Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

This may be an unpopular comment but Ireland probably would have been better aligning its vaccine strategy with the UK ,which would have resulted in a sucessful British isles/North Atlantic archipelago approach.

Hold on, that according to you was never an option as the EU tied in us to the collective. What makes you think that the UK would have given us vaccines? There is nothing stopping them from doing it, in fact they could work with the whole of the EU to deal with the lopsided nature of the way AZ are dealing with it.

So do you accept that Brexit has had no bearing on the vaccine rollout?

The Raging Bile Duct

RobMc59 wrote: »

This may be an unpopular comment but Ireland probably would have been better aligning its vaccine strategy with the UK ,which would have resulted in a sucessful British isles/North Atlantic archipelago approach.

Absolute nonsense. At least with the EU, we get our vaccines at the same time as the rest of the EU in proportion to our population. We'd be begging for the scraps off the UK's table and end up paying over the odds for it too.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, that according to you was never an option as the EU tied in us to the collective. What makes you think that the UK would have given us vaccines? There is nothing stopping them from doing it, in fact they could work with the whole of the EU to deal with the lopsided nature of the way AZ are dealing with it.

So do you accept that Brexit has had no bearing on the vaccine rollout?

Ireland had/has the option to 'do it's own thing 'if it wants but didn't have the courage to disregard brussels preferred strategy even though this has ultimately been detrimental to Ireland.The only time Ireland bucked the trend and stood up for itself was when,along with the UK it took a stand against Frau Merkels lapdog Ursula von der leyen when she attempted her farcical phantom article 16 comedy of errors.
I agree brexit is a separate matter.

The Raging Bile Duct

RobMc59 wrote: »

Ireland had/has the option to 'do it's own thing 'if it wants but didn't have the courage to disregard brussels preferred strategy even though this has ultimately been detrimental to Ireland.The only time Ireland bucked the trend and stood up for itself was when,along with the UK it took a stand against Frau Merkels lapdog Ursula von der leyen when she attempted her farcical phantom article 16 comedy of errors.
I agree brexit is a separate matter.

Ireland trying to negotiate vaccine by itself would have been an unmitigated disaster and a very expensive one at that. I know you have an extraordinarily jaundiced view of the EU but surely you can recognise the idiocy of Ireland trying to go it alone in term of vaccine acquisition.

Padre_Pio

RobMc59 wrote: »

Ireland had/has the option to 'do it's own thing 'if it wants but didn't have the courage to disregard brussels preferred strategy even though this has ultimately been detrimental to Ireland.The only time Ireland bucked the trend and stood up for itself was when,along with the UK it took a stand against Frau Merkels lapdog Ursula von der leyen when she attempted her farcical phantom article 16 comedy of errors.
I agree brexit is a separate matter.

Yes, Ireland had the option and chose not to take it, same as most EU countries.
Nothing to do with "courage"

No, the vaccine rollout in Ireland is not detrimental. We right in line with other EU countries.

No, Ireland didn't buck any trend with the A16 debacle. The suggestion was quickly rolled back and Von Der Leyen has apologized for it.

Rob, you have a great way of ignoring information that disagrees with your narrative, and including and exaggerating events that are unrelated to the topic at hand.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

Ireland had/has the option to 'do it's own thing 'if it wants but didn't have the courage to disregard brussels preferred strategy even though this has ultimately been detrimental to Ireland.The only time Ireland bucked the trend and stood up for itself was when,along with the UK it took a stand against Frau Merkels lapdog Ursula von der leyen when she attempted her farcical phantom article 16 comedy of errors.
I agree brexit is a separate matter.

So this point is completely wrong then?

No country, whether in the EU or outside, were stopped from acting on its own. Britain acted on its own even though it was still technically in the EU.

Ireland has very much been standing up for itself, much to the chagrin of the UK, which expected Ireland to simply accept the UK rule and opt to go with the UK.

That was a massive miscalculation by the UK, ending up with the pretty farcical situation that in order to regain control of its borders, the UK gave up one of its constituent parts to full control by the EU, and agreed to take responsibility for ensuring that it abides by the rules that now the UK have no say in.

