Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sadly, since Champagne is made in France, which will still be in the EU, there won't be any pint bottles produced anyway.

Another bonzer Brexit bonus!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Sadly, since Champagne is made in France, which will still be in the EU, there won't be any pint bottles produced anyway.

Another bonzer Brexit bonus!

Only if we keep the protection on champagne.

Is it still allowed to be called champagne if it's produced in champagne but bottled in the UK?

No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.

I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.

I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.

I doubt the french winemakers will go for it. Because how many people will buy a smaller bottle of champagne? That would just mean you need to buy more bottles if you're putting on a party.

Unless this is aimed at the lonely champagne drinker?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.

I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.

I doubt the french winemakers will go for it. Because how many people will buy a smaller bottle of champagne? That would just mean you need to buy more bottles if you're putting on a party.

Unless this is aimed at the lonely champagne drinker?

Actually plenty of people do, and that's why there's such a thing as a démi (half) bottle which holds, you guessed it, 375ml. It's perfect on a dinner for two if you have to drive afterwards, or a more leisurely meal when only one person drinks (like when my wife has been pregnant, for example)

There's even the médium which is half a litre, but it's not seen much outside Switzerland. The nichest of niches.

Well, for those who were worried about losing their EU citizenship, Cyprus has hit upon a novel scheme: just turn up with a suitcase full of readies, and hey presto, you're a valued citizen of the EU again

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/eu-citizenship-for-sale-as-russian-oligarch-oleg-deripaska-buys-cypriot-passport

Somebody will probably be along to say that you can do the same with Britain, and I don't doubt it, but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180129/local/major-brexit-supporter-obtains-maltese-passport-ft.669224

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180129/local/major-brexit-supporter-obtains-maltese-passport-ft.669224

And people complain over EU beaurocrats "exercising power" over us when they can't even see the foreign born billionaires pulling their own strings.

If this story wasn't a perfect example of the motivations of the billionaire elite of the right wing press and establishment ensuring they are further enriched at a the expense of the people of a country they neither share a place of birth, or give the slightest gak about I don't know what is.

If you supported leave, these are the people who told you why it was a good idea, and you can examine for yourself their motivations for doing that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, for those who were worried about losing their EU citizenship, Cyprus has hit upon a novel scheme: just turn up with a suitcase full of readies, and hey presto, you're a valued citizen of the EU again

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/eu-citizenship-for-sale-as-russian-oligarch-oleg-deripaska-buys-cypriot-passport

Somebody will probably be along to say that you can do the same with Britain, and I don't doubt it, but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.

I'm not sure anybody here is really such a staunch EU supporter that they'll claim it has "moral high ground" or is "sailing along serenely", as you put it in your last posts. I think most EU supporters here would tend to agree that it is an institution with flaws and full of compromises that leave nobody really happy, but still better than going solo, either militarily or economically. To be honest, some of your last posts start to sound more and more like you are trying to find flaws in the EU rather than positives in Brexit, but maybe I'm reading too much into it?

The very..."pragmatic" sale of passports like in the articles linked by you and reds8n should be restricted, in my opinion, yes. However, I'm sure any legislation trying to achieve that would look like more EU tyranny...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.... but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.

This is another example of the problem you have specifically DINLT. I don't remember seeing anyone in these threads suggest the the EU enjoys "moral superiority" over the UK. Please provide a quote or something to support that statement, otherwise it suggests that you're actually arguing against an imagined position.

jouso wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.

I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.

I doubt the french winemakers will go for it. Because how many people will buy a smaller bottle of champagne? That would just mean you need to buy more bottles if you're putting on a party.

Unless this is aimed at the lonely champagne drinker?

Actually plenty of people do, and that's why there's such a thing as a démi (half) bottle which holds, you guessed it, 375ml. It's perfect on a dinner for two if you have to drive afterwards, or a more leisurely meal when only one person drinks (like when my wife has been pregnant, for example)

There's even the médium which is half a litre, but it's not seen much outside Switzerland. The nichest of niches.

