Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:There is of course a simple solution; unification of Ireland within the EU.

Which the DUP won't agree to.

Now who is clueless?

For the first time in my life, the prospect of a united Ireland is not only credible but inevitable


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no ... 15756.html

Teague wrote:

For the first time in my life, the prospect of a united Ireland is not only credible but inevitable
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no ... 15756.html

GrahamH wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Teague wrote:
Brexit was never acheivable in the first place. The fact that the Tory's didn't even know this shows just how clueless they are and how unfit they are to hold office.

The Tories neither expected Brexit to happen in the first place. Whether it achievable was neither here nor there as far as they were concerned as they were fully expecting it to be rejected by the electorate. They only held an referendum to get rid of UKIP who they saw as eroding their grassroots support. The Tories are, at this point, clueless, but not for that reason.

Yes, but what a huge and idiotic miscalculation that was.

Didn't Cameron bother to think about WHY UKIP was eroding their grass roots support and what the Tories going 'full UKIP' and giving their own rabid Eurosceptics their head would lead to?

And didn't Cameron seal the deal with his pathetic "re-negotiation with the EU" that emphasised the idea that the UK inside the EU is impotent? Add to that the absolutely piss poor Remain campaign that totally failed to sell the EU as a good thing and you could almost believe Brexit was deliberate.

BlackBart wrote:
The fact that Cameron scuttled off with his tail between his legs and hasn't been seen since is why I'll tend to apply Hanlon's razor to the situation.

ronmcd wrote:

fisherman wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

I don't think the problem will be cheap versions trading on the name and duping consumers, I supect the problem would be high quality products that threaten the original producer on taste or good marketing. As such this is a profit driven issue, by producers protecting their monopoly, and competitors trying to enter the protected market.

Dont those competitors trading on their own merits already have access to the same market, able to compete on quality (but not regional brand)? So the only change under your scenario would be to disguise themselves as having the same characteristics as the regional branded produce.

Annex 313: Distinctive Products
1. Canada and Mexico shall recognize Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey, which is a straight Bourbon Whiskey authorized to be produced only in the State of Tennessee, as distinctive products of the United States. Accordingly, Canada and Mexico shall not permit the sale of any product as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been manufactured in the United States in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey.
2. Mexico and the United States shall recognize Canadian Whisky as a distinctive product of Canada. Accordingly, Mexico and the United States shall not permit the sale of any product as Canadian Whisky, unless it has been manufactured in Canada in accordance with the laws and regulations of Canada governing the manufacture of Canadian Whisky for consumption in Canada.
3. Canada and the United States shall recognize Tequila and Mezcal as distinctive products of Mexico. Accordingly, Canada and the United States shall not permit the sale of any product as Tequila or Mezcal, unless it has been manufactured in Mexico in accordance with the laws and regulations of Mexico governing the manufacture of Tequila and Mezcal. This provision shall apply to Mezcal, either on the date of entry into force of this Agreement, or 90 days after the date when the official standard for this product is made obligatory by the Government of Mexico, whichever is later.

fisherman wrote:
Regarding Scotch's geographical protection;

I'm not sure we can be certain that Scotch's geographical protection would be traded away in an FTA. If the NAFTA text is anything to go by, it would seem there is a good precedence to recognised a spirit's geographical home. As the text below shows, the US is just as protective of their own whisky brands as we are of ours. (Which is not to say other other produce would be so lucky in an FTA).

If they remain protected, then to compete in these protected markets, the large producers have to purchase distilleries from the protected geographical locations, as Diageo has done in Tennessee and Brown-Forman has done in Scotland.

ronmcd wrote:Both Scottish and Welsh produce, protected under EU rules, are being rebranded.

Flags on food? why the fuss?

But here’s the problem: because Scotland’s membership of the EU is as part of the United Kingdom, our farmers, fishers, and food and drink producers rely on the central government in Westminster to take care of these matters on our behalf.

There was widespread astonishment when it became apparent the UK had not applied for any protections through our EU membership. That dismay was compounded when the US ambassador made clear our PGI protections, our food and animal welfare standards, are considered an obstacle to a trade deal with the US.

When Whitehall’s proposals for farming in a post-Brexit Scotland could see many, many farmers struggling or going out of business; when we are being told in public meetings by representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland that Whitehall is prepared to let sectors of farming fail because it is cheaper to import than support; that the prospect of outsourcing arable to the Ukraine is being considered and that enthusiasts for ‘rewilding’ are being included in planning teams to look at Scotland’s landscape in the event of land use changing, then, I believe, it is time for Scotland’s communities to be informed of the future facing them so they can be a part of the conversation.

By Ruth Watson, former journalist and broadcaster, BBC News and Current affairs programmes, ‘Speaking Out’ and ‘Night Moves’. Ruth started the #keepScotlandtheBrand campaign.

GrahamH wrote:
Will the US hold out for free trade on American produced items under the names of UK regional gems? Does the UK side have the leverage to defend those brands when Brexit Britain is desperate both politically and economically, to sign trade deals at any cost?

Billionaire said Britain would be "perfectly successful" outside of the EU, but is now opting to leave

Scot Dutchy wrote:Well the richest British rat is deserting the ship:

Sir Jim Ratcliffe: UK's richest man and ardent Brexiteer is moving to Monaco

Billionaire said Britain would be "perfectly successful" outside of the EU, but is now opting to leave

Scot Dutchy wrote:? Sorry. Not linked to Brexit? JFCOAPS. So all the Brexiteer rats fleeing SS Britannia has nothing to do with Brexit?

ronmcd wrote:Yes, just because Canada US and Mexico made agreements to recognise specific geographical brands, doesn't mean the UK govt which is trying to subsume UK regional branding currently will seek the same protections in any US deal. The direction of travel, and competence of this govt, suggest ... well.

Included in the remit of wider food policy rules are the specific protections given to some agri-food products, such as Geographical Indications (GIs). GIs recognise the heritage and provenance of products which have a strong traditional or cultural connection to a particular place. They provide registered products with legal protection against imitation, and protect consumers from being misled about the quality or geographical origin of goods. Significant GI-protected products from the UK include Scotch whisky, Scottish farmed salmon, and Welsh beef and lamb.

The UK will be establishing its own GI scheme after exit, consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). This new UK framework will go beyond the requirements of TRIPS, and will provide a clear and simple set of rules on GIs, and continuous protection for UK GIs in the UK. The scheme will be open to new applications, from both UK and non-UK applicants, from the day it enters into force.