What all this furore surrounding vaccine strategies has shown is a country acting on its own is able to adapt quickly to a developing situation whereas an unwieldy,centrally controlled bureaucracy isn't.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but individual European nations should have been allowed to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies as the combined approach has clearly left the EU at a disadvantage.

Seth Brundle

it is interesting how Rob feels the need to criticise Ireland's approach at a time when supplied to the UK look as if they are about to be massively curtailed by the EU protecting it's borders. To compound this, India may not be of much help despite Johnson sending an envoy over to beg for more vaccines.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

it is interesting how Rob feels the need to criticise Ireland's approach at a time when supplied to the UK look as if they are about to be massively curtailed by the EU protecting it's borders. To compound this, India may not be of much help despite Johnson sending an envoy over to beg for more vaccines.

I've tried to refrain from commenting on the UK's vaccine supply.
The fact that AZ is an Anglo-Swedish company and the vaccine everyone seems to be squabbling over is a British development seems to fly right over the heads of anti UK posters who have convinced themselves it's an 'EU vaccine '.
The UK government reported there will be a dip in supply last week,well before it became general knowledge.I wouldn't be surprised if the UK has a considerable stock of vaccines but obviously isn't going to reveal this as it would lead to more brussels tantrums and cause potential ramifications for AZ.
My criticism of Ireland is only because I believe they should have agreed a joint approach with the UK which would have been better for Ireland imo.

I told ya

Whilst not directly Brexit related, two articles in The Guardian make for interesting reading.

The EU has delivered 21m doses to the UK. (With zero from UK to EU?). Why all the UK rhetoric about 27 sovereign states looking after their own needs.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/25/eu-leaders-told-bloc-has-sent-21m-covid-vaccine-doses-to-the-uk

Also, the issue of the UK not being in a position to issue the second dose in the coming months. Now, what would the UK reaction be if the situation arose that the first dose had to be re-administered due to an unsafe delay between doses?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/france-uk-struggle-source-second-covid-jabs-eu-blackmail

It has been reported that India has stopped the export of 5m doses until they get their own needs addressed. Don't see any OTT rhetoric from the UK on this.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I've tried to refrain from commenting on the UK's vaccine supply.
The fact that AZ is an Anglo-Swedish company and the vaccine everyone seems to be squabbling over is a British development seems to fly right over the heads of anti UK posters who have convinced themselves it's an 'EU vaccine '.

Funded in part by the EU. But few people think it is an EU vaccine, what is in question is why the EU is exporting millions of doses to the UK when the UK have taken a UK first approach.

There are very few Anti UK posters. Many who will not accept the made up nonsense and skewed posting to try to make the EU look bad, or the UK look great.

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK government reported there will be a dip in supply last week,well before it became general knowledge.

When did the UK announce it and when when the issue reported? Same day. hardly well before.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if the UK has a considerable stock of vaccines but obviously isn't going to reveal this as it would lead to more brussels tantrums and cause potential ramifications for AZ.

If they have a considerable stock, shouldn't they send some of that back to the EU since part of it came from EU factories? Not if you agree that they should take a Britain 1st policy (I don't disagree with it in theory) but if that is the case don't blame others for looking to adopt the same attitude.

RobMc59 wrote: »

My criticism of Ireland is only because I believe they should have agreed a joint approach with the UK which would have been better for Ireland imo.

You have just said you wouldn't be surprised if they held considerable stock and wouldn't tell anyone. What makes you think that they would treat Ireland different? Why would they change their Britain First policy for Ireland?

There has been nothing in the last 5 years that would give any credibility to your theory that the UK would offer such a thing.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

The fact that AZ is an Anglo-Swedish company and the vaccine everyone seems to be squabbling over is a British development seems to fly right over the heads of anti UK posters who have convinced themselves it's an 'EU vaccine '.

Not sure who said that but it's not a British development but merely principally led by Oxford & AZ. There had also been Italian involvement in its development. The team that developed the vaccine were led by British and Irish scientists. It is also produced in the EU and had its development part funded by the EU.
However, I reckon any squabbling is over the fact that AZ signed a deal with the EU and have failed to meet the commitments set. They have also failed to meet the renegotiated deal.
The EU are now looking to make use of what is produced in the EU. This however, has been criticised by the UK government, despite it being exactly what the UK's Brexit agenda is pursuing - ie self protection and control of ones borders.
AZ have recently been found to have been hiding vaccines from the EU which were destined for the UK (allegedly). Why would they do this?

