elsewhere in spite of Japanese auto regulations being substantially different from those in their target markets, for example. They look at the target market's regulations, and build the car according to those standards. If Germany starts requiring pink headlights, Jaguar will make them with pink headlights for export to Germany. It's not rocket science. The EU did not invent international trade. It's been around an awfully long time without "harmonised rules".

tommy1808 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:16 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
If Germany starts requiring pink headlights, Jaguar will make them with pink headlights for export to Germany. It's not rocket science.

Or they even take the whole care apart and reassemble it again due to lower tariffs on parts then on whole cars.
But all of that drives up costs for the consumer ..... harmonized markets drive consumer prices down. Economy of scale and such, easier market access for more competition....
The EU didn´t invent international trade - they just reinvented it.

best regards
Thomas

Dreadnought · Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:15 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
If Germany starts requiring pink headlights, Jaguar will make them with pink headlights for export to Germany. It's not rocket science.

Or they even take the whole care apart and reassemble it again due to lower tariffs on parts then on whole cars.

Then that is not a proper free trade deal. All that sort of testing is done at the certification/crash-testing phase, and then that should be it - as is done with many countries both inside and outside the EU.

tommy1808 wrote:
But all of that drives up costs for the consumer ..... harmonized markets drive consumer prices down. Economy of scale and such, easier market access for more competition....
The EU didn´t invent international trade - they just reinvented it.

Yes, it might be more efficient, and economic growth might be higher. But that might be the price of sovereignty and self-determination. You sacrifice some of the efficiency and order that you might get under a dictatorship, in return for democratic rights and freedom to do what you want. If a little mom-and-pop shop in England who has no interest in shipping their goods or services outside their local area, why should they be burdened by regulations imposed on him by people he could not even vote for?

Aesma · Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:43 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
TheSonntag wrote:
Also, if you want to make a common market, you naturally MUST make harmonised rules. Otherwise every state will just enact rules that discriminate against foreign products. The French are quite famous for that, but you find it at many other places, too.

Bullcrap. When you have a very simple tariff-free trade zone, manufacturers can adapt. Japanese automakers have managed to largely dominate automobile markets in the US, Europe and elsewhere in spite of Japanese auto regulations being substantially different from those in their target markets, for example. They look at the target market's regulations, and build the car according to those standards. If Germany starts requiring pink headlights, Jaguar will make them with pink headlights for export to Germany. It's not rocket science. The EU did not invent international trade. It's been around an awfully long time without "harmonised rules".

You can always adapt, but it doesn't always make sense. French automakers, quite popular in Europe, don't bother with the US market. They do make right-hand drive cars, though.

Aesma · Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:45 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Accusing the EU of having caused the Brexit is disingenuous. You did it, own it.

Attacking Merkel on her austerity obsession and her supposed treatment of Greeks too, considering the UK wanted to dump Greece altogether !

Pushing for TTIP while talking about "protecting culture" is quite funny also, the US doesn't recognize protected designations of origin and wants to sell us parmesan that doesn't even look like the real thing, champagne made anywhere but in Champagne, etc.

Apologies to drag up an old post...

I do like the EU protected designations of origin rule...

Simply because I can make a Cornish pasty in Cornwall from pastry made with US grain flour, potatoes from Spain, meat from France and Veg from Italy. But because I assembled it in Cornwall, I can call it a Cornish pasty.

But....

I can use Cornish products but make it in Devon (the county nextdoor) I can't call it a Cornish pasty.

How warped is that....

If you're saying that everything (or 90%) should come from Cornwall, then I agree with you. We just made a stricter rule.

Pihero · Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:48 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
Simply because I can make a Cornish pasty in Cornwall from pastry made with US grain flour, potatoes from Spain, meat from France and Veg from Italy. But because I assembled it in Cornwall, I can call it a Cornish pasty.
But....
I can use Cornish products but make it in Devon (the county nextdoor) I can't call it a Cornish pasty.
How warped is that....

You'll be a lot happier with a TTIP arrangement : No quality and no origin protection, as it is already the case with "cheddar" cheese made of boiled cardboard from Buttridge, Oklahoma.
By the same token, your PDO'd Cornish clotted cream will be banned as non - conforming to US standards ( boiled milk, for instance), like their insistence on pasteurized milk for most French cheeses ( we tell them "on your bikes" and we eat and sell to the rest of the world...
On the other hand, I would be really surprised if your Cornish pasty doesn't have a list of locally produced and traceable ingredients.
If not, it's another proof that you haven't understood the rules of the game, so you are better off out of it.

