Support NeoGAF

[Mr. Sam]

Because it’s not what leave campaigners were saying we’d get before the referendum.

HUGE SPOILERS - DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING:

Spoiler

That's going to become a pretty significant recurring theme.

 

[jelly]

Guardian are reporting that EU fishing boats can still operate in UK waters after Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...l-operate-in-uk-waters-after-brexit-says-gove

Why did people vote to leave again?

Read this. I don't think people realise what the rules are.

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=242551845

 

[TimmmV]

Why is this a problem?

Its the dishonest rhetoric by the Leave campaign that I'm getting at more than the actual policy.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't think there's a political issue I care about less than fishing. Jesus christ. Even fox hunting!

 

[Xando]

The UK seems so ill-prepared in Brexit negotiations that some EU countries think it must be a trap

 

[JonnyDBrit]

The UK seems so ill-prepared in Brexit negotiations that some EU countries think it must be a trap

I do believe I have footage of the Brexit negotiators:
https://youtu.be/AsXKS8Nyu8Q?t=11s

 

[Wrestlemania]

HUGE SPOILERS - DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING:

Spoiler

That's going to become a pretty significant recurring theme.

Yeah. Hard to imagine an achievable overall deal from the negotiations which will please leave voters. Whatever happens, we all lose.

 

[Funky Papa]

I expect a large number of leave voters being happy just by leaving the EU. Everything else, from fisheries to immigration, will be adequately rationalised.

Re: #deals

Scotland's fears stem from the prospect of whisky regulation being downgraded as part of a future trade deal with the US. The Americans have already made it clear that they want the market to be opened up to products that currently do not meet quality standards.

Under EU rules, whisky must be matured by for at least three years for it to carry the whisky label. During Brussels' stalled TTIP negotiations, US experts insisted that advancements in ”barrel technologies" mean whisky can now be produced in one year, with the same result.

Whisky expert Fiona Rintoul told The Herald that the economy of the Scottish Highlands and Isles could be damaged if whisky quality is compromised. She added that the idea of weakening regulation is ”demented".

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk...xit-us-trade-prompts-scottish-whisky-worries/

 

[jelly]

The UK seems so ill-prepared in Brexit negotiations that some EU countries think it must be a trap

Coincidence....fish.

 

[Xando]

This is getting better every day


Brexit: Nearly 60% of Leave voters would now pay to retain EU citizenship

As many as 58 per cent of people who voted to leave the EU are now willing to pay to keep their European citizenship, a poll has found.

The survey shows a total of 68 per cent of Britons would pay potentially large sums of money to retain the rights enjoyed by EU citizens in addition to their British citizenship.

Among those who said they would pay, 58 per cent of them voted Leave in last year’s EU referendum, The Independent has learned. Of those who voted Remain, almost four in five said they would pay to retain their rights.

Michael Bruter, professor of political science and European politics at the London School of Economics, revealed the findings to The Independent. The full study has not yet been made public.

The poll was carried out by professor Bruter and Sarah Harrison from the LSE’s research initiative for the study of electoral psychology, ECREP, in conjunction with polling firm Opinium.

In some instances, people were ready to pay very large sums of money for the citizenship, and this includes people who voted to exit from the union.

Of those who voted Leave in June last year but would now be willing to pay for EU citizenship, one in 10 said they would pay more than £1,000 a year to guarantee their rights.

On average, respondents said they would expect to pay £405 per year, which included 32 per cent of people who would not be willing to pay anything.

Among those who said they would be willing to pay, the average sum cited rocketed to £594.

 

[RedSparrows]

I expect a large number of leave voters being happy just by leaving the EU. Everything else, from fisheries to immigration, will be adequately rationalised.

Re: #deals


https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk...xit-us-trade-prompts-scottish-whisky-worries/

The way some seem so keen to leap into compromising deals with one party as a way of avoiding a compromising deal with another... I know there is more to it than thatb but not in the heads of most Leavers I have engaged with.