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK government reported there will be a dip in supply last week,well before it became general knowledge.I wouldn't be surprised if the UK has a considerable stock of vaccines but obviously isn't going to reveal this as it would lead to more brussels tantrums and cause potential ramifications for AZ.

It was common knowledge that the EU were probably going to tighten or stop exports to non-reciprocating countries, the Uk being one of those.

RobMc59 wrote: »

My criticism of Ireland is only because I believe they should have agreed a joint approach with the UK which would have been better for Ireland imo.

How chivalrous of you.
Nonetheless, your concern is misplaced IMO. In all likleihood, the RoI would not have been high up on the UK's delivery list especially given the hostility many UK cabinet members had towards us over the past few years when the Uk wasn't getting what it wanted.
Also bear in mind that the UK is paying more per dose than the EU. How much would the Uk have charged the RoI per dose, I wonder (especially since the last time we sought their help they made sure to make a profit from it).
Anyhow, haven't we the same percentage of fully vaccinated people as the UK?

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281
https://www.theweek.co.uk/951750/what-do-covid-vaccines-cost-who-pays-what

Dyr

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Yes, Ireland had the option and chose not to take it, same as most EU countries.
Nothing to do with "courage"

No, the vaccine rollout in Ireland is not detrimental. We right in line with other EU countries.

No, Ireland didn't buck any trend with the A16 debacle. The suggestion was quickly rolled back and Von Der Leyen has apologized for it.

Rob, you have a great way of ignoring information that disagrees with your narrative, and including and exaggerating events that are unrelated to the topic at hand.

It seems to be habit you've picked up too

The EC did not "suggest" that they were going to trigger Article 16, they made a decision to trigger it and annouced it as such.

Dyr

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How chivalrous of you.
Nonetheless, your concern is misplaced IMO. In all likleihood, the RoI would not have been high up on the UK's delivery list especially given the hostility many UK cabinet members had towards us over the past few years when the Uk wasn't getting what it wanted.
Also bear in mind that the UK is paying more per dose than the EU. How much would the Uk have charged the RoI per dose, I wonder (especially since the last time we sought their help they made sure to make a profit from it).
Anyhow, haven't we the same percentage of fully vaccinated people as the UK?

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281
https://www.theweek.co.uk/951750/what-do-covid-vaccines-cost-who-pays-what

On what planet does the cost per dose matter when you're economy is pissing billions down the drain every week? Obviously the same planet that EU live on because that was their focus instead of securing a supply, like the Brits, Americans and Israelis did.

It's fascinating to see how much people will twist and turn rather than just admit that Brext worked very well for the Brits in this instance.

ancapailldorcha

Bambi wrote: »

It's fascinating to see how much people will twist and turn rather than just admit that Brext worked very well for the Brits in this instance.

Perhaps instead of twisting and turning you could provide some evidence for this, specifically that if Brexit had not occurred then Britain would not have been able to roll out as much vaccine as it is.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Perhaps instead of twisting and turning you could provide some evidence for this, specifically that if Brexit had not occurred then Britain would not have been able to roll out as much vaccine as it is.

Why do you think the UK was able to buck the trend in comparison to the EU?
Whose strategy has been the most effective to date in your opinion?

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

Why do you think the UK was able to buck the trend in comparison to the EU?
Whose strategy has been the most effective to date in your opinion?

No evidence then? The UK was in a transition period and bound by EU law until January this year.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No evidence then? The UK was in a transition period and bound by EU law until January this year.

It does`nt require evidence.it`s common knowledge and your refusal or inability to reply with any credible answer speaks for itself.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

It does`nt require evidence.it`s common knowledge and your refusal or inability to reply with any credible answer speaks for itself.

Nothing to back it up then so. Ok.

Doctor Roast

Bambi wrote: »

On what planet does the cost per dose matter when you're economy is pissing billions down the drain every week? Obviously the same planet that EU live on because that was their focus instead of securing a supply, like the Brits, Americans and Israelis did.

It's fascinating to see how much people will twist and turn rather than just admit that Brext worked very well for the Brits in this instance.

