Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

pixelburp

reslfj wrote: »

Antibiotics and resistance to it is a major problem for our health services.

It is, however, only very marginally related to Brexit and this thread

For your information antibiotics can only be used against bacteria, but is absolutely useless against virus.

Fighting viral infections requires an immune reaction within the person (or animal) and vaccinations will prepare and boost the needed immune reaction.

Anti viral drugs are not very common and have a somewhat dubious effect.

Lars

Indeed, it was more the timely dovetailing of related concerns, given medicinal effectiveness would be on people's minds ATM, rather than an explicit relationship. The proposed trade deals are going to have to navigate these sorts of related issues or concerns, ala chlorinated chicken, so whether antibiotics work on Corvid or not is irrelevant. The subject simply existing in the zeitgeist might well be more ammunition to scupper the governments attempts to sell a US deal. Timing is everything n all that.

CelticRambler

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the subject of Corona knocking around the news, it feels particularly timely & relevant to fight the issue of antibiotics in foodstuffs, given the potential of a corner of Europe suddenly & "unknowingly" reducing the efficacy of antibiotics through ingestion. Apart from the US, is there any other major "first world" country who uses antibiotics in its food production?

Just about every livestock farmer in the EU uses antibiotics at some point; the differences between us and the US are (a) our farmers don't use them as growth promoters while the Americans do; and (b) the EU imposes strict limits on when an animal (or animal products, e.g. milk) can enter the food supply after the use of an antibiotic treatment, with residue levels set relatively low and closely monitored.

And this is where the handling of the Covid-19 outbreak in the US highlights major problems for any UK-US deal: the American approach to disease surveillance is ludicrously inept. At the time of the BSE outbreak, one of the veterinary people remarked that here in Europe we tested more cattle in one week than the Americans tested in a year; it sounds like the same scenario is playing out with regard to Covid-19.

Sam Russell above made reference to problematic dietary sugar and fat in the States, but it goes way beyond that: every metric relating to human health there is not just "a bit iffy" but is third-world level bad - food poisoning, heavy-metal contaminants & associated diseases, maternal mortality, herbicide/pesticide poisoning, opioid addiction ... This is almost entirely due to a lack of effective regulation and enforcement - the EU kind of rules to which Brexiters say they don't want to be held in the future.

sondagefaux

reslfj wrote: »

Antibiotics and resistance to it is a major problem for our health services.

It is, however, only very marginally related to Brexit and this thread

For your information antibiotics can only be used against bacteria, but is absolutely useless against virus.

Fighting viral infections requires an immune reaction within the person (or animal) and vaccinations will prepare and boost the needed immune reaction.

Anti viral drugs are not very common and have a somewhat dubious effect.

Lars

The quality of food that the UK may allow to be imported post-Brexit is obviously related to Brexit.

Not only that, but if one of the consequences of Brexit is that antibiotic resistant organisms are more likely to spread in the UK, the public health consequences will extend beyond the UK, not least due to mass tourism.

kowloon

Sam Russell wrote: »

Off topic, but the reason that Americans, and many Europeans are taller is because they have been subject to very good medical care that has virtually eliminated childhood illness such as mumps, measles, etc. Previously, children lost a year through various illnesses.

The larger girth is the result of poor diets, supplemented by overeating of poor food laced with copious amounts of fat and sugar.

The US found there was a huge range in physical condition when they were building up prior to and during the Second World War. They had a lot of poorer recruits who had struggled through the depression, and at ages where poor nutrition really affected growth. They had an issue where the infantry became the dumping ground for the weakest recruits after everyone else had their pick. I read that there was a considerable gap in height between an average US infantryman and those from other branches.
You get a similar gap between children who grew up in the now booming US and in Europe where rationing, shortages and limited variety in diet hit hard.
I doubt lowering their food standards will have anywhere near as much of a measurable effect in the UK, but it'll be interesting to see in a few decades.

Thargor

It wont have any effect, the poor back then were getting by on a handful of oats and some milk and that kind of thing with days where they didn't eat at all, no matter how bad it gets the world is flooded with cheap calories these days, obesity will be the issue not malnutrition.

