Count Bobulescu

This two y.o. Times FP reflects a typical John/Jane Bull attitude..........We've come along way since.....Time to crush is fast approaching.

I like this.......

Five options for the way ahead by Bloomberg, part of a longer email, no link. Note in #5 they say Parliament has the tools to block "No Deal". Will they use them?

There's an EU published "stairway" infographic in this year old article. You need to read the article to understand the infographic. The more red lines the UK creates, the fewer its options become, and the lower down the stairway it goes, i.e it can't have Norway status because it won't agree to the items listed under Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine etc. Some had hoped the UK would remain at the top of the stairway in a position like Norway, but it's refusal to compromise on various issues mean it is heading to "less than Canada" and WTO rules like a remote Pacific Island. Stairway to Hell

Brexit isn't the only clock ticking. EU Parliamentary elections are due at the end of May. There's no legal obstacle that I know of. The obstacle is political ambition, posturing, self preservation interest, egos etc. The UK currently holds almost 10% of the EU seats. EU had previously agreed that upon UK exit, the size of parliament would not be reduced, but that the UK seats would be divided up. Talk now in the UK of delaying Brexit will complicate that plan, and its 100% the consequence of the Brits inability to agree among themselves. Each of the remaining 27 holds veto power. If the Brits fail to endear themselves...... A 2nd referendum, no matter the question, will mess with EU plans, and maybe cause one of the 27 to exercise its veto power..

Even though that sounds logical, it's also the worst of all worlds. That would be the equivalent of the US Congress impeaching the American people, and saying you may have voted for a communist or fascist for Prez, but we won't tolerate it. The hell with by the people for the people etc. Next worst is a repeat. People please impeach yourselves. The pols asked the peeps a simple but flawed question. The peeps delivered their verdict, and the pols have been unable to implement the result. The essence of this dilemma is not a result of the 2016 referendum, but has been bubbling away among the pols of all parties since the Margaret Thatcher days. The UK has had a tortured history with the EU and its forerunners from day one. They were invited to join the original, and refused. When they later changed their mind, DeGaulle blocked them. Less than 10 years after they joined Margaret Thatcher launched a campaign to get our money back, a claim for rebate of overpayments. Continentals have rightly long considered them the least enthusiastic members.

After plan A went down by 230 votes the largest margin since 1925, which was 160 votes, the PM survived a no confidence motion. Tells you a lot about the state of confusion. The vote on T.May's plan B has been set for Jan 29. Plan B is scheduled to be unveiled Monday. The chances for any one of a number of Black Swan events such as no deal crash out, or 2nd referendum are increasing. If a 2nd referendum were to be held there would now likely be a big fight over the wording. A simple repeat of the original, something more complex, or a vote on the deal Parliament just rejected are the three most obvious, but other options also exist.

I agree with the final graf below of the SCOTUSblog assessment of yesterday's oral argument, but I'll trample where angels fear to tread, and go one step further. I believe Total Wine, and the Ketchums will get what they want, but that amici such as myself will be disappointed and the Supremes will not reach as far as I would wish. Some justices suggested as much when referring to the "next case to come along". Oral Argument Analysis

Just as well the owners have deep pockets. Accepting that wine is just one component of a larger budget, that's still a very adventurous wine list (50+ pages, 1,000+/- offerings) for an area of the city that doesn't yet attract much expense account business, and where two turns will probably be the best they can expect. Hope they weren't seduced by the stat that apparent per capita wine consumption in DC is double that of NY.

could-state-regulators-face-another-constitutional-steamroller Irish Liquor Lawyer takes a look at the Chef Geoff case, and good news..... is more upbeat than I was...... Makes the hearing on the 22nd (if the courts are open), potentially more interesting than I had anticipated......

Despite my uneasiness after reading the briefs in this case, I forgot to point out that the plaintiffs in a similar case, a group of broadcasters in Missouri, were successful at district court, with an even broader claim under the 1st Amendment against restrictions on alcohol advertising. Potentially good news for GT. That case is now on appeal to the Eight Circuit. From Libation Law Blog........

The government is stockpiling medicines etc. and now the peeps are stockpiling food. UK could market itself as the hot destination for preppers. Bloomberg..... Quartz......

Part two of the wine-searcher analysis.............

From a longer Bloomberg email....... The UK annual GDP is about $2.6T. Equivalent to moving about $7T out of the US.

Part one of a twofer analysis by W Blake Gray on wine-searcher. Remainder tomorrow. Case could open doors Including yours truly.😉

To get some idea of why the UK negotiating team have been likened to the Keystone Kops, consider this. Eighteen months into the process, the Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab conceded that he hadn't really understood how important the port of Dover was to UK trade. 80% of all trucks entering the UK do so thru the port of Dover. Even the dogs in the street know the importance of Dover....... Ever Heard of Dover?

Yesterday SCOTUS granted a motion by 35 states........From Lawfare 360........emph added.... Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia can participate as amici during oral arguments in an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with residency requirements for out-of-state liquor retailers, the court ruled Friday.The Illinois attorney general's office will have 10 minutes to address the court on behalf of the states, which will argue that the 21st Amendment and the dormant commerce clause empower them to regulate alcohol sales within their borders. This duty is critical to preventing ___ "criminal elements"____ in the alcohol market and maintaining necessary local control, the states said in a November brief. A quick Google of the term "Liquor Industry Corruption" shows that the majority of recent cases were either in states that have signed the brief, NY and WV, "Oops", or were are the federal level.