 

[Funky Papa]

Something I don't like at all about Politico's coverage is that it usually lacks nuance. They absolutely love to present clashing scenarios for each story with big titles that don't always fall in line with other European minded outlets.

Their American style reporting rubs me the wrong way at times.

 

[TimmmV]

I don't think there's a political issue I care about less than fishing. Jesus christ. Even fox hunting!

I'm the same with Fishing. But am totally happy to do the "I TOLD YOU SO" when they don't get the deal they want.

They're basically the brexit equivalent of Trumps coal miners, always given a ridiculous amount of attention given how big the industry is

 

[jelly]

Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat expressed the same skepticism last week: “People who say the Brits don’t know what they are doing are wrong,” he told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, “I have lived in Britain, I know the British mentality. A non-prepared British government official simply doesn’t exist.”

Really?

 

[Xando]

Something I don't like at all about Politico's coverage is that it usually lacks nuance. They absolutely love to present clashing scenarios for each story with big titles that don't always fall in line with other European minded outlets.

Their American style reporting rubs me the wrong way at times.

Politico is very hit and miss for me.

Sometimes it reads like BILD and sometimes it reads like The Economist.


Recently it's more BILD though.

 

[*Splinter]

As many as 58 per cent of people who voted to leave the EU are now willing to pay to keep their European citizenship, a poll has found.

Among those who said they would pay, 58 per cent of them voted Leave in last year’s EU referendum, The Independent has learned.

These two things are not the same. Mistake or coincidence? I think the second is worded wrong.

Anyway this isn't too surprising. People want the rights without the supposed downsides that come with them. You could flip this whole thing around to read "leave voters would rather pay £400 per year than hear foreign accents on the bus".

 

[Uzzy]

Some good Brexit news.

Alan Partridge will be the BBC’s ‘voice of Brexit’ when he returns to the broadcaster for a new series next year, says Steve Coogan.
Coogan explains that Partridge would have backed the campaign to leave the EU, and therefore will enjoy a revival in his BBC career.

The spoof presenter will be returning to the broadcaster in spring 2018, after a 15-year hiatus which saw Coogan take him to Sky Atlantic and the silver screen.

Explaining how it would be believable that the BBC would take Partridge back, Coogan told The New European: “It’s conceivable, because in this age of Brexit, they [the BBC] might think they need to get in touch with the ‘Little Englanders’ they ignore.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I expect a large number of leave voters being happy just by leaving the EU. Everything else, from fisheries to immigration, will be adequately rationalised.

Re: #deals


https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk...xit-us-trade-prompts-scottish-whisky-worries/

This just seems like one of those things it's bizarre we have laws about. If someone buys some whiskey and they like it, who cares if it's ages for 1 year or 3? And if they don't like it, they won't buy it again, whether it's called "Whiskey" or "Whiskey-flavoured alcoholic liquor". I mean, there's plenty of absolute hogs-piss whiskey already.

 

[barber]

Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat expressed the same skepticism last week: ”People who say the Brits don't know what they are doing are wrong," he told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, ”I have lived in Britain, I know the British mentality. A non-prepared British government official simply doesn't exist."

Really?

You dont expect a somewhat functional government whose main focus is to maintain a strong economy to jump of a cliff without any way of surviving. You hope he knows what he is doing and prepare just in case.

This just seems like one of those things it's bizarre we have laws about. If someone buys some whiskey and they like it, who cares if it's ages for 1 year or 3? And if they don't like it, they won't buy it again, whether it's called "Whiskey" or "Whiskey-flavoured alcoholic liquor". I mean, there's plenty of absolute hogs-piss whiskey already.

It is important to have laws that determine what processes traditional products have to go through. The same with Protected Designation of Origin products. You want to maintan the same quality overall, not dilute the brand (and allow cheaper worse whisky to be called the same as ones that go through the proces is in a way cheapening the name).

 

[CyclopsRock]

It is important to have laws that determine what processes traditional products have to go through. The same with Protected Designation of Origin products. You want to maintan the same quality overall, not dilute the brand (and allow cheaper worse whisky to be called the same as ones that go through the proces is in a way cheapening the name).

