Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

sondagefaux

hahashake wrote: »

Fernand Keuleneer, Attorney at law, Brussels.

I can't share information pertinent to the discussion?

The guy who almost undermined a serious criminal trial this time last year by failing to disclose a conflict of interest?

The double role played by lawyer Fernand Keuleneer in the case surrounding the euthanasia of Tine Nys threatens to send the whole case to the Cassation court to be overturned, according to a leading judge.

Speaking to the VRT, judge Hans Rieder pointed out that Keuleneer’s double role in the case – he was representing some of the family of Nys in a case in which three doctors were accused of carrying out an improper process of euthanasia, while at the same time he had sat on the committee that ruled the euthanasia procedure correct – could lead to any judgement in the case before the high court in Ghent being overturned by the Cassation court.

...

To make matters worse, the fact that Keuleneer’s representation of a family in the case in which he is himself a party was only revealed once the trial was under way, whereas Keuleneer himself has known about his involvement since 2010. And it was revealed by a witness in the trial of the three doctors, and not by Keuleneer himself.

“If the accused are found guilty, then it is not impossible that this might be an argument for them to appeal to the higher court to contest the verdict, and to have the whole case judged anew,” Rieder said. “Even the referral of the case could be contested before the Cassation Court, because of the fact that the parties were unaware of the circumstances.”

https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/91426/lawyers-double-role-could-threaten-entire-euthanasia-trial-ghent-cassation-appeal-lawyer/

tubercolossus

hahashake wrote: »

Nah I'm fine. It speaks for itself.

Some random lawyer that no-one's heard of. It carries about the same weight as a Daily Mail article around here.

hahashake

He's prominent for more reasons that that. But regardless, he is versed in Belgian law, more than anyone here can say. Including myself.

sondagefaux

hahashake wrote: »

Pretty easy to Google that he is prominent, see above.

He was acting as the lawyer for a family in a case where three doctors had been accused of not following the correct legal procedures with regard to the euthanasia of their family member, Tine Neys, who had severe mental health issues

The doctors were on criminal trial for this allegation

During the trial, it emerged that he had been on an official committee which reviewed Tine Neys euthanasia case after complaints from the family, and had judged it to be compliant with the required procedures.

He failed to disclose this to the court, even though he'd known about it for years before the trial.

He was ordered to stand down as the family's lawyer for the trial.

He was also criticised by a judge who said that his failure to disclose these facts could have given the accused a basis to appeal if they were found guilty.

hahashake wrote: »

He's prominent for more reasons that that. But regardless, he is versed in Belgian law, more than anyone here can say. Including myself.

Yes, he's active in legal circles in Belgium and defended a Belgian cardinal who was accused of failing to act on allegations of child abuse.

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13972

The Wikipedia entry for the cardinal discusses in detail the cardinal's role in the "Vangheluwe affair and its aftermath".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfried_Danneels

peter kern

prawnsambo wrote: »

The issue may be that supplies for the UK contract were taken from production for the EU contract in the EU (Belgium specifically). We have only seen the EU contract, and that specifically states that no other contract will interfere with it. Also stating that EU locations will supply the EU contract. Now there may be clauses in the UK contract that state that it can be fulfilled from EU based production facilities, in which case, that would seem in contravention of the EU contract. I'm only reading between the lines here, but the OTT reaction would seem to indicate something of this sort.

i guess its the uk does not care where it comes from so its unlikely the uk would have made a contract that states vaccine can only be produced in the uk.
the uks appraoch seems to be more like israels get the vaccine quick regardless of cost and where from .

CelticRambler

I'm getting waves of nostalgia here - thinking back to the good ol' days when Brexit meant Brexit, and we kept the Brexit discussion to Brexit.

Any chance those of you who want to thrash out all the hypotheticals of the EU-AZ agreement can take it over to the AZ thread? Because other than the (now moot) point of invoking Art.16, the rest of this speculation is entirely irrelevant to Brexit.

sondagefaux

sondagefaux wrote: »

He was acting as the lawyer for a family in a case where three doctors had been accused of not following the correct legal procedures with regard to the euthanasia of their family member, Tine Neys, who had severe mental health issues

The doctors were on criminal trial for this allegation

During the trial, it emerged that he had been on an official committee which reviewed Tine Neys euthanasia case after complaints from the family, and had judged it to be compliant with the required procedures.

He failed to disclose this to the court, even though he'd known about it for years before the trial.

He was ordered to stand down as the family's lawyer for the trial.