Dreadnought · Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:02 pm

Aesma wrote:
You can always adapt, but it doesn't always make sense. French automakers, quite popular in Europe, don't bother with the US market. They do make right-hand drive cars, though.

You used to be able to find Renaults and Citroens in the US (and I think some Peugots too at one point), but they never worked out. Citroen got pushed out because their main model at the time was the DS, which required some special maintenance and Citroen's maintenance and support network was utterly crap (as in almost non-existent). Renault pulled out in the 80s when AMC (which they mostly owned) went tits-up, with a history of bad build quality. They used to sell the Renault 5 here as "LeCar" :-)

I think it's pretty sad because the French are particularly good at design - I think the Citroen C6 could have been quite successful here, and there are a lot of other modern French cars that I just think look cool as hell. But France still has issues with build quality, last I heard, and as any other foreign car manufacturer in the US will tell you, the key is to establish a dealer and service network that will convince people that if they buy your car, they can get it fixed. That normally takes 10-20 years of investment (just ask Kia or Hyundai - over the past few years they are finally considered mainstream - but it took them a long time to get there).

tommy1808 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:22 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
Then that is not a proper free trade deal. All that sort of testing is done at the certification/crash-testing phase, and then that should be it - as is done with many countries both inside and outside the EU.

Even without tariffs the cost of different regulation would still be there, and they are quite significant. We are in industrial communication & computing, having one of our products certified for a region is on the order 100.000 EUR. Thanks to the European union we, a 40 people company, can design, build and certify products for all of the EU common market. If we had to certify all products for all countries separately, the expense would exceed our turnover. You can imagine the impact that would have a prices....
And instead of a lean mean state, citizens pay a lot more for administration.

Yes, it might be more efficient, and economic growth might be higher. But that might be the price of sovereignty and self-determination.

That argument takes a pretty nationalistic world view to work. How is the EU taking responsibility for an area away from my nation government any different from them stripping my state, they my county, my city, my borough, my block .... Taken from them. The problem regresses all the way back to me.
How many levels up I am overruled is of no consequence, it doesn't make any effective change for me as the person.

You sacrifice some of the efficiency and order that you might get under a dictatorship, in return for democratic rights and freedom to do what you want.

The EU is basically as democratic as the USA.

If a little mom-and-pop shop in England who has no interest in shipping their goods or services outside their local area,

You'd be amazed by the number of one or two people companies trade all over Europe.

why should they be burdened by regulations imposed on him by people he could not even vote for?

[/quote][/quote]

I don't know. I guess you think that is the case in the EU, but that only means you haven't understood it. EU regulations have the same democratic legitimatation as the national governments.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:25 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
(and I think some Peugots too at one point),

Inspector Colombo drove a Peugeot, so I guess at that time it was available.

Best regards
Thomas

Ken777 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:31 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
(and I think some Peugots too at one point),

Inspector Colombo drove a Peugeot, so I guess at that time it was available.

Best regards
Thomas

I can remember the Peugeots in the late 50s or early 60s. They were consider a well made, reliable car that the owners loved. The lack of dealerships probably killed the brand in the US. Pity.

Dano1977 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:57 pm

Pihero wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:
Simply because I can make a Cornish pasty in Cornwall from pastry made with US grain flour, potatoes from Spain, meat from France and Veg from Italy. But because I assembled it in Cornwall, I can call it a Cornish pasty.
But....
I can use Cornish products but make it in Devon (the county nextdoor) I can't call it a Cornish pasty.
How warped is that....

You'll be a lot happier with a TTIP arrangement : No quality and no origin protection, as it is already the case with "cheddar" cheese made of boiled cardboard from Buttridge, Oklahoma.
By the same token, your PDO'd Cornish clotted cream will be banned as non - conforming to US standards ( boiled milk, for instance), like their insistence on pasteurized milk for most French cheeses ( we tell them "on your bikes" and we eat and sell to the rest of the world...
On the other hand, I would be really surprised if your Cornish pasty doesn't have a list of locally produced and traceable ingredients.
If not, it's another proof that you haven't understood the rules of the game, so you are better off out of it.

As Aesma said, take the Cornish pasty as an example, at least 90% of the core ingredients should come from Cornwall and it should be made in Cornwall. Certain items should be protected because it's not just a product, it's a culture and heritage.

