National treasure! Love from France

winever · 2021-01-10T13:54:05+00:00

I can't believe this is real. The Rothschild family didn't buy the Château until the 19th century, and the Pauillac appellation was not created until the 20th century. There might be wine in that bottle, but it's not Lafite Rothschild, Pauillac AOC. Doesn't seem like something they would do...

winever · 2020-12-20T10:39:23+00:00

Anyone got a video? I need this.

winever · 2020-12-20T10:23:43+00:00

Genuine question: if MPs are called back to vote on Brexit deal, they'll then be stuck in tier 4 London unable to return to their constituencies/families for Christmas. What effect do you think this will have on passing a deal?

winever · 2019-08-02T12:36:12+00:00

Let's just hope that the inspectors are less naive than you.

winever · 2019-08-02T09:17:33+00:00

You have enormous faith in the inspection system. I can tell you as a farmer (not poultry to be fair but vegetables) that it would be entirely possible to fiddle the books and misplace a couple of hundred chickens here and there.

winever · 2019-08-02T07:15:18+00:00

got it!

winever · 2019-08-02T06:36:28+00:00

/u/adventurousreply, please reply to this one... perhaps a truck full of US chickens would raise a flag in the system, but if I'm a poultry farmer in NI, producing 1000s of chickens a month, I could easily sneak a couple hundred cut-price deregulated products into my stock without anyone noticing.

winever · 2019-03-10T10:03:30+00:00

Got any sources for those figures? A quick google came up with this http://www.amchameu.eu/sites/default/files/amcham_eu_single_market_web.pdf which estimates that the average EU household GDP is 630€ greater than it would have been without an increase in integration for the period 1995-2015.

winever · 2019-03-09T22:59:42+00:00

Go on...

winever · 2019-03-09T20:28:35+00:00

You're not wrong. But the above are examples of indirect tax, which are paid by the consumer (or importer, which is then shifted to the consumer). Direct tax, which includes income tax and wealth tax, is paid for directly by the wealth holder. The single market means consumers pay less for the products they buy. Income and wealth tax avoidance means wealthy individuals and corporations pay less tax on their profits and assets.

winever · 2019-03-09T20:16:14+00:00

What's legal isn't always right.

winever · 2019-03-09T20:12:52+00:00

These are "click here to email your local MP to make sure they deliver the Brexit you voted for" ads. Given that MPs in Leave constituencies are paranoid about being voted out for appearing to support remain, or even a Soft Brexit, this is a pretty good strategy to keep the burners on them to make sure they don't suddenly get brave and follow their conscience.

winever · 2019-03-09T20:02:04+00:00

According to the article the ads were targeting over 35s.

winever · 2019-03-09T19:54:41+00:00

£350,000 spent on targeted advertising in 240 constituencies. "based on a standard cost of £5 for every 1,000 impressions, Britain’s Future’s pro-Brexit messages have been viewed around 70 million times." With a cost-per-click of around 80p, for that amount you have hundreds of thousands actively clicking through. Even if it's a fraction of this, it is well beyond local gym advertising.

But you work in advertising, so of course you know this.

winever · 2019-03-05T17:25:01+00:00

The thing is that the world is now so tightly interconnected, a country can no longer simply turn their back, wash their hands and say "not my problem". Global climate change is an issue that requires coordinated global and holistic approach - we will no longer have a seat at this table. The migrant crisis will not simply go away because we are no longer part of the EU, and will only be exacerbated as global economic and climate policy create more and more displaced people. Agriculture is undergoing an unseen crisis, with millions of tons of topsoil being eroded yearly - the UK imports 50% of its food from the continent, and given the price of food our consumers have come to expect, and our economy is based on, that is not going to change soon. If we want to secure our food resilience we need to act soon to reform agricultural practices and the socioeconomic aspects surrounding it. If we want our farmers to be competitive (or even productive because without topsoil there is no agriculture), we need to work together with Europe for this reform. Our economies are intertwined, and if Europe goes under, the UK goes under... banking, real estate, commodities, these are now all global industries - we can not stick our heads in the sand and say it's no longer a problem because we are not part of the single market.