He was also criticised by a judge who said that his failure to disclose these facts could have given the accused a basis to appeal if they were found guilty.

Play the ball not the man, so you can't attack his findings with respect to the EU - AstraZeneca dispute so you attack the man personally.
That is not a good argument.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What happened?

The Irish Daily Mail was campaigning for the HPV at the same time as the UK Daily Main was campaigning against it.

Fearmongering as usual.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm getting waves of nostalgia here - thinking back to the good ol' days when Brexit meant Brexit, and we kept the Brexit discussion to Brexit.

Any chance those of you who want to thrash out all the hypotheticals of the EU-AZ agreement can take it over to the AZ thread? Because other than the (now moot) point of invoking Art.16, the rest of this speculation is entirely irrelevant to Brexit.

The AZ agreement has implications for EU/UK relations bilaterally and for Article 16. Both of which are of profound importance to Brexit itself.

yagan

hahashake wrote: »

My point is, it seems the EU has acted rashly in this instance. I don't think that is a controversial opinion at this stage.

I'm still perplexed as to the fuss. The NHS had zero problem sending vaccines from GB to NI with the Irish sea customs border in place. The EU concern is with companies sending EU consignments out of the EU via NI, a very real and valid concern considering AstraZeneca's history.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The AZ agreement has implications for EU/UK relations bilaterally and for Article 16. Both of which are of profound importance to Brexit itself.

No more than any other public-private agreement, of which the EU enters into thousands upon thousands every year. Should we discuss the EU's use of, say Ernst & Young, as consultants on a particular project when they might also have a role in advising the UK government regarding a similar project? From my perspective, the EU's arrangement with AZ has absolutely no profound implications for Brexit whatsover. The only fly in that particular ointment is that the UK is not on the exempt list of third countries if/when the EU imposes an export ban on medicines or vaccines.

Eric Cartman

yagan wrote: »

I'm still perplexed as to the fuss. The NHS had zero problem sending vaccines from GB to NI with the Irish sea customs border in place. The EU concern is with companies sending EU consignments out of the EU via NI, a very real and valid concern considering AstraZeneca's history.

The EU got a 45% discount over what the uk themselves paid for it, if I was AZ id be telling the EU youre behind all the full price payers too.

prawnsambo

peter kern wrote: »

i guess its the uk does not care where it comes from so its unlikely the uk would have made a contract that states vaccine can only be produced in the uk.
the uks appraoch seems to be more like israels get the vaccine quick regardless of cost and where from .

Quite. Although there was a fair amount of jingoism going on at the time, including the suggestion that the vials be printed with the union jack because they were anticipating all supplies being manufactured in the UK. But either way, it comes back to AZ and their undertaking that no other contract would impact on their EU one. Not saying that that's what happened here, just part of the current speculation.

Seth Brundle

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The EU got a 45% discount over what the uk themselves paid for it, if I was AZ id be telling the EU youre behind all the full price payers too.

So you think that its ok to break a binding contract because someone else is willing to pay more?
Plus the UK made an agreement with AZ before the EU did which shows that the EU are better negotiators (but we know that already!)

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

Sorry, not doubting you, but where are you getting those figures from? And how are they defined? For example stock. Is stock counted at the warehouse, at distribution centres and/or at vaccination centres?

Sorry, I should have answered before. The latest figure published for vaccinations in the UK (first and second doses) is 8,369,000 so I rounded this up, the UK Government keeps warning about shortages so I have allowed for 10 million doses in stock which is sufficient for between 3 and 4 weeks usage and takes account of production shortages and the length of time stocks can be held. The UK factories are supposed to be producing 2 million doses per week now so over the period since they started production they will have made more than this and the opening stock is zero because the calculation is taken from the date of the first purchase.



The calculation includes both Pfizer and AstraZeneca so not only do I think that the balancing figure which is called "purchases" is overstated but this will include the purchases of the Pfizer vaccine which was the first to be used. That's the basis of my estimates which I left open in case people had any better information as to any of these figures (or to my formula) but it would lead me to think that any AstraZeneca purchases from outside the EU are less than 10 million doses and probably significantly below this.

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

Play the ball not the man, so you can't attack his findings with respect to the EU - AstraZeneca dispute so you attack the man personally.
That is not a good argument.

His ability as a lawyer is what's in question. The man is the ball.