I would hate to see ACME Corp of Loafers Glory, North Carolina make a substandard product and flood the market - killing off local traditions.

For the second point - Having worked in Catering and moving up the management chain, One of our Goals/Headaches was to have everything we procured 100% traceable - 99% wasn't good enough.

Ken777 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:32 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
I can use Cornish products but make it in Devon (the county next door) I can't call it a Cornish pasty.

That should depend if the product has become known because of it's design & taste or because of where it comes from.

Dano1977 wrote:
Certain items should be protected because it's not just a product, it's a culture and heritage.

Fact is that the good people in Cornish cannot produce sufficient pastries to satisfy world demand so very similar products will be made elsewhere.

France fought and won restricted use of the term "Champaign", which had a common use around the world to identify a white wine with bubbles, not bottles from one part of France. Bayer had gone through legal action to protect their trademark of "Aspirin". Bayer lost because, like Champaign, people used the term to denote a general product that was made by multiple companies in multiple locations. Today people still use the Champaign term without regards to where the grapes or bottles are from.
[/quote]

Dano1977 wrote:
I would hate to see ACME Corp of Loafers Glory, North Carolina make a substandard product and flood the market - killing off local traditions.

You don't know if it would be a substandard product and I doubt if they would kill off local traditions. The locals will probably make product at rates that they can sell and be fine.

tommy1808 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:40 am

Ken777 wrote:

Fact is that the good people in Cornish cannot produce sufficient pastries to satisfy world demand so very similar products will be made elsewhere.

And no one is stopping them from making cornish style stuff.

France fought and won restricted use of the term "Champaign", which had a common use around the world to identify a white wine with bubbles, not bottles from one part of France.

In your part of the world perhaps. Not sure about other European languages, but German is very clear about Schaumwein, Sekt und Champagner, and always has been.
And by that logic any product name that gets used synonymous by everyone loses its protected name. In Germany clear tape is Tesa, just like Scott tape, does that mean that any producer of clear tape can call that tesa too?

Best regards
Thomas

TheSonntag · Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:13 am

< Bayer had gone through legal action to protect their trademark of "Aspirin". Bayer lost because, like Champaign, people used the term to denote a general <product that was made by multiple companies in multiple locations. Today people still use the Champaign term without regards to where the grapes or bottles <are from.

Actually, Aspirin was a Trademark for Bayer, but Bayer lost those rights in the Versailles Treaty in 1919, which is why companies in the US, France and UK were allowed to market products with the name Aspirin. So this is quite an ironic outcome of that lawsuit.

Pihero · Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:33 am

Ken777 wrote:
France fought and won restricted use of the term "Champaign", which had a common use around the world to identify a white wine with bubbles, not bottles from one part of France. Bayer had gone through legal action to protect their trademark of "Aspirin". Bayer lost because, like Champaign, people used the term to denote a general product that was made by multiple companies in multiple locations. Today people still use the Champaign term without regards to where the grapes or bottles are from.

Totally uninformed rubbish !
1/- The name is * Champagne * and any drinker should be able to spell it correctly
2/- Everything about the product must answer to very very strict specifications ( which include for instance the pressure at which the juice is extracted, when, and at what temperature in the room).
Of these, the delimitation of the region is one of the most stringent.
3/- The name is certainly not a *generic* one ( where do you come from ? )... In English, that generic would be * bubbly * ( by the way, "BUBLI" is a waypoint right over the Champagne region )
4/- Champagne is protected by the EU at least under three chapters : PDO ( origin ), PGI ( geography ) and TSG - that's for " traditional Speciality guaranteed "following the French protections ( which took effect during the Versailles treaty when Bayer was losing the rights to "aspirin" )

I have a feeling "Cornish pasty " is similarly protecte'd.

TheSonntag · Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:02 pm

Very funny: Der Spiegel is reporting that Cornwall wants the same subsidies from the British government that they received from the EU so far. Cornwall was one of the regions which was most pro-Brexit.

Answer is: No subsidies.

scbriml · Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:09 pm

TheSonntag wrote:
Very funny: Der Spiegel is reporting that Cornwall wants the same subsidies from the British government that they received from the EU so far. Cornwall was one of the regions which was most pro-Brexit.

Answer is: No subsidies.