Well I can see why the fancy brands want that, less why I do. But eitherway, my point was really that you can get some absolutely terrible whiskey now. Scotch, no less. I mean you can buy a bottle of gen-you-wine (admittedly blended) Scotch in Aldi for about £6 that tastes like unleaded. And I'm talking 95 Unleaded, not even that sweet BP Ultimate stuff. So what are they trying to protect here?

 

[jimbobsmells]

Some good Brexit news.

Norfolk did vote to Leave overall, but Norwich was 56% remain.

 

[TimmmV]

Well I can see why the fancy brands want that, less why I do. But eitherway, my point was really that you can get some absolutely terrible whiskey now. Scotch, no less. I mean you can buy a bottle of gen-you-wine (admittedly blended) Scotch in Aldi for about £6 that tastes like unleaded. And I'm talking 95 Unleaded, not even that sweet BP Ultimate stuff. So what are they trying to protect here?

You can apply that logic to anything though

Like, why should petrol stations have to label one as 95 octane and the premium one as 97 (or whatever it is)? A consumer should just be able to buy "petrol" and if the car runs good they keep buying it, if it doesn't they go buy somewhere else.

Standards exist so that consumers have some knowledge about what they are buying. It's not really relevant if an individual doesn't give a shit about the standard that's being enforced.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Well I can see why the fancy brands want that, less why I do. But eitherway, my point was really that you can get some absolutely terrible whiskey now. Scotch, no less. I mean you can buy a bottle of gen-you-wine (admittedly blended) Scotch in Aldi for about £6 that tastes like unleaded. And I'm talking 95 Unleaded, not even that sweet BP Ultimate stuff. So what are they trying to protect here?

You knew what you were getting when you bought whiskey for £6 in Aldi.

 

[Funky Papa]

This conversation reminds me of that time I bought a bottle of wine at Ikea.

Free advice: don't do it. Sweden was a mistake.

 

[*Splinter]

This conversation reminds me of that time I bought a bottle of wine at Ikea.

Free advice: don't do it. Sweden was a mistake.

You drank mulled wine without heating it? *shudder*

 

[DarthMasta]

This conversation reminds me of that time I bought a bottle of wine at Ikea.

Free advice: don't do it. Sweden was a mistake.

Give it a few years and the Chinese hoax might allow the northern barbarians to produce good wine. Until then though, you should've gone with mead...

 

[operon]

This just seems like one of those things it's bizarre we have laws about. If someone buys some whiskey and they like it, who cares if it's ages for 1 year or 3? And if they don't like it, they won't buy it again, whether it's called "Whiskey" or "Whiskey-flavoured alcoholic liquor". I mean, there's plenty of absolute hogs-piss whiskey already.

its not bizarre, you needs standards to define things or else anyone could produce something and stick a label on it. How would consumers know that is the real deal.

 

[operon]

Well I can see why the fancy brands want that, less why I do. But eitherway, my point was really that you can get some absolutely terrible whiskey now. Scotch, no less. I mean you can buy a bottle of gen-you-wine (admittedly blended) Scotch in Aldi for about £6 that tastes like unleaded. And I'm talking 95 Unleaded, not even that sweet BP Ultimate stuff. So what are they trying to protect here?

the mistake is your drinking the imitation stuff, Irish whiskey is where its at.

 

[barber]

This conversation reminds me of that time I bought a bottle of wine at Ikea.

Free advice: don't do it. Sweden was a mistake.

Ah, glogg, that stuff that is only good when it is warm. Quite like warm wine in Spain though shitter. The ciders there are quite decent if you prefer them to taste like juice with alcohol instead of proper asturian cider.
And yeah, with america, you really don't want to become open for their "super same products". If i remember, one of the hardest points in the now defunct deal USA-EU was them wanting to be able to market some "cheese" with the proper italian PDO when the process was anything but that.

