Count Bobulescu

Can't say for sure, but there might be some distribution issues with Seedlip. Dropped by wholesaler etc. 

Not that I want this new rule changed, but given that it seems the lawsuit that was the genesis of this change was purely theoretical i.e, that CG conceded he never intended to advertise HH prices, and he was represented by an organization that specializes in these matters on a pro bono basis, one wonders what practical effect it will have. 

 

https://pacificlegal.org/case/chef-geoffs-and-geoff-tracy-v-jeffrey-painter/

Citypaper.....

 

Dacha co-owner was a member of "Dewey Seven" in New York financial scheme

8oz/250ml cans the most popular size for wine, are "technically illegal" for wine, but not malt beverages. They violate TTB regulations rather than statute.

250ml is not an approved "Standard of Fill" by the TTB for wine,

 

Standard of Fill

Here's a good, and not very long New Yorker piece focusing more specifically on the Irish Backstop.

 

Brexit's Irish Paradox

TwentyTables Hungry for Funds

D.C.-based TwentyTables, the maker of a web platform with $6 meals from local restaurants, is looking to move beyond Greater Washington by opening a mid-six-figures funding round, the WBJ reports. That funding would solidify the company’s operations in the D.C. area, founder and CEO Alex Cohen told the Biz Journal, before a Series A round of $3M-5M marked for expansion costs.

The momentum follows a successful trip to SXSW in Austin where TwentyTables – the only DMV company in the event's pitch competition – took home the “Best Bootstrap” prize. It was founded in 2017 with an initial $300K raised, and without raising more capital grew from five restaurants on the platform in January 2018 to more than 100 now. Read more from the WBJ. [subscriber content].

Petition to revoke and remain gathering signatures at record pace. Just crossed 4M at last check. Parliament "considers" all petitions above 100K.

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

 

T. May went to Brussels seeking an extension from 03/29 to 06/30 but got either 04/12 or 05/22 depending.......This Brexit racket would wear a body out.......

 

Quote

So what happens now? Well, if the House of Commons passes the twice-rejected Brexit deal in the coming weeks, Britain will have until May 22 to complete its withdrawal from the EU. That’s the simple equation.

More nuanced is what happens if the deal doesn’t pass. In that scenario, the cliff-edge is merely delayed until April 12. If May has no agreement in place by then and chooses not to participate in European elections, we’re back into no-deal territory. If she has no accord in place and wants to seek a longer extension, she’ll need to hold those elections.

This landed in my inbox this morning, from the Dept. of Useless Information.

Drinks International's survey of the world's most admired wine brands. It's a Tour de Force in bullshit, and good reason for consumers to maintain a healthy skepticism of corporate winespeak. Zero info on selection criteria. The global panel of wine experts sounds like an outfit I'd be proud to be kicked out of, if I was a wine expert, that is. Imagine if you are number 15 or 17 on this list.

 

The World’s Most Admired Wine Brands is considered a leading authority on the most influential and trending wine producers from around the world and the full list can be seen below:

1. Penfolds, Australia 2. Torres, Spain 3. Villa Maria, New Zealand 4. Concha Y Toro, Chile 5. M. Chapoutier, France 6. Sassicaia, Italy 7. E. Guigal, France 8. Marqués de Riscal, Spain 9. Errazuriz, Chile 10. Ridge, USA 11. Cono Sur, Chile 12. Felton Road, New Zealand 13. Campo Viejo, Spain 14. Vega Sicilia, Spain 15. Château Margaux, France 16. Barefoot, USA 17. Tignanello, Italy 18. Château d’Yquem, France 19. Yalumba, Australia 20. Château Petrus, France 21. Cloudy Bay, New Zealand 22. Château Musar, Lebanon 23. Cavit, Italy 24. Château Lafite, France 25. Louis Latour, France 26. McGuigan, Australia 27. Georges Duboeuf, France 28. Château Haut-Brion, France 29. Château Cheval Blanc, France 30. Santa Rita, Chile 31. Jean Marc Brocard, France 32. Oyster Bay, New Zealand 33. Robert Mondavi, USA 34. Château Latour, France 35. Royal Tokaji, Hungary 36. Peter Lehmann, Australia 37. Wolf Blass, Australia 38. Château Mouton Rothschild, France 39. Yellowtail, Australia 40. Ramon Bilbao, Spain 41. Undurraga, Chile 42. Trapiche, Argentina 43. Jacob’s Creek, Australia 44. Beringer, USA 45. KWV, South Africa 46. Château Le Pin, France 47. Nederburg, South Africa 48. Inniskillin, Canada 49. Rosemount Estate, Australia 50. Barton & Guestier, France