Same for the very pro-Brexit Wales. We don't want to be in the EU, but we still want all those lovely subsidies we get from the EU. ****

**** Where's the Headbang emoji when you really need it?

JJJ · Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:13 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
Pihero wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:
Simply because I can make a Cornish pasty in Cornwall from pastry made with US grain flour, potatoes from Spain, meat from France and Veg from Italy. But because I assembled it in Cornwall, I can call it a Cornish pasty.
But....
I can use Cornish products but make it in Devon (the county nextdoor) I can't call it a Cornish pasty.
How warped is that....

You'll be a lot happier with a TTIP arrangement : No quality and no origin protection, as it is already the case with "cheddar" cheese made of boiled cardboard from Buttridge, Oklahoma.
By the same token, your PDO'd Cornish clotted cream will be banned as non - conforming to US standards ( boiled milk, for instance), like their insistence on pasteurized milk for most French cheeses ( we tell them "on your bikes" and we eat and sell to the rest of the world...
On the other hand, I would be really surprised if your Cornish pasty doesn't have a list of locally produced and traceable ingredients.
If not, it's another proof that you haven't understood the rules of the game, so you are better off out of it.

As Aesma said, take the Cornish pasty as an example, at least 90% of the core ingredients should come from Cornwall and it should be made in Cornwall. Certain items should be protected because it's not just a product, it's a culture and heritage..

But that's something you should take up to whatever public entity that drew the PGI.

It's up to them to see whether certain ingredients and from where can and cannot be used, the EU merely provides a legal framework and the weight to enforce it.

Some IGPs are have terribly complicated rules while others are more loosely defined, in the end it's up to the commission, agency or whatever bunch of interested people your local or regional government designated to do the job of properly defining what's a Cornish pasty.

I still remember being able to buy Danish "Feta" cheese at the supermarket. Nowadays that very same cheese is sold as "salad cheese" so the customer can make an informed decision.

Tugger · Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:28 pm

Pihero wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
France fought and won restricted use of the term "Champaign", which had a common use around the world to identify a white wine with bubbles, not bottles from one part of France. Bayer had gone through legal action to protect their trademark of "Aspirin". Bayer lost because, like Champaign, people used the term to denote a general product that was made by multiple companies in multiple locations. Today people still use the Champaign term without regards to where the grapes or bottles are from.

Totally uninformed rubbish !
1/- The name is * Champagne * and any drinker should be able to spell it correctly
2/- Everything about the product must answer to very very strict specifications ( which include for instance the pressure at which the juice is extracted, when, and at what temperature in the room).
Of these, the delimitation of the region is one of the most stringent.
3/- The name is certainly not a *generic* one ( where do you come from ? )... In English, that generic would be * bubbly * ( by the way, "BUBLI" is a waypoint right over the Champagne region )
4/- Champagne is protected by the EU at least under three chapters : PDO ( origin ), PGI ( geography ) and TSG - that's for " traditional Speciality guaranteed "following the French protections ( which took effect during the Versailles treaty when Bayer was losing the rights to "aspirin" )

I have a feeling "Cornish pasty " is similarly protecte'd.

Meh....
Honestly any "bubbly" is champagne. That's the truth. If you serve Prosecco or sparkling wine at a party, everyone will call it champagne. The region does not really matter to the drink, what matters is the grapes and how well they are fermented/processed to become the lovely bubbly fizzy drink that it is. You can "protect" a name all you want with laws, that won't change how people feel in common company and conversation. Because "commoners" don't care they just enjoy the drink when they have the chance (being commoners we really don't get the chance as often as snobs).

I know, uneducated and just awful people, unwilling to accept expert guidance. In celebration I will have to raise a glass of California champagne later tonight.... :lol:

Tugg

tommy1808 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:01 pm

Tugger wrote:
In celebration I will have to raise a glass of California champagne later tonight....

So, an empty glass ;-)

On topic:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-36616955

The government must replace the millions of pounds of EU support Cornwall may lose from Brexit with investment, its council leader says.

First they vote out of the EU, and then they want the central government to replace all the investments lost due to their vote.Right.... very mature.

best regards
Thomas

scbriml · Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:36 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
On topic:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-36616955

The government must replace the millions of pounds of EU support Cornwall may lose from Brexit with investment, its council leader says.

First they vote out of the EU, and then they want the central government to replace all the investments lost due to their vote.Right.... very mature.

Those pasties don't make themselves, you know!

