Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

Apart from disrespecting Ireland,the Taoiseach,the UK and the gfa,also a massive no-no,threatening Phizer(which will incur the wrath of the fiercely protective US)all in one go I suppose they haven't threatened anyone...

It's touching the concern a Brexiter has for Ireland - I had pegged Brexiters for duplicitous hypocritical, perfidious and vicious bullies who threatened to starve Ireland, deny it medicine, started an anti Irish propaganda campaign - it does the heart good to find out I was wrong about you.

fly_agaric

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mairead McGuinness getting grilled on her role.
She really has to take a lot of the criticism here for our role...eye on the ball, this shouldn't be happening.

She's on the Commission of course but her role is afair nothing to do with trade at all, she was not involved in any Brexit negotiations, and she's also very new to the job. People have (possibly) been shot for less in this country, but I have (edit: idly) wondered if Hogan's absence from the Commission did not help us (or indeed the EU!) here...er perhaps I should not have posted that!:pac:

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Apart from disrespecting Ireland,the Taoiseach,the UK and the gfa,also a massive no-no,threatening Phizer(which will incur the wrath of the fiercely protective US)all in one go I suppose they haven't threatened anyone...

I wonder did you misspell Pfizer in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that it wasn't Pfizer, but AstraZeneca (An Anglo-Swedish company, not US), or maybe you just aren't fully au fait with the details in your rush to express fauxtrage at the EU.

RobMc59

prawnsambo wrote: »

I wonder did you misspell Pfizer in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that it wasn't Pfizer, but AstraZeneca (An Anglo-Swedish company, not US), or maybe you just aren't fully au fait with the details in your rush to express fauxtrage at the EU.

I apologised earlier for my mistake in the spelling of Pfizer and brussels threatened Pfizer as well as AstraZeneca.

yagan

RobMc59 wrote: »

I apologised earlier for my mistake in the spelling of Pfizer and brussels threatened Pfizer as well as AstraZeneca.

AstraZeneca didn't fulfill their contractual obligations and being put on notice isn't a threat, it's a consequence.

There's a lot of anger on the continent that this warning wasn't issued sooner. EU consignments being auctioned off to third parties has serious political ramifications, and has certainly set the UK apart as being part of the Covid problem rather than the solution.

sondagefaux

CelticRambler wrote: »

Please: Pfizer

disrespecting Ireland, - didn't happen
the Taoiseach, - didn't happen
the UK - didn't happen
and the gfa, - didn't happen

Show us the official EU announcement indicating what action had been decided and taken because I can't find anything other than reports of proposals that may or may not have been suggested as possibly an idea that someone might think about.

It's worth reading REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011 which sets out the procedures that must be used when the Commission is considering adoption of an implementing Regulation.

The normal procedures include discussion by a committee made up of representatives from each member state, obviously including Ireland, which can decide to block a proposed Regulation. The Committee votes using the EU's QMV rules.

There is an emergency procedure which can be used, although its use is permitted only in specified circumstances.

This is relevant because the proposed Regulation, which proposed to use Article 16 of the NI Protocol, would have had to be implemented using the procedures set out in REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011.

Here is the text of REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN

sondagefaux

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, a clerk in the commission (they employ some 40k of them) drafted the Commission proposal which was published. Nothing was activated or put into effect.

I believe the Council has to approve the Commission's proposal anyway

The procedures are set out here in REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN

Normally, a Committee made up of each member states representatives gets a vote, using EU QMV rules.

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

Apart from disrespecting Ireland,the Taoiseach,the UK and the gfa,also a massive no-no,threatening Phizer(which will incur the wrath of the fiercely protective US)all in one go I suppose they haven't threatened anyone...

Once again this nonsense that pharma companies are managed by innocent virgins...

A few posts back, you claimed that Pfizer was in league with the USA's FDA to prevent AstraZeneca from introducing a rival drug that would have competed with Pfizer products.

Now you're claiming the US will protect Pfizer from potential enforcement action by the EU if it breaches rules or contracts.

How do you explain these huge fines, over $4.7 billion in total, levied on Pfizer by US authorities then?

Top 5 Offense Groups (Groups Defined)
healthcare-related offenses $3,373,675,000
government-contracting-related offenses $1,161,001,892
safety-related offenses $104,004,655
competition-related offenses $63,466,568
environment-related offenses $4,582,054

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pfizer

The EU Commission has taken legal action against far bigger US companies than Pfizer.

I don't think a body which has slapped huge fines and penalties on the likes of Microsoft, Google, Apple etc is going to be worried about taking on a few pharma compamies which, however big they are in their field, are small fry compared to today's tech giants.

