Australia isn’t forced into anything … It’s just a Trade agreement

The only way the EU agrees with trade agreements (e.g. lowering/removing tariffs) is if the other countries agree with their GI demands.

I support the trade agreement in spite of the GI nonsense; I am still permitted to voice my displeasure about certain parts of it.

cultural appropriation

No. It’s called language. All food/drinks originate from one place or another; there’s no reason to call the product something different just because it is made elsewhere. The EU are the ones demanding other countries “give it a totally different name” here, otherwise misleading and anti-consumer words like ‘bubbly’ (champagne), ‘apera’ (sherry), ‘dolce rosso’ (lambrusco), ‘tawny’ (port) etc wouldn’t exist.

It doesn’t matter anyway. Australia ‘agreed’ to change the above names years ago. Fortunately, despite the change in labelling, it hasn’t caught on. Law can’t dictate human language and people still call the products by their actual names.

That’s the thing mate we did it first in Europe.

What an absurd and snobbish perspective. As if you personally had anything to do with these products’ invention.

Regardless, I make an active judgement call to avoid products that go by the ‘real’ name whenever Australia is forced to these agreements. I never used to care where my Champagne came from, now if the label says ‘Champagne’, then I know it’s a Champagne I do not want.

NewsWire reports the initiative was presented as a “sweetener” to bring Canberra over the line on a free-trade agreement.

Not against the free movement part, but I am not looking forward to relearning the words for even more of the products I grew up with. EU GI regulations are utterly stupid.