Pihero · Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:55 pm

Tugger :" In celebration I will have to raise a glass of California champagne later tonight.... "
Better take a coke or a 7up ,'cause it's about the same quality... and even cheaper for *commoners* so that they don't get ruined :lol:

Aesma · Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:00 pm

Ken777 wrote:
France fought and won restricted use of the term "Champaign", which had a common use around the world to identify a white wine with bubbles, not bottles from one part of France. Bayer had gone through legal action to protect their trademark of "Aspirin". Bayer lost because, like Champaign, people used the term to denote a general product that was made by multiple companies in multiple locations. Today people still use the Champaign term without regards to where the grapes or bottles are from.

It's champagne. It's made in a place that has been called Champagne for more than a millenia, centuries before the wine of the same name was invented. Champagne has been served at the table of royalty for centuries, calling any other sparkling wine (of which there are plenty of good ones, with their own names) Champagne is like calling any red sporty looking car a Ferrari, it's ridiculous.

JJJ · Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:18 pm

Pihero wrote:
Tugger :" In celebration I will have to raise a glass of California champagne later tonight.... "
Better take a coke or a 7up ,'cause it's about the same quality... and even cheaper for *commoners* so that they don't get ruined

That's a pretty uninformed opinion (one that makes Champagne producers a lot of money, though).

You will hear a lot of French spoken in and around Napa and the other wine-producing regions in the US, usually from some very well paid enologists who make top-notch products (usually sold at French prices though).

And remember it was American vines that saved the French (and European) wine production during the great Phylloxera crisis of the XIX century. So that Bordeaux or Champagne you're drinking almost certsinly has some American grandfathers.

Bongodog1964 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:44 pm

TheSonntag wrote:
Very funny: Der Spiegel is reporting that Cornwall wants the same subsidies from the British government that they received from the EU so far. Cornwall was one of the regions which was most pro-Brexit.

Answer is: No subsidies.

No one ever thought that regional aid would cease, there will always be a need to help poorer areas. The difference will be that regional aid will come directly from London to the UK regions to a formula drawn up exclusively in the UK. Presently UK money goes to Brussels, an some comes back to the UK with Brussels deciding where it goes and how much they keep back.

tommy1808 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:27 am

Bongodog1964 wrote:
[Presently UK money goes to Brussels, an some comes back to the UK with Brussels deciding where it goes and how much they keep back.

And then the money, and then some, will go to companies in the UK, with them deciding where it goes and nothings coming back. Tax reductions for them are already announced ...

best regards
Thomas

TheSonntag · Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:59 am

Bongodog1964 wrote:

No one ever thought that regional aid would cease, there will always be a need to help poorer areas. The difference will be that regional aid will come directly from London to the UK regions to a formula drawn up exclusively in the UK. Presently UK money goes to Brussels, an some comes back to the UK with Brussels deciding where it goes and how much they keep back.

But since the economical benefit of the EU far outweighs the money flowing to Brussels, there is less available now. Even less with tax discounts.

TheSonntag · Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:01 am

But all of this doesn't matter. The guy who compared the EU with Hitler will be the foreign Minister of the UK. All other countries will therefore be happy now, and this decision will certainly help in negotiations.

Olddog · Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:34 am

Hope that Boris delivers as expected and that we could have some fun in coming months

)

Pihero · Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:21 am

JJJ wrote:
That's a pretty uninformed opinion (one that makes Champagne producers a lot of money, though).
You will hear a lot of French spoken in and around Napa and the other wine-producing regions in the US, usually from some very well paid enologists who make top-notch products (usually sold at French prices though).
And remember it was American vines that saved the French (and European) wine production during the great Phylloxera crisis of the XIX century. So that Bordeaux or Champagne you're drinking almost certsinly has some American grandfathers.

It is very funny that when their interests are at stake, the US discover the qualities of some European ideas : Just about round the turn of this century, suddenly they understood that the only way of protecting their quality wines was to agree on protected names, places of origin, methods ...so that Sonoma, Napa, Walla walla... are as protecd as Chianti, Bordeaux... and Champagne.
The only authorised *champagne* was the sparkling wine that was unlawfully produced under that name... BUT it now has to be sold as "Californian Champagne ", which was a very smart move from the French as that plonky liquid is - still - in fact lowering the overall brands of Californian wines.
(On this subject, I am quite sure that I've known the qualities of Californian wines loinger than you, as I was quite surprised by the overall bouquet /body / length of a few whites - especially the Chablis-types... that was in 1972)
We could, if you wish have a nice discussion on wine tasting.