Some of the same posters that have been on here for years denying the EU is headed for a superstate

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

It does`nt require evidence.it`s common knowledge and your refusal or inability to reply with any credible answer speaks for itself.

Its common knowledge that Brexit was the reason for the UK vaccination success?

Really? It should be pretty easy to prove so. Which aspect of Brexit was the most important part?

Tell me how

RobMc59 wrote: »

It does`nt require evidence.it`s common knowledge and your refusal or inability to reply with any credible answer speaks for itself.

Given your support for all things Brexit over the last couple of years, I think the only thing that is common knowledge is that you are going to back the UK over the EU no matter what.

The fact that you think something doesn't require evidence is quite telling.

Doctor Roast

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Perhaps instead of twisting and turning you could provide some evidence for this, specifically that if Brexit had not occurred then Britain would not have been able to roll out as much vaccine as it is.

Even Ursula herself admitted the UK was a speedboat, compared to the EU tanker.... And true to her and the EUs character she still tried to defend it...

RobMc59

Tell me how wrote: »

Given your support for all things Brexit over the last couple of years, I think the only thing that is common knowledge is that you are going to back the UK over the EU no matter what.

The fact that you think something doesn't require evidence is quite telling.

Anti UK posters lazily labelling any criticism of brussels as supporting brexit has been levelled at me many times over the years.I never voted for brexit and have consistently stated I opposed it on numerous occasions.
Regarding evidence of whose stratagy has been less than stellar,even the self proclaimed Dauphin admits it in this link.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-emmanuel-macron-says-the-eu-failed-to-shoot-for-the-stars-over-vaccine-rollouts-12256479

micosoft

RobMc59 wrote: »

Why do you think the UK was able to buck the trend in comparison to the EU?
Whose strategy has been the most effective to date in your opinion?

Boris Johnson already said it. Greed.

Whose strategy has been the most moral to date in your opinion?

RobMc59

micosoft wrote: »

Boris Johnson already said it. Greed.

Whose strategy has been the most moral to date in your opinion?

I hope johnson`s greed comments come back to haunt him.
Regarding whose strategy has been most moral,the UK securing a more watertight deal is`nt immoral.

Nqp15hhu

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. At least with the EU, we get our vaccines at the same time as the rest of the EU in proportion to our population. We'd be begging for the scraps off the UK's table and end up paying over the odds for it too.

What is your factual evidence of this?

Nqp15hhu

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Yes, Ireland had the option and chose not to take it, same as most EU countries.
Nothing to do with "courage"

No, the vaccine rollout in Ireland is not detrimental. We right in line with other EU countries.

No, Ireland didn't buck any trend with the A16 debacle. The suggestion was quickly rolled back and Von Der Leyen has apologized for it.

Rob, you have a great way of ignoring information that disagrees with your narrative, and including and exaggerating events that are unrelated to the topic at hand.

1. You're not part of Mainland Europe. Ireland is closer to and surrounded by the UK. So what is going on in the UK immediately has more of an impact on the Irish state than Romania as an example.

2. The UK (including Northern Ireland) is well ahead of the EU vaccine rate, at around 50% of the adult population inoculated with their 1st dose. Out of stubbornness would you rather be held well behind, rather than allign with the UK and have your population vaccinated much earlier?

The Raging Bile Duct

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

What is your factual evidence of this?

It's an opinion. I'm not writing a thesis...

Nqp15hhu

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

It's an opinion. I'm not writing a thesis...

Don't write gross lies about the United Kingdom if you're not prepared to provide facts to back it up.

It is a discussion forum, after all.

The Raging Bile Duct

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

1. You're not part of Mainland Europe. Ireland is closer to and surrounded by the UK. So what is going on in the UK immediately has more of an impact on the Irish state than Romania as an example.

2. The UK (including Northern Ireland) is well ahead of the EU vaccine rate, at around 50% for the 1st dose. Out of stubbornness would you rather be held well behind, rather than allign with the UK and have your population vaccinated much earlier?

Tbh, I'd rather follow what we're doing at the moment in terms of trying to fully vaccinate people as quick as we can rather than half vaccinate people and run the risk of having trouble when it comes to the second dose because of potential supply issues.