 

[CyclopsRock]

You can apply that logic to anything though

Like, why should petrol stations have to label one as 95 octane and the premium one as 97 (or whatever it is)? A consumer should just be able to buy "petrol" and if the car runs good they keep buying it, if it doesn't they go buy somewhere else.

Standards exist so that consumers have some knowledge about what they are buying. It's not really relevant if an individual doesn't give a shit about the standard that's being enforced.

its not bizarre, you needs standards to define things or else anyone could produce something and stick a label on it. How would consumers know that is the real deal.

That's not a reasonable comparison. I'm not saying people shouldn't label things. And I'm not saying they should be allowed to lie, either. I'm saying that "Whiskey" isn't a concept wherein the definition from one regulatory body is gospel. There's shit whiskey, there's good whiskey, the people that buy each typically know what they're getting, so who does the regulation serve?

And I think there are examples of good quality produce that deserves its reputation be protected against pretenders - like Champagne - I just don't think Whiskey's a great example.

You knew what you were getting when you bought whiskey for £6 in Aldi.

A bloody good night.

the mistake is your drinking the imitation stuff, Irish whiskey is where its at.

Pfft, I've got plenty drunk on plenty of planes and I've worked my way through more than enough miniature bottles of whiskey to know that after the second or third, it really doesn't matter. With beer, in my experience, the quality needs to IMPROVE over time or else you feel terrible. With Whiskey, Gin, Rum - any spirit really - the quality can take a real nose dive after about 150ml and you're golden.

 

[*Splinter]

That's not a reasonable comparison. I'm not saying people shouldn't label things. And I'm not saying they should be allowed to lie, either. I'm saying that "Whiskey" isn't a concept wherein the definition from one regulatory body is gospel. There's shit whiskey, there's good whiskey, the people that buy each typically know what they're getting, so who does the regulation serve?

And I think there are examples of good quality produce that deserves its reputation be protected against pretenders - like Champagne - I just don't think Whiskey's a great example.

I was starting to think you had a point before this. Why is Champagne different to Whiskey?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I was starting to think you had a point before this. Why is Champagne different to Whiskey?

Well cause saying that you've grown your grapes in the Champagne region when you're actually in Wiltshire is a lie, but furthermore the Champagne gang have done a good job of maintaining a certain standard that the whiskey guys haven't.

 

[TimmmV]

Well cause saying that you've grown your grapes in the Champagne region when you're actually in Wiltshire is a lie, but furthermore the Champagne gang have done a good job of maintaining a certain standard that the whiskey guys haven't.

That's entirely subjective, your point just sounds like you don't like whiskey so don't see the point in the law with US/Scottish brewing standards, but do like champagne so think its fair enough to make the distinction on geography

 

[CyclopsRock]

That's entirely subjective, your point just sounds like you don't like whiskey so don't see the point in the law with US/Scottish brewing standards, but do like champagne so think its fair enough to make the distinction on geography

Pretty much, yeah. I mean my point is that allowing a drink that's been sitting in barrels for 2 years to call itself "whiskey" isn't going to dilute the brand. Allowing a drink that is significantly worse than Champagne call itself "Champagne" will dilute the brand. And these laws are literally there - for some fucking reason - to protect brand strength. So yeah, that's exactly why I think it. Am I wrong? Is there some whiskey connoisseur club that thinks Aldi's "O'Hare Blended Scotch" is some divine nectar deserving of protection?

It's all subjective if it isn't geographic. How can it not be?

 

[jimbobsmells]

I’ve had some pretty shit Champagne.

 

[TimmmV]

Pretty much, yeah. I mean my point is that allowing a drink that's been sitting in barrels for 2 years to call itself "whiskey" isn't going to dilute the brand. Allowing a drink that is significantly worse than Champagne call itself "Champagne" will dilute the brand. And these laws are literally there - for some fucking reason - to protect brand strength. So yeah, that's exactly why I think it. Am I wrong? Is there some whiskey connoisseur club that thinks Aldi's "O'Hare Blended Scotch" is some divine nectar deserving of protection?