As for the phylloxera :
1/- It arrived in France in the south with plants from the US
2/- Yes, some vines from California had developped a resistance to the bug and were used as base grafts for the French regional varieties
3/- These vines were those originating in Europe and transplanted in America. Some were just returning to the land were they were boirn. ( unless I'm mistaken I've never heard of Ogallalas growing wine in Nebraska... all the vines in the world come from Europe... at least the good ones ! )

seahawk · Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:10 am

Now, the UK can start to tell the EU their demands.

Pihero · Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:22 pm

seahawk wrote:
Now, the UK can start to tell the EU their demands.

That could be THE JOKE of the century...
considering that Britain's word is now the word of a liar and a buffoon, I fear for the exit negotiations.

I have to admit, thoiugh, that I never envisaged such a provocation.

Question : Is Her Majesty really amused of these antics ? ( After all, he is Her foreign office minister, and consequently Her official representative isn't he ? )

Some very interesting times ahead of us.

prebennorholm · Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:47 am

It is really unbelievable. The man who spent the last six months on insulting the rest of the world (including minor countries such as the USA and China) has been appointed foreign minister.

One would think that there must be at least 60 million Britons who are way better qualified.

If this is not a secret plan about "educating" the British people about their faults, then it is the end of "Great" Britain.

TheSonntag · Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:54 pm

[quote="prebennorholm"]
One would think that there must be at least 60 million Britons who are way better qualified.
[quote]
59999999. She could also have chosen Farage. So by that it was probably a healthy choice.

tommy1808 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:05 pm

prebennorholm wrote:
If this is not a secret plan about "educating" the British people about their faults, then it is the end of "Great" Britain.

Since politics in the UK have turned out to be amazingly soap-opera-esk, i would´t be surprised it is just personal payback "you won´t sneak off to a well paid job, and when you leave government service you´d be the most hated men in the UK for your "gains" from the negotiations.

best regards
Thomas

JJJ · Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:26 am

Pihero wrote:
JJJ wrote:
That's a pretty uninformed opinion (one that makes Champagne producers a lot of money, though).
You will hear a lot of French spoken in and around Napa and the other wine-producing regions in the US, usually from some very well paid enologists who make top-notch products (usually sold at French prices though).
And remember it was American vines that saved the French (and European) wine production during the great Phylloxera crisis of the XIX century. So that Bordeaux or Champagne you're drinking almost certsinly has some American grandfathers.

As for the phylloxera :
1/- It arrived in France in the south with plants from the US
2/- Yes, some vines from California had developped a resistance to the bug and were used as base grafts for the French regional varieties
3/- These vines were those originating in Europe and transplanted in America. Some were just returning to the land were they were boirn. ( unless I'm mistaken I've never heard of Ogallalas growing wine in Nebraska... all the vines in the world come from Europe... at least the good ones ! )

Actually my wife works in the wine sector, for a Swiss multinational that owns wineries all over the world (France, Germany, Italy, USA, Spain, etc) so we get to sample stuff from all over the world.

If you read on the subject of phylloxera you'll see that the first vines brought to the new world by Europeans failed precisely because of that. It took either grafting or hybridating with local North American vines (Vitis Aestivalis, Vitis Cinerea, etc). European grapes did not just adapt to phylloxera overnight so indeed every French wine nowadays has a bit of North America in it.

It's still an ongoing process, and hybridating different Vitis species to adapt for soil, climate, fungi, insects, etc. is still one of the most researched subjects in wine production. In France and elsewhere.

Dano1977 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:22 am

PM Theresa Mays Pre Briefed quotes from todays speech.

“A little over six months ago the British people voted for change. They voted to shape a brighter future for our country. They voted to leave the European Union and embrace the world. And they did so with their eyes open: accepting that the road ahead will be uncertain at times, but believing that it leads towards a brighter future for their children – and their grandchildren too.

And it is the job of this Government to deliver it. That means more than negotiating our new relationship with the EU. It means taking the opportunity of this great moment of national change to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be.

My answer is clear. I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country – a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead.

I want us to be a truly Global Britain – the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that gets out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike. I want Britain to be what we have the potential and ambition to be: a great, global trading nation that is respected around the world and strong, confident and united at home.

Our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours.

We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy your goods, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship.

We seek a new and equal partnership – between an independent, self-governing, Global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU. Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.