That's even less of a reasons to make a pint bottle because there is already a variety of options anyway.

I wasn't aware that this was the case, hence I've come to the conclusion that this is nothing more than some old person wanting to go back to the days when things were presented in imperial units.

 r_squared wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180129/local/major-brexit-supporter-obtains-maltese-passport-ft.669224

And people complain over EU beaurocrats "exercising power" over us when they can't even see the foreign born billionaires pulling their own strings.

If this story wasn't a perfect example of the motivations of the billionaire elite of the right wing press and establishment ensuring they are further enriched at a the expense of the people of a country they neither share a place of birth, or give the slightest gak about I don't know what is.

If you supported leave, these are the people who told you why it was a good idea, and you can examine for yourself their motivations for doing that.

If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?

I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...

What choice did ordinary people like us really have? It was the devil and the deep blue sea.

Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...

Feth me, if you can't see that choice was an illusion...

Obviously a great idea to vote for economic self mutilation then.

Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq..

http://time.com/4293818/aimen-dean-isis-brexit/

"Former al-Qaeda Fighter Warns ISIS Would See Britain's Exit From Europe as a Victory"




Note how the brexit narrative has once again changed from "everything will be better and sunshine and sparkly unicorns for all" to the current "at least we won't have to eat each other ".

Reality is funny like that.

What happened to "they just lack vision!"? To all the claims of how there'd be a bunch of opportunities for the UK and how it'd work out alright? Are we now down to "well, we had two gak choices"? How much longer until you finally admit that you messed up?

 reds8n wrote:
Obviously a great idea to vote for economic self mutilation then.

Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq..

http://time.com/4293818/aimen-dean-isis-brexit/

"Former al-Qaeda Fighter Warns ISIS Would See Britain's Exit From Europe as a Victory"




Note how the brexit narrative has once again changed from "everything will be better and sunshine and sparkly unicorns for all£ to the current "at least we won't have to eat each other ".

Reality is funny like that.

ISIS? Well, they would say that. If I slipped on a banana skin, they'd claim credit for it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Tony Blair, die-hard EU supporter, probably still holding out for a plush EU post, is a war criminal. How many people did Farage Kill? For every Farage you give me, I'll raise you a Blair. Every Rees-Mogg, I'll give you Nick Clegg, and for every Bojo you give me, here's a George Soros for you. Your side is just as bad as my side.

And for the record, I opposed the Iraq war back then - a blind man could see it was a disaster in the making. My record against Middle East intervention is very consistent on this forum.

And back to my main point: leaving the EU is the jolt that is needed to wake this country up - we've been sleep walking into disaster for years. None of this is the EU's fault, but we've shrugged our shoulders at trade unions being diminished, citizens rights going down the pan, the surveillance state.

If people want their rights back - they'll have to fight for them, just like their ancestors did before the EU rolled into town. That is a good thing in my back, and active population, instead of this nation of sleepwalkers we seem to have, who rely on others doing the fighting for them.

If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?

I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...

What choice did ordinary people like us really have? It was the devil and the deep blue sea.

Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...

Feth me, if you can't see that choice was an illusion...

If you voted leave because you didn't want to side with the Tories then you're a moron. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

Given your dilema id vote to stay in the organisation that's been ensuring my rights, protecting the environment and keeping the fans in check. I'd also go for the option that didn't screw our economy and gives me an option to live somewhere else.

I don't actually like the eu on the whole, but staying in I'd a gal of a lot better than leaving.

Decide based on the issues and not the personalities.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/

Though it has been controversial for over a decade, the invasion was actually popular at the time. In 2003, YouGov conducted 21 polls from March to December asking British people whether they thought the decision by the US and the UK to go to war was right or wrong, and on average 54% said it was right.

If we've learnt anything recently it's that 52% or more is an overwhelming mandate, so it must've been a good thing.

UKIP had 3 MEPS at the time, 2 voted for the war motions.... whilst Farage abstained.