Sam Russell

Thargor wrote: »

It wont have any effect, the poor back then were getting by on a handful of oats and some milk and that kind of thing with days where they didn't eat at all, no matter how bad it gets the world is flooded with cheap calories these days, obesity will be the issue not malnutrition.

Cheap calories gives rise to malnutrition. Malnutrition is living on unhealthy food and is not the same as starvation.

The UK population was at its healthiest in the mid 1950s after rationing ended but before junk food appeared on the scene.

Thargor

Yeah but even if you do you're shopping in Dealz and eat complete sh1t you're still getting vastly more nutrition than what people were getting back then, you're not going to see stunted growth on a large scale on todays diets.

Sam Russell

Thargor wrote: »

Yeah but even if you do you're shopping in Dealz and eat complete sh1t you're still getting vastly more nutrition than what people were getting back then, you're not going to see stunted growth on a large scale on todays diets.

One would think so but there are significant size differences (height) related to wealth, with poorer people having a greater tendency to be low-sized.

looksee

I grew up in England immediately after the second world war. In addition to the possibly not very exciting but good and wholesome meals my mother provided we had free orange juice/rose hip syrup and school milk and subsidised school dinners - with not a burger or chip in sight!.

Capt'n Midnight

If Brexit is a power grab then the Coronavirus allows emergency powers as well as a distraction.

How soon any powers are dropped may affect future trade negotiations.

Capt'n Midnight

Another debuking of the "The German car industry will save us" myth.

Bentley are owned by VW. They import 90% of their components from the EU. And are even considering moving some of the work abroad.
Bentley says Brexit priority is deal with Europe, not the U.S.

Although eradicating the 2.5% tariff on the 22% of cars it sells to the U.S. would be a boost, the firm would lose out overall if the EU imposed the maximum 10% tariffs on the 24% of vehicles to Europe and up to 4% on components

Also

Peugeot (PEUP.PA) is also set to make an investment decision this year on whether to keep open its Ellesmere Port car plant and its boss suggested the company could seek compensation.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

They seem to be happy to ratched up the fears and in doing so lay the blame firmly on the EU. The only reason, that I can think of, is that the worst outcome is actually to plan, and all this is purely to create cover.

I think it is worse than that - there is no plan, and they are winging it in the belief that the UK is too big to fail. They got to the top by backing the hardest Brexit, so they are going to keep playing that hand to the end, and damn the torpedoes.

Dymo

Are there any ongoing reports of the current talks?

ancapailldorcha

Dymo wrote: »

Are there any ongoing reports of the current talks?

I don't think they start until Monday.

splinter65

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Flybe is dead with 2000 jobs gone, coronavirus is being blamed but I suspect it's the straw that broke the brexit diseased camel's back


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-flybe-funding-administration/british-regional-airline-flybe-says-enters-into-administration-idUKKBN20R34N?utm_source=reddit.com

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/nissan-presses-ahead-with-400m-qashqai-plan-for-sunderland

I’m interested in your theory as to how it was Brexit that damaged Flybe and not the corona virus, and also your explanation for this good news story for Sunderland
Flybe leased too many planes. It’s a mistake that’s brought down many’s the airline, then the corona virus has resulted in no sales and cancelled flights but I’m sure you can explain how ‘‘twas brexit dome for them.
I’m sure your disappointed in Nissan too but you probably have a good excuse for their continued faith in Sunderland.

CelticRambler

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m sure your disappointed in Nissan too but you probably have a good excuse for their continued faith in Sunderland.

Excuse or explanation? According to the article, their "continued faith" in Sunderland is represented only by the unveiling of one machine whose installation was started almost two years ago - about the time the company was being granted all kinds of guarantees by Theresa May's government, details of which are still very sketchy. The company has obviously decided that it'll be in their interest to continue with this particular investment rather than incur the cost of whatever penalties were attached to their deal.

Doesn't mean they'll be able to sell the cars that come off the assembly line.

Enzokk

Dymo wrote: »

Are there any ongoing reports of the current talks?