Quote

I'm trying to follow this as much as possible but it's just getting harder. Last night the Brexit Secretary (Barclay) closed a debate on the motion to request an extension by calling on the house to back the government's motion. Then, minutes later, he voted against it. Against the government. Against the motion on extending Brexit. His motion. 

WTF?

Meanwhile, former Brexit Secretary David Davis voted with the government - despite having previously walked out because he wanted a hard(er) Brexit than the Prime Minister. 

And a motion for a second referendum was rejected by people who want a second referendum. The People's Vote campaign said yesterday wasn't the time to push this - but it might be next week.  

Back in the real world, I just invoiced someone in the UK - which is rare for me. Reverse VAT applies under EU directive something something. I asked them what would happen post-Brexit from a VAT perspective. They don't know but they think they are leaving in two weeks. Even though, if they had been paying attention to the new, they'd know they almost definitely are not

.

Combined, EU + US accounts for about 66% of all UK trade, imports + exports. Currently they benefit from EU rules for trade with the US. Three weeks from now, they won't have a new deal with the US, and the  EU is unclear. If they don't have a deal with the EU, then they won't have one with the US either. Once they're out they need two separate deals.

Developments continue apace. Initial reaction to last night's "agreement" was that is was an agreement to agree that an agreement is not an agreement, or something like that......and whether you agree or not with that assessment seems to matter not a whit, because this morning the AG has released his legal opinion to the gummint on said agreement and says it changes nothing, which likely torpedos the vote tonight on May's plan. Tomorrow they vote on whether to take the "no deal" option off the table.

Quote

Conclusion
15. In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the Protocol would endure indefinitely in
international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement. This
would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties
believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship
agreement.
16. I also advised that in the specific case that situation was due to the EU’s want of good faith and best
endeavours, because of the difficulties of proof and the egregious nature of the conduct that would
be required to establish a breach by the EU of those obligations, it would be highly unlikely that the
United Kingdom could take advantage of the remedies available to it for such a breach under the
Withdrawal Agreement.
17. I now consider that the legally binding provisions of the Joint Instrument and the content of the
Unilateral Declaration reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily
detained within the Protocol’s provisions at least in so far as that situation had been brought about by
the bad faith or want of best endeavours of the EU.
18. It may be thought that if both parties deploy a sincere desire to reach agreement and the necessary
diligence, flexibility and goodwill implied by the amplified duties set out in the Joint Instrument, it is
highly unlikely that a satisfactory subsequent agreement to replace the Protocol will not be
concluded. But as I have previously advised, that is a political judgment, which, given the mutual
incentives of the parties and the available options and competing risks, I remain strongly of the view
it is right to make.
19. However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either
party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom
would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally
lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.

Former OZ PM Kevin Rudd is quoted in the Guardian.....

Quote

I’m struck, as the British parliament moves towards the endgame on Brexit, with the number of times Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India have been advanced by the Brexiteers in the public debate as magical alternatives to Britain’s current trade and investment relationship with the European Union. This is the nuttiest of the many nutty arguments that have emerged from the Land of Hope and Glory set now masquerading as the authentic standard-bearers of British patriotism. It’s utter bollocks.