As per fething usual.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/07/eu.politics

a blind man could see it was a disaster in the making

No no no, that's just fear talking.

Sure all the experts might've pointed out it would be a disaster, but with strong leadership and vision it'll all turn out fine, and democracy and sunshine and unicorn flavoured cake will be for all !
.... errr... oh hang on

every Bojo you give me, here's a George Soros for you

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/philanthropist-george-soros-donates-most-of-his-net-worth-to-charity.html

"The billionaire philanthropist transferred $18 billion to Open Society Foundations, a sprawling international group of charities that works in more than 100 countries on projects focused on refugee relief, public health and many other topics.

The $18 billion figure amounts to almost 80 percent of the financier's total net worth. Before the transfer, Soros had a net worth of $23 billion, according to a Forbes tally Tuesday. The site ranks him as the 29th wealthiest person in the world."

clearly they're a great comparison.


Shall we compare to that to "your" Dacre, Murdoch and Rothmere ..?

If people want their rights back -

like all the ones we're about to lose thanks to people like you ?

@DINLT: Call me cynical, but I'm not so sure if you'll get a more "awakened" or "active" population in politics after this clustermunch. I have a feeling the number of people saying "feth it, those guys up there do what they want anyway and we suffer" and feeling more disenfrachised and off-put by the whole political system will increase, and those guys will probably not make their voice heard by founding new parties or voting at all...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?

You had the choice to read beyond the hysterics and the headlines of the right wing gutter press and catchy slogans on a bus. You didn't. And even now, you seem pretty oblivious to it all.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...

The alternative, apparently was doing the national version of 'cutting off ones nose to spite ones face'.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What choice did ordinary people like us really have? It was the devil and the deep blue sea.

Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...

Except both choices were not equally bad so the comment of the devil and the deep blue sea is nothing more than your usual blinkered histerics. Feth me, but the mental gymnastics you are capable of should put you on the Olympic team.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Feth me, if you can't see that choice was an illusion...

Lol. Says the man riding unicorns on rainbows in cloud cookoo land.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...

Which side is meant to be which? Because the leave side was anything but honest about screwing anyone over.

As for allying with Nick Clegg being a bad thing because of Tory cuts. What do you think is going to happen when the UK economy suffers due to Brexit? More austerity. You voted for cuts by voting for the option that would damage the UK economy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Somebody will probably be along to say that you can do the same with Britain, and I don't doubt it, but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.

Well, of course.

The ‘golden visa’ deal: ‘We have in effect been selling off British citizenship to the rich’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/04/golden-visa-immigration-deal-british-citizenship-home-office

Just about every country does it. The question is, what exactly has this to do with the issue at hand?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?

I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...

That's not really a rational way of approaching decision making. Blair also supports the NI peace process and GFA. Would you hence vote against this if it went to a referendum? Same goes for the middle east peace process (though the person that shall not be named is doing his best to dismantle it). If you just choose a side that doesn't have people you don't like in then you are running the risk of being blind to the implications of what those people represent. You should be making a decision on the issue at hand not who or who does not support it. Lashing out at the EU because of those people is an irrational response because the people you have highlighted, relatively will be unaffected by such changes because they have the wealth to avoid it. On the other hand by doing so you have condemned the people at the bottom to a lot of economic pain (and likely leave them more open to exploitation by the people you oppose).

I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.

Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.

Herzlos wrote:
I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.

Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.

Some definately did see it that way a great deal of establishment figures adn organisations did and still do advise against it - including former Prime Minsters and the arch coward Cameron who paid if his mates and then slunk off.

In the same way as Trump is seen that way despite being someone who grew up with vast sums of money and has done nothing but work with specific eleements of the establishment.

Its very difficult to find anyone with any power who is not beholden to some form of establishment?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.

Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.

Some definately did see it that way a great deal of establishment figures adn organisations did and still do advise against it - including former Prime Minsters and the arch coward Cameron who paid if his mates and then slunk off.

In the same way as Trump is seen that way despite being someone who grew up with vast sums of money and has done nothing but work with specific eleements of the establishment.