The fact that he faiiled to disclose a very serious conflict of interest in a very serious criminal trial in which he represented family members of a woman whose case had already been deemed to have been properly conducted by a committee on which he sat, thus almost undermining the criminal trial and giving the accused grounds for appeal according to a Belgian judge, is relevant in assessing his capabilities as a lawyer.

So far I've seen no evidence that he's a good lawyer, as opposed to a prominent lawyer.

Feel free to do your own searches to help you evaluate his ability as a lawyer.

Eric Cartman

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So you think that its ok to break a binding contract because someone else is willing to pay more?
Plus the UK made an agreement with AZ before the EU did which shows that the EU are better negotiators (but we know that already!)

I dont think its ok to break an agreement, but most of the argument at the moment seems to be anxiety on the EU’s part about ‘but what if AZ break all these rules’ which in the end is only hurting the EU vaccine rollout, not really hurting AZ or the UK so I can see how AZ may be looking to prioritise other markets while the EU gets over its own unfounded fears

tubercolossus

https://afloat.ie/port-news/ferry-news/item/49191-operator-stena-line-furlough-quarter-of-dockers-at-holyhead-port-due-to-brexit-covid-hit

Stena Line furlough 25% of dockers at Holyhead due to a combination of Brexit & Covid.

Imreoir2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The EU got a 45% discount over what the uk themselves paid for it, if I was AZ id be telling the EU youre behind all the full price payers too.

Then you would be landing yourself with a doozy of a lawsuit that you could not win. Do you honestly think a company can sign a contract and then ignore its terms?

yagan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The EU got a 45% discount over what the uk themselves paid for it, if I was AZ id be telling the EU youre behind all the full price payers too.

First come first serve wasn't what was contracted. What was contracted was simply shipped to a higher bidder, which broke the contract and hence the warning shot to the pharma that auction shipments will be sanctioned.

Looking at AstraZeneca's history from a previous post they really do seem an extremely dubious outfit and the UK may yet find that their consignment may actually do more harm than good.

The UK placed political expediency over Pfizer's guidance regarding timing of the second dose, and it's very likely that it was the same political expediency that drove them to pay more for a drug untested in the over 65 age group.

Anyway this is a UK government whose response to fishing livelihoods being that at least British fish are happier for Brexit.

sondagefaux

More wonderful news from Brexit Britain. The UK government has decided to introduce new certification requirements for imported wine from 1st July. The requirements will mean that British wine importers, already struggling to import EU wines as a result of Brexit, will face more expensive and difficult regulation.

This will push up the cost of EU wines in Britain, which can't easily be replaced by wines from elswehere (not enough produced) and make it impossible to use Britain as a distribution hub for wines.

Daniel Lambert (Wines). @DanielLambert294
Then on Tuesday the government announced that, despite bitter opposition from 99.9% of the wine industry on a global basis, they propose to introduce Vi-1 from July 1st 2021 and apparently have the trades support. Yes folks more ****ing paperwork and lies from government!! 7/15

...

People will not know what a Vi-1 is,here is a short explanation.This document confirms the origin of a wine under lab conditions normally, & is an analysis of alcohol among other things. Its introduction would restrict the U.K. industry as a wine destination hub for ALL wine.8/15
...

So why on earth would the government be doing this and more importantly why has @victoriaprentis misrepresented both to the HOC and the HOL with the support from the industry she does not have. It’s a lie to say that the trade wants this and the red tape it brings. 9/15

...

To just confirm all wine already conforms to strict rules which are set out by the local authorities where it is made. The U.K. government has already forced producers in the EU to get REX numbers which confirms wine origins. 10/15
...

So now this government want wineries to confirm that their Bordeaux wine made in Bordeaux which has already undergone local certification, is certified again as Bordeaux and then lab tested to check its from Bordeaux. What a waste of fúcking time and money! 11/15

https://mobile.twitter.com/DanielLambert29/status/1355437505642975233

As usual, the certification requirements will mostly affect smaller business, will act as a non-tariff barrier to trade and will cost producers (€300 to €400 per certificate).

From the Wine Merchant Mag:

The requirement to use VI-1 forms will hit independents disproportionately hard, especially as specialist merchants typically over-index in European wines.

Speaking at a webinar for independent merchants, organised in partnership with The Wine Merchant, WSTA policy director Simon Stannard described the VI-1 system as “quite burdensome”.

He explained: “An exporter is required to undertake a suite of tests that accompany that shipment. We think those tests will cost around €300 or €400 a go, and we think there would be upwards of about a quarter of a million movements of these documents for goods coming from the EU to the UK.