I believe the talks finished on Thursday and the next round will be later this month. Not much has been agreed, no surprise, but both sides have said talks have been constructive and there is scope for a deal.

Michel Barnier: Serious issues remain over trade deal

There remain "serious" differences between the UK and EU after the first round of trade talks, the bloc's chief negotiator has said.

Michel Barnier said "very difficult" areas needed to be resolved, but a "good agreement for both sides" remained possible.

He said there were disagreements over competition rules, police co-operation, and how a deal would be enforced.

Mr Barnier also dismissed UK proposals on fishing as "impractical".

A UK government spokesperson said there were "significant differences" between the two sides in some areas, but talks had been "constructive".

Like the previous talks and with David Davis letting out the UK strategy already, don't expect movement until the last few days. The first deadline is June/July when the UK has to decide whether to ask for a extension of the transition. If they don't ask for one then the hard cliff edge is December.

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m interested in your theory as to how it was Brexit that damaged Flybe and not the corona virus, and also your explanation for this good news story for Sunderland
Flybe leased too many planes. It’s a mistake that’s brought down many’s the airline, then the corona virus has resulted in no sales and cancelled flights but I’m sure you can explain how ‘‘twas brexit dome for them.
I’m sure your disappointed in Nissan too but you probably have a good excuse for their continued faith in Sunderland.

Flybe was in trouble before coronavirus was even a known issue. There was talks about a loan before with the government. I don't know if Brexit was stated as a reason, but there is 0% chance of it being used as a reason even if it is 100% responsible. Johnson and Gove led the Leave campaign, Cummings is the most powerful person not elected in the UK and basically in charge. I don't expect any company that needs UK Government help to even raise Brexit as an issue.

As for the future, well the UK CAA is going to need to get a lot bigger as they will have a clean break from EASA.

UK ‘Will Leave’ EASA, Says British Transportation Secretary

The UK will withdraw as a member state of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after a transition period and shift responsibility for aircraft certification and safety regulation to its own Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), British Transportation Secretary Grant Shapps said.

“We will leave EASA,” Shapps said Mar. 6 during an exclusive interview with editors from Aviation Week Network. “A lot of the expertise they have is UK expertise, in fact. A lot of the key leading lights were Brits.”

The consequences of this may be bigger than tariffs. I think if there is a lot of extra hassle and work for Airbus in having to deal with both EASA and the UK CAA regarding their factories in the UK they will shift the work to the EU. I don't see how the UK CAA is able to replicate the work of EASA without a lot of recognition of standards and EU laws, but it is exactly this that the current UK government seems intent on leaving at all costs.

So rather than the delays and tariffs, I feel this may the last straw for Airbus and will be the catalyst for them to leave the UK and gradually move work to other Airbus factories.

serfboard

Grant Shapps wrote:

A lot of the expertise they have is UK expertise, in fact. A lot of the key leading lights were Brits.

If you were a Brit working for EASA, and the UK CAA now offered you a job, would it be a case of them needing you more than you need them?!

McGiver

Enzokk wrote:

I believe the talks finished on Thursday and the next round will be later this month. Not much has been agreed, no surprise, but both sides have said talks have been constructive and there is scope for a deal.

"Constructive" in diplomatic doublespeak language means roughly this:

'Tthey were talking bullishíte and we absolutely don't agree with them on anything'

moon2

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m interested in your theory as to how it was Brexit that damaged Flybe and not the corona virus,

Do you recall when flybe was granted a tax holiday so they could avoid immediate collapse? It was publicly announced on January 16th. I don't know when thsoe negotiations started, but it's safe to assume it was earlier than then.

Can you remind me when Covid-19 began to be a worldwide issue large enough to affect flights? Substantially later than when they were about to collapse?

trellheim

UK not staying in EASA is going to badly mess with one of their flagship industries, CAA is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

UK not staying in EASA is going to badly mess with one of their flagship industries, CAA is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch

Its window dressing. The world is looking for more global regulations, not more regulation bodies. If they do carry through on their wish to recreate a standalone CAA, it will be nothing more that an extra stamp. They are not going to start creating a separate set of regulations.


