The broad sunlit uplands of next March. Yeah, really. .

[bauble]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Here's what I've been thinking about why the Irish border has become such an issue.

The Thatcherite/Tory idea of competition is to reduce costs (e.g. wages, investment, standards etc.), whereas the more humane approach is to improve productivity (by investing in staff, equipment etc.), which is less profitable for the “mill owners” but is popular with those who do the actual work and customers who benefit from better quality products.

So as Britain heads off into the unicorn filled, candy-floss lined post-Brexit world, what their former partners are worried about is the UK’s continuing race to the bottom.

They have long accepted the remarkably low banking standards etc. but are worried that reduced product standards could see an unwanted influx of lower quality, unacceptable produce (e.g. modified or treated foodstuffs and poor-quality goods) that does not meet the minimum standards that have been determined over many years by the EU members.

Not to mention the potential re-emergence of the great smuggling/tax evasion industry.

And it is hard to ignore the irony that the Leave campaigners who claimed they wanted to “take back control of our borders” (which of course they already had) now appear to be saying there is no need for the border that they wished to take control of.

Is it any surprise that the rest of the EU are still asking “what do you want?”.

Leave is an idea, not a project, it is not something with substance, it is the expression of the spirit of the nation. The belief that we are better off as a people, not as a trading nation.

You can advance all the negatives you care to name, or indeed, dream up, but having self belief means facing up to challenges and overcoming them.

It is what Britain has always done in the past, we are not Great Britain for nothing, we have proved our worth over the centuries, and will do again.

Jingoism? Maybe, but it is still true, and the self-interest of the minority should not be allowed to stand in the way of a democratic process.

Stand aside nay sayers, and let us get on with building Britain into the country it used to be. GREAT.

[Peter Mallett]

Peter,

Whilst your post has some substance it appears to assume that all leavers are tory, whilst all remainers are socialists. This is patently untrue and therefore only serves to distort your position.

Yes the border is a bit of a problem but not to the UK or indeed leavers, since Irish nationals have always enjoyed free movement within the UK and vice versa. Ok so there may be some EU or even non EU citizens who wish to travel into the UK via Ireland but again, these would necessarily be registered by Ireland as the first point of landing. If then those persons want to arrive in the UK via Northern Ireland then it would be safe to assume that when they present their passports or identification for flights or ferries, as happens to all travellers now, the authorities would record their travel.

Actually no different to flying within Schengen countries where if nothing else, security requirements need to be covered by some form of identification.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by bauble

It is what Britain has always done in the past, we are not Great Britain for nothing, we have proved our worth over the centuries, and will do again.

Stand aside nay sayers, and let us get on with building Britain into the country it used to be. GREAT.

I can hear ‘Land of hope and glory’ playing in the background when you wrote that!

But in my opinion, Britain isn’t great, or anywhere near it. And I can’t see how leaving the EU will change that!

Looking at our politicians and political parties, I see a parallel with F1 and it’s perceived problems-

For things to change everyone needs to pull together, but they don’t and won’t, because all they’re interested in is their own agenda......

It’s going to need a huge change in ‘management’ to get things sorted-in F1 and Government!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bauble

It is what Britain has always done in the past, we are not Great Britain for nothing, we have proved our worth over the centuries, and will do again.

Stand aside nay sayers, and let us get on with building Britain into the country it used to be. GREAT.

Great Britain is the name of the island, not the name of the country.....

If you're referring to the sovereign state, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
UK and Britain are acceptable shortenings of the full name, but referring to the country as GB excludes NI, and all other islands.

The 'Great' has nothing to do with strength or quality of the country, just the size of the mainland compared to other islands.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Peter,

Whilst your post has some substance it appears to assume that all leavers are tory, whilst all remainers are socialists. This is patently untrue and therefore only serves to distort your position.

Yes the border is a bit of a problem but not to the UK or indeed leavers, since Irish nationals have always enjoyed free movement within the UK and vice versa. Ok so there may be some EU or even non EU citizens who wish to travel into the UK via Ireland but again, these would necessarily be registered by Ireland as the first point of landing. If then those persons want to arrive in the UK via Northern Ireland then it would be safe to assume that when they present their passports or identification for flights or ferries, as happens to all travellers now, the authorities would record their travel.