“So it’s a huge burden on the exporters, but of course that burden simply passes on to the importer and any costs pass on to the consumer.”

He added: “These are not particularly useful forms. I think any wine producer from outside the EU will argue that these are a technical barrier to trade.

“Knowing the three types of acidity in a wine, two types of alcoholic content, the sulphite level, and having a lab test to confirm those details is not particularly helpful. It doesn’t particularly help traceability, but it does cost, and it does add bureaucracy.

“We’re quite worried that with the introduction of these rules, many small producers in mainland Europe will simply no longer want to send their goods to the UK.

“For those independent merchants for whom part of their USP is to get interesting stock from small producers, there’s a genuine risk that the supply might run out because they simply won’t want to spend €400 and go through the necessary hoop-jumping.

https://winemerchantmag.com/scrap-these-useless-vi-1-forms/

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Sorry, I should have answered before. The latest figure published for vaccinations in the UK (first and second doses) is 8,369,000 so I rounded this up, the UK Government keeps warning about shortages so I have allowed for 10 million doses in stock which is sufficient for between 3 and 4 weeks usage and takes account of production shortages and the length of time stocks can be held. The UK factories are supposed to be producing 2 million doses per week now so over the period since they started production they will have made more than this and the opening stock is zero because the calculation is taken from the date of the first purchase.

Ok, thanks. There are a lot of assumptions there though. Like 'shortages' could mean as you've defined it or could be shortfall between production rate and vaccination capability, or production rate and total population within a given time frame. Not sure about the production rate either. Vaccinations started on 8th December, but only hit 1 million by 3rd January. Just too many unknowns here imo.

McGiver

sondagefaux wrote:

More wonderful news from Brexit Britain. The UK government has decided to introduce new certification requirements for imported wine from 1st July. The requirements will mean that British wine importers, already struggling to import EU wines as a result of Brexit, will face more expensive and difficult regulation.

"EU is a protectionist bureaucratic racket, we need to leave to cut the red tape and unleash the Free Global Great British Trade"

Yeah suuuure.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm getting waves of nostalgia here - thinking back to the good ol' days when Brexit meant Brexit, and we kept the Brexit discussion to Brexit.

Any chance those of you who want to thrash out all the hypotheticals of the EU-AZ agreement can take it over to the AZ thread? Because other than the (now moot) point of invoking Art.16, the rest of this speculation is entirely irrelevant to Brexit.

Whats your take on comments attributed to Monsieur Barnier regarding this strategy by the EU being a mistake and his comments that the UK has come out on top in regards to fishing?

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whats your take on comments attributed to Monsieur Barnier regarding this strategy by the EU being a mistake and his comments that the UK has come out on top in regards to fishing?

I think we all agree that the Article 16 non-invocation was a mistake. As apparently does the Commission. As for his comments about fisheries, most reports consider he was being ironic. Saying Britain had regained "sovereignty over its waters" when fishermen can't actually sell their catch is a bit mischievous I would think.

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whats your take on comments attributed to Monsieur Barnier regarding this strategy by the EU being a mistake and his comments that the UK has come out on top in regards to fishing?

Have you not seen enough evidence by now from the British fishing industry that Brexit has been a disaster for it?

They can catch more fish? Not much bloody good if they can't sell them or only at a lower price.

sondagefaux

sondagefaux wrote: »

Have you not seen enough evidence by now from the British fishing industry that Brexit has been a disaster for it?

They can catch more fish? Not much bloody good if they can't sell them or only at a lower price.

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

As opposed to the Single Market of 450 million plus consumers?

There isn't enough demand in the domestic market; British people don't eat that much fish.

And what about the exporters of beef, pork, lamb, chicken and dairy products?

Are they all supposed to sell only to the domestic market?

How are the British going to eat all that food?

And isn't Brexit about Global Britain?

About selling British products to the world?

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

Except what they catch, the local market doesn't want - 70% was exported to the EU. Fishing worked while in the EU because the EU markets did want that catch and their catch was what the UK consumer wanted. That's come to an abrupt end now.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whats your take on comments attributed to Monsieur Barnier regarding this strategy by the EU being a mistake and his comments that the UK has come out on top in regards to fishing?

No take, at all, because I haven't seen, read or heard whatever he's said. My attention this week(end) has been mostly taken up by whether or not France will be enter a new lockdown in the coming week (answer: no ... not really, but the curfew's here to stay for a good while longer). Oh, and watching as Ireland gets put on Germany's no-fly list due to Covid mis-management.