According to the them, the key people in EASA are British anyway, which will return to the UK, so they have accepted that the regulations are they currently stand are being driven in large part by the British themselves!

J Mysterio

UK government blocking data which may prove individuals right to remain in UK.

At least 20,000 people have been denied information that could prove their right to stay in the UK, in what campaigners are warning is a revival of the ‘hostile environment’.

A controversial loophole – passed into law despite warnings it risked “the next Windrush” – has been used to block almost 43 per cent of requests for the government to release vital data, The Independent can reveal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-right-to-stay-uk-information-windrush-diane-abbott-a9363586.html

Reminds one of the unfortunate destruction of Windrush documentation which, of course, proved the right of those individuals to residency.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its window dressing. The world is looking for more global regulations, not more regulation bodies. If they do carry through on their wish to recreate a standalone CAA, it will be nothing more that an extra stamp. They are not going to start creating a separate set of regulations.


According to the them, the key people in EASA are British anyway, which will return to the UK, so they have accepted that the regulations are they currently stand are being driven in large part by the British themselves!

It's a waste either way. They are either going to appoint extra staff to confirm and stamp the forms that come from EASA, or they are going to rebuild the CAA to replicate all the work of EASA. This is getting more and more ridiculous.

CelticRambler

trellheim wrote: »

UK not staying in EASA is going to badly mess with one of their flagship industries, CAA is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch

Go easy on the hyperbole, there: the CAA exists and is fully functional right now; it won't need to be rebuilt from scratch.

The more relevant point is that air transport is, by its very nature, an activity that demands a "deep and comprehensive" international agreement, one that requires the contracting parties to sign up for dynamic alignment of regulations in just about every area of operations. Sure, a national aviation authority can make a few legislative tweaks to allow or restrict certain activities in its own airspace, but that's the limit.

So it's another example of the hypocrisy of Brexiters: take back control from the undemocratic and wasteful EU only to add more bloat to the English public service so that it can copy-and-paste rules that are decided on a bigger, more powerful, international platform.

murphaph

The CAA is woefully under equipped to do the certification work currently handled by EASA. It isn't far from the truth to say it will need to be rebuilt.

They don't want a deal. They are now going for WTO terms and no deal at the end of this year.

CelticRambler

murphaph wrote: »

The CAA is woefully under equipped to do the certification work currently handled by EASA. It isn't far from the truth to say it will need to be rebuilt.

It is woefully understaffed, not underequipped. In common with all the other regulatory agencies that were "centralised" under the EU umbrella, the CAA already carries out a lot of certification work.

Just like when people use the phrase "we are the EU" as a defence against wild Brexiter claims, the EU's supposedly bloated civil service is extremely efficient because the vast majority of its work is outsourced to all the national agencies.

Up to now, if a British lab certifies a medicine as "good to go", then it's good for every pharmacy from Aberdeen to Athens. Ditto for any aircraft component developed in a British aerospace company: if the CAA says "this widget is safe for installation in any European aircraft" because we've seen the data, then every other EU authority takes it on trust, and there's no need for the manfacturer to run it by 27 other authorities.

Until now.

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its window dressing. The world is looking for more global regulations, not more regulation bodies. If they do carry through on their wish to recreate a standalone CAA, it will be nothing more that an extra stamp. They are not going to start creating a separate set of regulations.


According to the them, the key people in EASA are British anyway, which will return to the UK, so they have accepted that the regulations are they currently stand are being driven in large part by the British themselves!

Are they UK civil servants, or are they employed by EASA and just happen to hold UK passports?

In one case the UK can call them back, in the other I'd guess they tell the UK to get stuffed and they carry on with their life and job in Europe.

GM228

Seems to me the UK are just hell bent on to cutting itself from any acronym with an E in it weather it's EU related or not (look at the ECHR for example).

Next they will want to get rid of EBS brakes and ESP on cars or the ECB (England (and Wales) Cricket Board), ET will no longer be permitted to be shown on UK television, and of course they will have to drop the English language EN ISO categorisation...

Ngland?