Actually no different to flying within Schengen countries where if nothing else, security requirements need to be covered by some form of identification.

I'm not assuming leaver = tory etc. but the people who voted to leave seem to follow/support those principles, the point is there is an alternative which seems to be better for the less well off.

Passport/id checks might prevent people crossing borders but it is much more complicated with goods and the scale of goods movements means a lot of checks could be required.

Flying tends to be better checked due to safety worries but there are plenty of other ways of crossing, most of which are far harder to check.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

I'm not assuming leaver = tory etc. but the people who voted to leave seem to follow/support those principles, the point is there is an alternative which seems to be better for the less well off.

Passport/id checks might prevent people crossing borders but it is much more complicated with goods and the scale of goods movements means a lot of checks could be required.

Flying tends to be better checked due to safety worries but there are plenty of other ways of crossing, most of which are far harder to check.

As you wish however I take the opposite view indeed lower taxation is a stimulus for all but it's not easy to explain to people who are cost driven.

As to the reminder of your post you seem to be rather glib about something you find so important thus perhaps by citing some examples where the eU is better for poor people would be good?

Try this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1EY1EB

But then again:

https://www.politico.eu/article/here...t-euro-crisis/

Since I'm heavily involve with a EU financed project I can tell you the second report is much closer to the actuality. Frankly I want no part of it.

[gary396]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Great Britain is the name of the island, not the name of the country.....

If you're referring to the sovereign state, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
UK and Britain are acceptable shortenings of the full name, but referring to the country as GB excludes NI, and all other islands.

The 'Great' has nothing to do with strength or quality of the country, just the size of the mainland compared to other islands.

That's my understanding of the historic aspect of the 'Great' element as well. I always think there's too much emphasis placed on what a 'great' nation we are (or were). These days that has awkward parallels with the MAGA think in the US, even if unintended.

I simply want to be part of a good, fair and tolerant country.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The 'Great' has nothing to do with strength or quality of the country, just the size of the mainland compared to other islands.

That is correct. Although I think it's pretty good.

[Peter Mallett]

Just when we were breathing a sigh of relief at the knowledge that the EU is doing really well for everyone, that LeGarde woman pokes her nose in.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...th-eu-lagarde/

[bauble]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Great Britain is the name of the island, not the name of the country.....

If you're referring to the sovereign state, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
UK and Britain are acceptable shortenings of the full name, but referring to the country as GB excludes NI, and all other islands.

The 'Great' has nothing to do with strength or quality of the country, just the size of the mainland compared to other islands.

You miss my point, unsurprisingly as it is not put over very well, however, I am attempting to explain what I perceive as people's reason for voting 'leave'.


It is a basic sense of wanting to be free, it is virtually impossible to totally free in this day and age, the state sees to that, however, 'Leave' is being free of foreign interference in out domestic life. Sovereignty of our (admittedly poor) Parliament ability to pick our friends, not those chosen by Brussels. It is not, as I said in my previous post, a 'project', it has no written agenda, or particular plan, it is an instinctive desire to be our own master.



Sure you can marshal all kinds of facts, arguments, reasons, fears, and even threats against withdrawing from the EU, but they cut no ice with the leavers.


OK1 Mike "Britains never, never will be slaves"


And if I can't convince you, and the behaviour of our European partners as represented by Tusk, Juncker, Barmier, et al doesn't, then I guess nothing will.


My advice? Emigrate.

[apriliadriver]

Peter, Christine Lagarde still harbours hope of a return to politics in France. The Parisian 'great & good', Enarques all, have had the toe-the-line message from Paris to make sure they throw a spanner in the works to make Brexit as hard as possible. They must comply or give up all hope of a return to their political ambitions. They are, in any case, all committed to the Gran Projet. So I am expecting every Airbus exec, IMF exec and any French company that invests in GB to be polishing up their spanners. So tiresome and so predictable. As George Dubya Bush said "The French - always there when they need you".
Nick

[grantp]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Here's what I've been thinking about why the Irish border has become such an issue.