The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. My job is to get the right deal for Britain as we do. We have 12 objectives that amount to one big goal: a new, positive and constructive partnership between Britain and the European Union. And as we negotiate that partnership, we will be driven by some simple principles: we will provide as much certainty and clarity as we can at every stage. And we will take this opportunity to make Britain stronger, to make Britain fairer, and to build a more Global Britain too.”

It looks like its going to be a Hard Brexit.

vrbarreto · Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:16 am

Clueless brain dead cow.. She, Michael Gove and the other Brexit loons are going to drive Britain into a ditch.. Not surprised Trump welcomed us leaving.. Isolate a member of the herd and then consume it.. Welcome to higher food prices... having to work longer and higher inflation.. At least we'll have the extra £350m a week for the NHS.. oh hang on a minute.. But it'll all be well..

tommy1808 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:30 am

Dano1977 wrote:
My answer is clear. I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country – a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead..

....she also unveiled the new government spokesperson.

best regards
Thomas

TheSonntag · Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:51 pm

The door for returning to Europe is not closed.

A bad decision, but this is the most honest one thinkable. Good luck, you will need it.

tommy1808 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:13 pm

TheSonntag wrote:
A bad decision, but this is the most honest one thinkable.

And already starting that solution off with bullshit.... present the treaty to parliament to do what exactly? Vote "ey", or vote "no" for leaving the EU without any treaty in place at all? What a farce.......

best regards
Thomas

PanHAM · Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:05 pm

Give the British People a second Chance. A Referendum based on lies should not be valid. Leaving the single market is most stupid, especially when People realize that they have to comply with all the rules and regulations that come from Brussels anyhow. simply because manufacturers won't make a UK Edition of their goods and UK companies won't be able to Export anywhere without complying. Dropping out of the single market means that almost everything will be more expensive. Not only because the outside value of the Pound will drop even more, there will likely be a VAT clearance barrier where a declaration of goods has to be made to enter imports into the UK VAT System.

IMHO opinion, it would have been the duty of Mrs. May to tell UK voters that they have been taken for a ride. Let's hope that at least Scotland Drops out of the UK

Klaus · Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:14 pm

TheSonntag wrote:
The door for returning to Europe is not closed.

It will be once the article 50 declaration is made.

A bad decision, but this is the most honest one thinkable. Good luck, you will need it.

Given the circumstances, her points were relatively realistic regarding the nuts and bolts exit procedure. Not so much regarding her expectation of a free trade agreement or of the golden opportunities outside of the EU, however.

UltimoTiger777 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:49 pm

PanHAM wrote:
Give the British People a second Chance. A Referendum based on lies should not be valid.

It wasn't based on lies though. The question was very simple:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

More people voted for the leave option than the remain option.

The two major campaign groups may have been fast with the truth but that doesn't mean you can overturn the entire result. Otherwise, we'd be overturning every election result in this countries history. Tony Blair won a landslide in 1997 on the back of some very flimsy promises but all people care about with him is Iraq. Shall we re-run the 1997 election and cancel all legislation since then?

Let's hope that at least Scotland Drops out of the UK

The last time Scotland was an independent country it bankrupted itself trying to start an empire in Central America. Nothing the SNP does at the moment suggests to me they'd be any more financially prudent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

But if you really want them to leave the UK so they can they place themselves under the supremacy of EU law, knock yourself out. Kind of defeats the purpose of independence but oh well.

vrbarreto · Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:56 pm

The liemmings are equipping themselves with snorkels and flippers..... Farage should also change UKIP's name to 'Destroy Europe' Obviously he wants Europe to fall apart.. Probably another Putin stooge.

seahawk · Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:08 pm

Proud day for the UK. Taking back your sovereignty and freeing the UK from German hegemony. America is much better partner for the UK and it is time to kick out the immigrants from the EU. .

vrbarreto · Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:19 pm

seahawk wrote:
Proud day for the UK. Taking back your sovereignty and freeing the UK from German hegemony. America is much better partner for the UK and it is time to kick out the immigrants from the EU. .

Ha ha you're so funny... And us immigrants aren't going anywhere... Presumably you're not a native American so I suppose you're a descendent of an immigrant?

UltimoTiger777 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:52 pm

seahawk wrote:
Proud day for the UK. Taking back your sovereignty and freeing the UK from German hegemony. America is much better partner for the UK and it is time to kick out the immigrants from the EU. .

This guy is obviously a troll.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net