Agree completely on retail nailing of cheese prices. Kerrygold Irish cheddar is in my DNA. When I moved to the US in the early 90's discovered it was about twice the price compared to Ireland, and said what about it, oranges are cheaper in Florida etc. Was content to pay $5.99 per 9 oz block at any Giant that stocked it. Has since become much more widely available. A Harris Teeter opened near me and they were $7.99, 33% more for the same. That's a big difference on a consumable product. Discovered I could get it for $4.99 at Total Wine. Then Aldi began selling it at $3.49, the same price per oz as the 24oz blocks at Costco. One day at HT, I approached a bunch of suits who were standing in a circle, and unburdened myself. Within about a month HT had raised the price to $8.99, so now not only have they lost all my other non Kerrygold cheese biz, but my shoe polish biz as well. That'll teach 'em...............

Here's as good a layman's take on this case as you're likely to get, from Tom Wark's "Fermentation " blog. What’s at stake in the Blair case is not merely the immediate question of whether durational residency requirements violate the Commerce Clause, but also whether the many discriminatory and state-based bans on interstate retailer wine shipping also violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The interest in this case and testimony to the stakes involved can be discerned from the 22 amici briefs that have been filed in support of the appellant (Tennessee Wine & Spirit Retailers Association) and the respondent (Total Wine & More). The importance of this case is also seen in the fact that the outcome of numerous other current lawsuits will largely depend on the ruling of the Court in Blair (likely sometime around May or June 2019). Two wine retailer shipping cases, one in Michigan and one in Illinois, are essentially on hold until the court decides Blair. In addition, Walmart’s challenge of a Texas law that prevents corporate ownership of retail outlets also hinges in part on the Blair case. It’s important to appreciate the bottom line in both the Blair case and the cases that await its conclusion. For decades the grant of power to the states by the 21st Amendment to regulate alcohol within their borders has been used in great part to support discriminatory laws that seek primarily to protect local special interests from competition. Though bans on direct shipping, restrictions on who may own retail outlets, restrictions on what kind of retailers may sell what kind of alcohol, and an embrace for the state-mandated three-tier system have all been supported by dishonest and self-serving appeals to safety, in fact, these laws are primarily efforts to reward the special interests who benefit from the protectionist laws and deliver political contributions to ensure those benefits. If the Court rules that the protections against discrimination promised by the Commerce Clause do indeed apply to retailers, it will go a long way toward bringing down a number of state laws that merely serve the largest campaign contributors. If, on the other hand, the Court veers off course and provides constitutional justification for protectionist state legislation, consumers and entrepreneurs will be mightily harmed. Fermentation A more lawyerly look at a possibility few commentators seem to have considered.... As the liquor industry anticipates a groundbreaking decision in the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair (Tennessee Wine) case, the Supreme Court has the option to render a decision and yet at the same time defer making any groundbreaking legal precedent. To all us legal geeks out there, it is a disappointing option that the Court has available. The Standing Question An important but may be overlooked question is whether the plaintiff, Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association, has standing to sue? The State of Tennessee, which is a respondent in this case, sought a declaratory judgement from the Federal District Court on whether its durational residency requirements were constitutional. After the Federal District Court’s decision was issued which determined that the durational residency requirements were not constitutional, Tennessee did not appeal the decision to the 6th Circuit and the Tennessee Attorney General waived their right to participate in oral arguments in support of their law at the 6thCircuit. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association filed an appeal to the 6th Circuit, when the 6th Circuit ruled that the durational residency requirements were unconstitutional, it petitioned the U.S Supreme Court. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association is a private trade group, that does not officially represent the people of Tennessee but represents a private economic interest. So the major question is can a non-governmental agency represent the state’s interest in court? Especially when a state decides that they don’t want to spend the resources to uphold the law. Supreme Court Precedent on Standing More at Irish Liquor Lawyer

Posted on an EU message board. UK immigration stats....while non EU immigration has always been higher, a 2012 EU mandate allowed more Eastern Europeans into the UK, and there is evidence of a political backlash to this. The Too Many Charts Link

Inside the Bill That Set the ‘Strongest Clean Energy Requirement in the Nation’ Washington, D.C. is on track to set a more ambitious timeline for fighting climate change than any state. THIS SUNDAY. "Meet the Press": Special climate change edition: Michael Bloomberg ... Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown. Panel: Dr. Kate Marvel, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), Michèle Flournoy, Craig Fugate and Anne Thompson

This 15y.o. Swedish girl is inspirational. She was featured on the PBS Newshour recently, but I couldn't find the clip there. Girl skips school to protest lack of Climate Change action

Many local authorities in the US, in an attempt to encourage recycling installed single stream systems where it is no longer necessary to separate metal, glass, plastic. paper etc. Just dump it all in one container, and we'll take care of the rest. Now they are finding out that doesn't always work so well. Plastic bags, grocery store type in particular, are clogging up the works so frequently that some authorities have stopped accepting them and are recommending them for refuse. I see tax rises in the future for them.

Unlikely in this case, plus GT is being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative/libertarian public interest firm who typically don't charge their clients.

To restate, I'm not a lawyer, and haven't yet played one on TV, and I hope that GT prevails. I do have experience reading legal briefs specifically as they pertain to alcohol laws. Have followed the direct shipping cases, and had my own case 20 years ago. I've just read the two briefs in this case, and am left with an uneasy feeling. I thought the state's defense was better and more robust than the Pacific Legal Foundation's attack. These cases can seem straightforward if you look at them from only one perspective. Look from both and they're more complicated. Although they are different issues, I have a feeling just from reading the briefs, that Trone at SCOTUS, is on firmer legal ground, than GT in Va. I think the GT case could go either way, I'll be surprised if Trone loses.