The Thatcherite/Tory idea of competition is to reduce costs (e.g. wages, investment, standards etc.), whereas the more humane approach is to improve productivity (by investing in staff, equipment etc.), which is less profitable for the “mill owners” but is popular with those who do the actual work and customers who benefit from better quality products.

So as Britain heads off into the unicorn filled, candy-floss lined post-Brexit world, what their former partners are worried about is the UK’s continuing race to the bottom.

They have long accepted the remarkably low banking standards etc. but are worried that reduced product standards could see an unwanted influx of lower quality, unacceptable produce (e.g. modified or treated foodstuffs and poor-quality goods) that does not meet the minimum standards that have been determined over many years by the EU members.

Not to mention the potential re-emergence of the great smuggling/tax evasion industry.

And it is hard to ignore the irony that the Leave campaigners who claimed they wanted to “take back control of our borders” (which of course they already had) now appear to be saying there is no need for the border that they wished to take control of.

Is it any surprise that the rest of the EU are still asking “what do you want?”.

Peter,

The EU willingly (possibly gratefully) accepts cheap poor quality product from China because it wants to sell its own more expensive (but made in China) products over there. The Chinese are smart enough to see the trade benefit in that and the opportunity they have to support all of the flood of EU and US trained academics and engineers and software developers they have paid for (to some extent) over the past 20 to 30 years by getting experienced "blue collar" workers into the bargain that was, for example, the EU and US car manufacturers being "persuaded" to set up plants in China.

Now those operations have been established for a generation or so they are of a scale to be self supporting in terms of everything they need - especially in the areas of EVs which the EU and to some extent the US, is so keen to promote as a "Green" initiative. Just one more thing that the smart Chinese have supported, in their own subtle way, to give them ever more influence over the world's economy.

Anything the EU does is or soon will be, irrelevant. But for now they can, through the Germany "quality" connection, try to sell flawed products and concepts at inflated prices. I don't see that lasting long in the mainstream.

As for the politics, most of the reports I have read pointed out that the Labour Party in the UK is not against Brexit because it is thought that a majority of Labour voters supported leaving.

On the other hand Brits who are heavily invested in work, life or leisure in the EU - probably not blue collar council house dwellers in most cases - would see no benefit from EU membership other than, maybe, having to keep an eye on the price of the annual summer holiday.

The Scottish Nationalists are somewhat unique in wanting to stay in the EU "family" whilst wishing to Exit the GB "family" - or so their leaders say. Presumably those leaders think that the masses fail to see that the leaders are just grandstanding on their own egos and needing to be wanted - by someone.

Merkel has been having problems keeping Germany United - one has to wonder whether it will hold together in the long term.

Likewise Italy, although I could probably make an argument for the EU being quite a good thing for Italy since being managed externally seems to offer better results than being managed internally.

Spain seems to have some lack of convincing cohesion.

France does not seem to have changed much in centuries - the almost decadal cycle of demonstration and street battles is long lived.

In terms of trade rules and especially product standards most of the new regulations look to the whole world discussions - or rather the "guidance" offered by UNECE. The EU is mainly a conduit for passing on the new guidance but presenting it as de-facto standards.

All of the EU players, so far as one can tell, would like to be able to point to the received regulations when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Some appear to work that way already.

I would add that this human trait seems to prevail across more than trade and immigration issues right down to personal levels, so it's hardly surprising that we see it widely repeated in all areas of human influence.

Some of the EU's minimum standards are indeed very minimum but they can probably point to globalisation of standards to justify that.

Then we have the Reach standards for chemicals - regulations that ostensibly make sense but seem to have had the effect of making many proven chemicals with long term usage history unacceptable for modern use and replacing them with much more expensive but less effective alternatives - a move that seems to have worked well for the chemical industry's profitability and little else.

It's sort of interesting, if not a little concerning, that our great and good leaders are coming out into the open to support the idea of children taking control of current decisions about which unicorns should be most sought after in the future. The schoolchildren's strike today for example.