It's all subjective if it isn't geographic. How can it not be?

It's my understanding that there are pretty big differences between whisky depending on geography though - I mean, I don't know much about whisky but still know there is a difference between like American stuff like Bourbon, and then even whisky from Scotland, Ireland, or Japan. So don't really mind the EU (or whoever) insisting on certain standards for Whisky brewed inside it to preserve the brand as distinct from others

Spoiler

even though it is all absolutely disgusting regardless of where in the world it comes from

I can't see how you can accept that allowing sparkling wine made with grapes from (say) southern Italy not be labelled as Champagne, as it will protect the brand - but think its dumb to make the distinction between whether a whisky is brewed 3 times as long as the minimum standard in the US. That seems a pretty reasonable distinction to me.

 

[Funky Papa]

All this booze talk is make me wonder if alcoholic imports are going to become more expensive in the UK as a result. Surely enough they won't get any cheaper.

Time to invest in Bucky.

 

[jimbobsmells]

I just want to say I love a good Speyside Whisky. Bourbon is very hit and miss though.
At least import costs from Scotland won’t go up...

 

[Audioboxer]

Well I can see why the fancy brands want that, less why I do. But eitherway, my point was really that you can get some absolutely terrible whiskey now. Scotch, no less. I mean you can buy a bottle of gen-you-wine (admittedly blended) Scotch in Aldi for about £6 that tastes like unleaded. And I'm talking 95 Unleaded, not even that sweet BP Ultimate stuff. So what are they trying to protect here?

£6 whisky... That's almost more offensive than Brexit lol.

I'm no alcohol snob and I'm not even a big whisky fan, but that stuff sounds like what you'd use to strip off old wallpaper before redecorating. Drinking it? *shudder*

 

[oti]

Brussels fears Britain’s ‘Brexit chaos’ part of cunning plan

Viewed from Brussels, the U.K. seemed so ill-prepared in the early rounds of Brexit negotiations that some EU countries think it must be a trap.

http://www.politico.eu/article/unit...-so-stealth-even-the-british-cant-see-it/amp/

This whole thing is just incredible.

 

[Kyougar]

Brussels fears Britain’s ‘Brexit chaos’ part of cunning plan



http://www.politico.eu/article/unit...-so-stealth-even-the-british-cant-see-it/amp/

This whole thing is just incredible.

Is this the old argument, that Boris Johnson is playing the whole stupidity up?

 

[sammex]

Why would the EU go for this?

 

[Tacitus_]

Why would the EU go for this?

You mean the amount or the guarantees they want? Offering 2/3rds of what the EU wants is at least a starting point for negotiations.

 

[Jackpot]

10 billion euro a year? That's £24.7 million a day, and according to the most accurate figures our EU membership fee was........................................

So overall we paid in £8.6 billion more than we got back, or £24 million a day.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

wah-wah.

All that and now no benefits.

That's probably why they suggested £36 billion. Just substitute current EU costs with new ones.

 

[sammex]

You mean the amount or the guarantees they want? Offering 2/3rds of what the EU wants is at least a starting point for negotiations.

We want to offer them less than they want, and do so in a way that combines the exit bill with future agreements and trade, something else they didn't want.

Wouldn't the sensible thing for the EU to do in this position is say we want the full amount or talks are halted?

(unless I've misunderstood but I thought the EU want all the details about EU citizens in the UK and exit bill sorted before any talk about trade - no parallel talks)

 

[Xando]

On the amount the EU might be willing to negotiate but the EU won't accept including it in a trade deal

 

[Burai]

Why would the EU go for this?

They wouldn't but it's not a serious offer. It's the prelude to the staged walkout.

 

[Zaph]

I'm sure you're all shocked by this

 

[pswii60]

What's a chief mandarin?

 

[Crispy75]

What's a chief mandarin?

It's one of those words that only newspapers use (like "fracas"). It means "high-ranking civil servant"