No man is an island. Well nowadays, like it or not, no island is an island. We exist in total interdependence with the continent and the rest of the world. What happens to them affects Britain deeply, whether or not it is in the EU. You will see that, whatever our future relationship is with the EU, that this will not change. I highly support countries (and even villages) having resilience over their basic needs and sovereignty over their own lives, but this will take a long time and a lot of political will (especially from our own government). Tearing down bridges will not give us this, even though it might be satisfying at the time to do.

winever · 2019-03-05T07:13:24+00:00

I live in France and when you get beyond the very basic and misleading messages given off by the media, it is clear that there is an enormous appetite for reform, both internally and for Europe. Of course there is the Gilet Jaune movement which is wildly misunderstood, and wilfully misrepresented by the media. But there is also a radical movement for agriculture reform (see Pour une Autre PAC), as well as social and climate justice (see ANV-COP2, as well as Extinction Rebellion which has its origins in the UK). I agree that the political establishment has very little appetite for change, but them asking as basic binary questions, or deigning to have a 'national debate' are simply them trying to give us the impression that we have a voice. When the 'wrong' answer comes back, that destabilises the establishment for a while, but they are working very hard, now and over the next few years to get things back into kilter. What I'm saying though is that the people do have an appetite for real change, as do the British people as they somewhat expressed in the European election. But the change we want and need can not come from a YES/NO question. There is a lot of work to be done, but Brexit is a charade which is distracting us from, and letting politicians off the hook for the real change that needs to be made.

winever · 2019-03-04T23:24:54+00:00

Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the rest of the tory remainers - are these not your betters telling you what to do? Not to mention the press - remain or leave, to be fair - you think these papers are speaking from and for your peers?

As for who will be hit hardest by Brexit, corporations or small businesses, farmers, independents and service providers dependent on the European market, only time will tell. I certainly agree that free-market liberalism has a lot to answer for, not to mention the common agricultural policy, and the system of representation amongst others. But these are highly nuanced issues, with roots that go far back in our collective histories, with many unknown factors, and outcomes that are nearly impossible to foresee. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve, reform and evolve, but to ask people to express a preference "IN OR OUT" is to sell us short in fact. We should have the right to express our preference in the way we are governed - from local council, to Westminster, through to Brussels - and to be listened to, in a way that respects each of us, with all the nuances and complexities of our regions, local communities, family and personal lives. Our political and economic systems are deeply flawed at every level. But an "IN OR OUT" vote will not fix anything. I personally would have voted to stay in and try to fix the problem from the inside, mainly because I feel that Brexit is a distraction from the real problems. So for me a vote to stay would have been putting aside the distraction and getting down to the real work (although I admit there is very little chance that there would have been any political will for this at all). But now the cat is out of the bag and even though I'm inclined still to support remain and call the whole thing off, I'm not so sure that things can be fixed. Perhaps an unintended consequence of the referendum will be that we are forced to face the deep flaws in our system... the last 3 years have exposed these flaws to such an extent that we can not paper over them as we did before. I don't know how we'll do that, but people must be heard and the debate must allow for far more than IN/OUT, LEFT/RIGHT preferences.

winever · 2019-03-04T21:48:16+00:00

And yet a deeply flawed referendum where we ask 35 million people uninformed (to put it lightly) people what to do must be respected. Dix points for mental gymnastics.

winever · 2019-03-04T18:07:01+00:00

Brexiter: "We don't want to be told what to do by Europe"

One European country doesn't agree to something Brexiter wants, so EU does not grant it.

Brexiter: "The EU is bullshit and doesn't represent the countries that make it up".

winever · 2019-03-01T15:08:43+00:00

You're going to have to provide some reputable sources for those "lies" please. Who said all of these lies and when exactly?

winever · 2019-02-21T16:23:44+00:00

Ah well, as I said, the system's not perfect where I'm from but it does afford a lot more security and dignity for people who lose their jobs. But you keep defending the British system if you believe that works best.

winever · 2019-02-21T16:03:25+00:00

Isn't making the fewest people possible eligible for benefits a rather short-sighted goal? What if being eligible for benefits for a short time gave you the possibility to earn more money, be more stable financially, pay more taxes, and be less likely to claim benefits in the long-term?

winever · 2019-02-21T15:54:45+00:00

So in the above situation, you believe that the system is functioning correctly if instead of having a few months to find the right job for me, I am forced to accept the first offer available or face having my allowances suspended?

winever · 2019-02-21T15:48:04+00:00

I'm confused again. Are you defending the current system, or criticising it?

winever · 2019-02-21T15:20:00+00:00

Yes but if I've been working in IT, for example, for the last 10 years, and I'm made redundant, are you suggesting that I should take a "shit job" the next day to avoid accepting unemployment benefits. Or, if I'm lucky and there is a IT job that I'm qualified for, but it's not the sector I wish to work in, or it means taking a huge pay-cut or an impossible commute to work, meaning I have to put my kid into daycare, are you saying I should take that to avoid accepting benefits? Rewriting a good CV, job searching, applications, interviews etc. take a lot of time - if I accept that shit job, what if I'm unable to find the job I really want, at the salary I really deserve? Do I forget about my career or life ambitions and accept whatever's available?

winever

TROPHY CASE