Here is a child who seems to have been at the centre of the evolution of the movement.

https://metro.co.uk/video/16-year-ol...imate-1863832/

It would be truly interesting to see a world dominated by children with such strong beliefs. Though I suspect it would not last for long as various forms of reality became evident much like the era of the hippie social revolution in the 1960s.

Still, they are the future - who are we to point out the potential shortcomings of their dreams?

Actually, maybe the hippy concepts became more embedded in our society back in the 60s and 70s than we thought. Cool man.

Just provide me with plenty of SOMA and you can do what you like kids ... I won't care.

[Gerard C]

Nick you could add that we are very good to give lessons to others and that "mind your own business" has found no translation in our wonderful language yet. Happily, Italians just took the burden trying to teach us to be polite…
Its not new that politicians tend to point in another direction when in troubles, many pupils do that at school. We are said to have a refined taste for nice cloths, from what I can see the yellow jacket is really up to date!

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

Nick you could add that we are very good to give lessons to others and that "mind your own business" has found no translation in our wonderful language yet. Happily, Italians just took the burden trying to teach us to be polite…
Its not new that politicians tend to point in another direction when in troubles, many pupils do that at school. We are said to have a refined taste for nice cloths, from what I can see the yellow jacket is really up to date!

Nicely put Gerard.

As far as clothes are concerned the most obvious thing for the Yellow vest would be for the fashion industry to embrace it and make it fashionable.

The downside is that the colour and use has become so common in recent years that no one wearing them stands out from the crown any more. It's almost like a camouflage. A statement for concern for society and of sharing that concern - being part of the 'clan'.

Today I have enjoyed a journey by public transport. Plenty of time to observe the world without the need to focus on driving.

Many workers in yellow vests along side the railway lines eliminating trees and bushes for mile after mile. Why?

Well, the benefits of course.

Trains will no longer, so it is said, be delayed or cancelled because of "leaves in the line".

Those who live and work right next to railways will now be able to SEE as well as hear them. In fact so will many people who do not live right next to the railways. They will all understand how well their money is being spent and become more aware of the benefits of rail travel and thus encouraged to abandon their cars.

Or maybe it is something to do with electrification and a way of showing people why wind turbines are so important to the future?

Of course the wildlife that once lived in the greenery and the CO2 that was absorbed by the plants (important apparently) will have been adversely affected ... but never mind, the country's GDP will have been expanded (ever so slightly) by the activity .

And a large number of hi-viz yellow and orange vests will have been sold and soiled as the work was undertaken.

Bravo for the planners and facilitators!

And the fashion industry.

[Gerard C]

I wonder why so many are focused on made in China products - they became made in RPC- because India is doing very well with a slightly different strategy. I've been amazed by what can happen to a company wanting to increase its profits. Segway for instance. I dont know how long it took to fine tune the product and how many patents are involved but at some point they decided to have some parts produced in China. Not a long while later, we saw cheap and good Ninebot products landing on our shores. I guess Segway is Chinese now…
And while Piaggio-Vespa is striking to keep their leadership in the scooter industry, I very much doubt that the #2 in this field Bajaj producing copies have been paying many Roupies of royalties… In the meanwhile the king of steel must be Lakshmi Mittal and, no bauble, his headquarters are not located in Luton!

[bauble]

Jean Claude Juncker earns £24,006 per MONTH, as his basic salary, in addition to which he receives allowances, expenses, and sundry other perks. 10,000, officials earn more per annum than our Prime Minister. It's called 'The Gravy Train', and the EU Parliament building is only open 4/5 days per month. The parliament has a massive shopping mall for their exclusive use, and a fleet of top of the range (mainly German) cars for their use for any purpose they want.

There is much more detail available on just how much the EU costs to run, and how many snouts in the trough, but it seems many people, even plenty here, who seem happy to be forking out in order to keep the Train moving full steam ahead.