Its very difficult to find anyone with any power who is not beholden to some form of establishment?

It's because there's a certain type of person that likes people like Farage, Trump and Rees-Mogg because they "speak their mind" and they offend the sort of people that they don't like anyway, which makes it better.

Those sort of people tend to be dicks.

Yes, people who think being offensive is equivalent to being honest.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.

Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.

Some definately did see it that way a great deal of establishment figures adn organisations did and still do advise against it - including former Prime Minsters and the arch coward Cameron who paid if his mates and then slunk off.

In the same way as Trump is seen that way despite being someone who grew up with vast sums of money and has done nothing but work with specific eleements of the establishment.

Its very difficult to find anyone with any power who is not beholden to some form of establishment?

"The Establishment" in Britain means the informal power structure you join based on having been born in the right family, gone to the right school and university, and thereby having the right friends and connections, so that you do things the "right way".

It's the Old Boys Network, the Chumocracy.

It's the apparatus that allows someone like Boris Johnson to get to one of the highest public offices in the land, despite his many failures and bad qualities.

The Establishment influences a lot of the system of government and society (the legal system, the banks, and so on) though it is not the same thing.

In one sense this means we are all beholden to The Establishment. It doesn't that everyone who gets into a position of power is part of The Establishment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Given a day for the impact to sink in, Theresa May's speech has not had the lasting effect she wanted.

Tories’ Brexit unity fades as Heseltine slams May’s speech

Meanwhile, Hard Brexiteer magical thinking is as strong as ever. Jacob Rees-Mogg attacks 'absurd' EU plan for Irish border

With the passing snow storm (that I saw none of, apart from the cold and wind) I have an open question that I'd like your opinions on.


In this day and age, should people have a fundamental right to abode?

There's been loads of things flying around the internet for homeless people to have shelter in the cold, and to supply them with warm food.

So, in this day and age, should we even have homeless people? Or should we all be neo-liberalist and not help out other people?

Herzlos wrote:
I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.

Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.

It's about 'blame'. All humans have a tendency to blame a figure head / those in control when times are bad (just look at the football managers, they get the blame but the players rarely do). The same goes for here.

We have had ten years of austerity. A lot of people's lives are 'worse' relatively compared to 10 years ago, goods and property are more expensive whereas wage growth at the bottom has not kept up. That leaves people seeing themselves fall further behind and many of the very wealthy are quite happy to see that continue it provides them control (another human trait). It is then easy for people to 'blame' the existing establishment for their woes. Rather than looking at their own actions and introspection into these it is easy to point a finger at a distant leader/establishment and say "it's their fault". Hence when an opportunity comes to sticking it to them that is what happens.

Now enter politicians that are not part of the existing ruling establishment that recognise that stoking such ideas and give rise to them being seen as a saviour, a person saying it 'as it is' etc. These are people like Boris, Farage, Trump and so on. Despite being in the establishment they are at the fringes, not seen as part of the controlling establishment (which they aren't because they are idiots). They hence become popular by reinforcing incorrect assumptions of populace, and encouraging simplistic messages that "things will get better" without any evidence to show that is the case. In reality they are only using that support to get them into the power and into that establishment. The proverbial populist. Once they are there then they can entrench themselves and those people that got them there can simply be left hanging in the wind.

The danger with this though is that this cycle can continue, until you get someone truly obnoxious because politicians have exploited this populism.

 welshhoppo wrote:
With the passing snow storm (that I saw none of, apart from the cold and wind) I have an open question that I'd like your opinions on.


In this day and age, should people have a fundamental right to abode?

There's been loads of things flying around the internet for homeless people to have shelter in the cold, and to supply them with warm food.

So, in this day and age, should we even have homeless people? Or should we all be neo-liberalist and not help out other people?

As a nation we are wealthy enough to provide crisis accommodation for those in need. I don't think it's unreasonable that we should aspire to, and achieve changes in society where it is unacceptable for people to be sleeping on the streets.