Talk:Country of origin

Apparent (NTM paradoxical) UK/EU override?
I've found this intriguing info, possibly relevant to this article, in the "Originating Products" section of "Introduction to rules of origin and claiming duties when trading between the UK and EU" (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/introduction-to-rules-of-origin-and-claiming-duties-when-trading-between-the-uk-and-eu) on the UK government's HM Revenue & Customs site:
 * ''The Trade and Cooperation Agreement contains provisions allowing the UK and the EU to cumulate origin. This means materials originating from the:
 * ''• EU (as well as production carried out within the EU on non-originating materials) may be considered as originating in the UK
 * ''• UK (as well as production carried out within the UK on non-originating materials) may be considered as originating in the EU
 * This process is known as bilateral cumulation'' … Once a product has gained originating status, it is considered 100% originating. This means that if that product is incorporated in the production of a further product:
 * ''its full value is considered originating
 * ''no account is taken of the materials from a different country that have been used

If I've read this correctly (and I've even used an English accent), it seems to mean that, even though the UK has left the EU, goods manufactured in the UK can still be said to originate in the EU, and vice versa. I don't claim to understand why, after such a high-profile breakup, either entity would maintain they were still one community when it came to buying and selling stuff. Wouldn't it be notable, though? And has there been no public discussion on how it could possibly serve consumer interests not to know which part of a whole subcontinent a product came from? Or do Europeans tend to roll over when it comes to that kind of thing (maybe for historical reasons, e.g. occupation)? Finally, can any two or more countries choose to sidestep the whole idea of origin labelling this way? Wouldn't that render this topic rather spongy, imperiling its WP "priority" (or whatever the system is that determines how much editorial attention topics merit—the terms often escape me)? Even if nothing I've cited and/or babbled about here pertains to this article, or to much of anything else (although I don't know why HM Revenue & Customs would bother posting it otherwise, as even their name seems very official), can we agree it's right up our alley as far as the number of details, inclusion of lists, formatting, etc. go? – AndyFielding (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistencies?
Due to this article's unusually high level of jargon and corp-o-speak, I'm compelled to inquire about a few apparent inconsistencies: If I have further thoughts on any of this, I'll post them on other topics' Talk pages, where they may make more sense. – AndyFielding (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Does "the value-creation process" emphasize that finished goods are usually more valuable than their raw ingredients? Do so many people forget this that we need a special term?
 * Could people who advocate the identification of wines by region be referred to as terroirists?
 * Assuming that all items sold in the last century or so have been required to state their countries of origin, how can so-called "place-based branding" or "nationality bias" matter? Stuff's just going to be made where it was made, isn't it? How can something be made where it wasn't made? Doesn't the whole physics thing kick in at that point?
 * The article explains how early forms of location-based branding identified towns known for particular types of goods (e.g. cheeses, textiles)—as if that were any indication of the quality of something from a particular producer in that area. Should this part of the article include links to WP's gullibility, misrepresentation or caveat emptor pages?
 * The product label with a US flag and "MADE IN CHINA" at the bottom—shouldn't the caption mention that such hemisphere-agnostic consumer-spin was trailblazed by Ronald Reagan, a corporate-bankrolled president who gave business the green light to ship their manufacturing jobs overseas so they could bust unions and entire communities for the purpose of enriching themselves and cooperative totalitarian governments with subsistence economies? Or could that seem too "political", even though it's true?
 * Why am I not required to indicate the country where I wrote this? Is it because my writing's considered unsaleable? Should I take this personally, and/or have I had too much coffee?