Can you think of a better description of madness?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by apriliadriver

Peter, Christine Lagarde still harbours hope of a return to politics in France. The Parisian 'great & good', Enarques all, have had the toe-the-line message from Paris to make sure they throw a spanner in the works to make Brexit as hard as possible. They must comply or give up all hope of a return to their political ambitions. They are, in any case, all committed to the Gran Projet. So I am expecting every Airbus exec, IMF exec and any French company that invests in GB to be polishing up their spanners. So tiresome and so predictable. As George Dubya Bush said "The French - always there when they need you".
Nick

Actually I was being a little bit devilish there because she targets anyone she thinks is a soft touch at that particular time. However there is a general consensus that the EU is on financial borrowed time.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

As you wish however I take the opposite view indeed lower taxation is a stimulus for all but it's not easy to explain to people who are cost driven.

As to the reminder of your post you seem to be rather glib about something you find so important thus perhaps by citing some examples where the eU is better for poor people would be good?

Try this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1EY1EB

But then again:

https://www.politico.eu/article/here...t-euro-crisis/

Since I'm heavily involve with a EU financed project I can tell you the second report is much closer to the actuality. Frankly I want no part of it.

I've found that time is too short to look for examples and even when you find them people tend to ignore them and don't want to change their opinion.

But here's a list of some items:
roaming charges has been mentioned and is possibly trivial,
workers rights (paid annual leave, maternity leave, sickness rights etc.) which are taken for granted.
Erasmus for education, investment in research/universities etc,
medicines, improvements in healthcare and the environment,
cheaper flights,
healthcare while you are in another eu country,
lower prices for booze,
safety,
food labelling,
EU wide patent & copyright protection,
lack of wars,

Have just found a link which is far more extensive:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...u-ever-done-us

So I find it amusing when people protesting about the EU are stood in front of places that have signs saying this project was funded by the EU, or work for European companies, rely on European products etc.

Looking at the situation from the outside it appears that most people are unaware of any EU positives, which might be related to the govt taking credit for the popular stuff and blaming the EU for the unpopular stuff (that the same govt agreed to).

As for low taxation, the problem is the stuff that tax funds struggles. Living in a country with far higher obvious tax rates you notice that things like the health service work and there is plenty of social housing, not to mention that normal housing is affordable.

As we've said before there are so many aspects to EU membership and life in general that any group of people/countries are going to find different benefits and disadvantages - I can imagine that the financial/legal stuff is extremely complex and annoying but that possibly reflects the skills of the people involved in the sector and all the systems/methods etc. they create to help further their or their customers wealth.

I tend to think that govts should focus on the poorer members of the population since they have far fewer opportunities to improve their lot, whereas the wealthy are far more able to look out for themselves.

Given that globalisation seems to be leading to some companies being more powerful than most countries, it isn't clear what the future holds but a larger group of people will always hold more weight than a smaller one and that could well become ever more important.

[Gerard C]

From those writings, almost all of them, I can't see any reason why not leave. You can call me stupid, unaware, weirdo whatever you like to but, and I stand to be corrected of course, you've been asked. You gave your answer. Its leave. So let it be.
In order not to upset anyone may be the first deal could be rated as fair enough and became just unacceptable for you. I guess you have many people saying "leave first and discus later". And sorry if its hard for me to make any difference between politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and other lobbyists. They all fooked up the whole system we're living in. For this kind of mess, of course the borders are wide opened and we're all far beyond the limits!
I wonder what we'll find here when the Pandora box will be opened.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by bauble

Jean Claude Juncker earns £24,006 per MONTH, as his basic salary, in addition to which he receives allowances, expenses, and sundry other perks. 10,000, officials earn more per annum than our Prime Minister. It's called 'The Gravy Train', and the EU Parliament building is only open 4/5 days per month. The parliament has a massive shopping mall for their exclusive use, and a fleet of top of the range (mainly German) cars for their use for any purpose they want.

There is much more detail available on just how much the EU costs to run, and how many snouts in the trough, but it seems many people, even plenty here, who seem happy to be forking out in order to keep the Train moving full steam ahead.


Can you think of a better description of madness?

So Boris Johnson gets more than Junker for writing a newspaper column!

The mall I've seen at the European parliament is open to the public and has normal shops in it - you can even go on guided tours or visit open days, none of which have attracted me!

Yes some of these people earn a lot of money but you have to compare like with like, average director's salary in the UK is over 100,000 quid a year which is comparable to the handful of EU director generals.
FTSE top 100 directors average earnings are around 4 million quid a year.

Most govts. and many companies have their own fleets of cars and the EU drivers I've met only drive them on official business, last time I saw an EU president (Prodi) he was waiting for a taxi!
When travelling employees are obliged to use the cheapest option and have pretty meagre travelling expenses compared to company reps.

When you look at the cushy well paid jobs that ex-ministers move into when leaving or getting kicked out of govt. you see that what they earn is peanuts compared to the outside world.
e.g. David Davis (that well known failed negotiator) is getting 60 grand for 20 hours work for JCB (admittedly 20 hours is probably more than he spent in EU negotiations!!).
Blackrock paying George Osborne 650 grand a year is rather good for someone who failed his maths A level and screwed up an economy!

There is an argument that paying MPs much more would attract useful people - those who are any good can earn far more money without having to withstand public scrutiny.
If there had been some decent people running the UK it might not be in the state it's in.

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

If there had been some decent people running the UK it might not be in the state it's in.

That's about the only thing you and me would agree on so far, oh and the salaries bit as well.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by bauble

Jean Claude Juncker earns £24,006 per MONTH, as his basic salary, in addition to which he receives allowances, expenses, and sundry other perks. 10,000, officials earn more per annum than our Prime Minister. It's called 'The Gravy Train', and the EU Parliament building is only open 4/5 days per month. The parliament has a massive shopping mall for their exclusive use, and a fleet of top of the range (mainly German) cars for their use for any purpose they want.

There is much more detail available on just how much the EU costs to run, and how many snouts in the trough, but it seems many people, even plenty here, who seem happy to be forking out in order to keep the Train moving full steam ahead.


Can you think of a better description of madness?

I assume that will be the usual tax free deal Bob?


Wine on expenses?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

That's about the only thing you and me would agree on so far, oh and the salaries bit as well.

I often wonder if better people would have appeared (civil service as well as politicians) if there was no EU Tax free gravy train for them to pursue instead.

But then if, as I suspect, the UK parliament is now about as authoritative nationally as a Parish Council is locally, no one with real ambition for power would be inclined to to apply.

After all you can earn a lot more and have a far longer and more reliable (no elections) career in Local Government, the NHS or a University.

Why would anyone moderately competent wish to take a less certain career in politics? Unless they were avid narcissists or control freaks.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

So Boris Johnson gets more than Junker for writing a newspaper column!

The mall I've seen at the European parliament is open to the public and has normal shops in it - you can even go on guided tours or visit open days, none of which have attracted me!

Yes some of these people earn a lot of money but you have to compare like with like, average director's salary in the UK is over 100,000 quid a year which is comparable to the handful of EU director generals.
FTSE top 100 directors average earnings are around 4 million quid a year.

Most govts. and many companies have their own fleets of cars and the EU drivers I've met only drive them on official business, last time I saw an EU president (Prodi) he was waiting for a taxi!
When travelling employees are obliged to use the cheapest option and have pretty meagre travelling expenses compared to company reps.

When you look at the cushy well paid jobs that ex-ministers move into when leaving or getting kicked out of govt. you see that what they earn is peanuts compared to the outside world.
e.g. David Davis (that well known failed negotiator) is getting 60 grand for 20 hours work for JCB (admittedly 20 hours is probably more than he spent in EU negotiations!!).
Blackrock paying George Osborne 650 grand a year is rather good for someone who failed his maths A level and screwed up an economy!

There is an argument that paying MPs much more would attract useful people - those who are any good can earn far more money without having to withstand public scrutiny.
If there had been some decent people running the UK it might not be in the state it's in.

You appear to have (deliberately?) overlooked the point that private industry directors actually create something of tangible value whereas EU bureaucrats create nothing of value whatsoever.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by grantp

I assume that will be the usual tax free deal Bob?


Wine on expenses?

A very special tax rate applies , Grant, and the list of 'allowances' goes on and on. Peter M suggests he is on an equal with many CEO's, and Captains of Industry, but what does he produce?

I love the videos on UTube of Juncker staggering around drunk as a lord, even while 'on-duty' so to speak, so I guess the wine is free - in more ways than one.