FrancieBrady

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's worth reading REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011 which sets out the procedures that must be used when the Commission is considering adoption of an implementing Regulation.

The normal procedures include discussion by a committee made up of representatives from each member state, obviously including Ireland, which can decide to block a proposed Regulation. The Committee votes using the EU's QMV rules.

There is an emergency procedure which can be used, although its use is permitted only in specified circumstances.

This is relevant because the proposed Regulation, which proposed to use Article 16 of the NI Protocol, would have had to be implemented using the procedures set out in REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011.

Here is the text of REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN

So McGuinness had a role here and hasn't seemed to have played it. She should have been raising the red flag far sooner?

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So McGuinness had a role here and hasn't seemed to have played it. She should have been raising the red flag far sooner?

Actually, it seems like the process never advanced far enough for her to get involved. The proposal died before it made any progress through the normal channels for implmentation.

MrMusician18

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, a clerk in the commission (they employ some 40k of them) drafted the Commission proposal which was published. Nothing was activated or put into effect.

I believe the Council has to approve the Commission's proposal anyway

To blame this fiasco on some low level functionary is an exercise in minimisation and is neither accurate nor does anyone any good.

This draft is likely to have had senior official approval by someone who a didn't realise how badly the protocol is working, how controversial the protocol is and how last resort art. 16 is. That's actually quite alarming that aspects of the treaty are poorly understood in the commission.

That said, I'm also not buying the faux outrage from the UK government and media either. They have threatened art. 16 use previously, and the home sec had threatened Ireland with cutting off imports too. While the Irish government should demand the highest standards from EU officials, the UK has been lobbing grenades into the UK-EU relationship for years now. They shouldn't be surprised if one gets kicked back. Hypocrites.

BlitzKrieg

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Actually, it seems like the process never advanced far enough for her to get involved. The proposal died before it made any progress through the normal channels for implmentation.

This is why I've been asking where the news broke originally they were implementing article 16. Cause its been reported like the EU crossed a line on par with the uk's internal market bill but there we had an actual bill that went through the commons.

sondagefaux

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In other good Brexit news, the UK govt has announced that it intends to apply for membership is CP TPP.

Good luck to them I say, I wish them well in their endeavours.

They'll need all that good luck and more.

From analysis of Brexit and post-Brexit trade deals.



The negative impact of Brexit far outweighs any positive impact that any potential trade agreements might bring.

Of the eleven countries in the CPTPP trade deal, the EU already has trade deals with seven, and is negotiating with two more (Australia and New Zealand).

Its negotiations with Malaysia are on hold because Malaysia doesn't want to accept the EU's proposals on environmentally-destructive palm oil production:

Orangutan numbers drop as much as 30 per cent in Malaysian palm oil estate forests

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/18/orangutan-numbers-drop-much-30-per-cent-malaysian-palm-oil-estate/

Malaysia and Indonesia to take EU palm oil ban to WTO Mahathir tells industry forum 'we must not hesitate to take countermeasures'

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade/Malaysia-and-Indonesia-to-take-EU-palm-oil-ban-to-WTO

As for the eleventh country, Brunei has a population of about 435,00 people, smaller than the population living in the Bristol city council area...

sondagefaux

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So McGuinness had a role here and hasn't seemed to have played it. She should have been raising the red flag far sooner?

These Committees aren't made up of Commissioners.

The proposal never even got to Committee stage.

FrancieBrady

sondagefaux wrote: »

These Committees aren't made up of Commissioners.

The proposal never even got to Committee stage.

Was the story that the text of it appeared on the EU website and was taken down a lie then?

How would it have been published if the Commission hadn't approved it?

Spanish Eyes

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mairead McGuinness getting grilled on her role.
She really has to take a lot of the criticism here for our role...eye on the ball, this shouldn't be happening.

Yes, she came across as being a bit rattled alright, wasn't her usual motormouth self.

The optics of this is awful for the EU, you'd want to read some of the comments from the Brexiteers, maybe you already have.

But hopefully it will all blow over and we will get our quota before 2022. :P

sondagefaux

SNIP. Please do not dump links and snappy comments here.

sondagefaux

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was the story that the text of it appeared on the EU website and was taken down a lie then?

How would it have been published if the Commission hadn't approved it?

No. It was a draft proposal that was published. Bills are published before they are debated or enacted.

A Bill only becomes an Act if the Oireachtas approves it and once it's been published in Ireland's official journal, Iris Oifigiúil.

A draft proposal only becomes law if the required procedures are completed and once it's been published in the EU's Official Journal.

This draft proposal was never published in the EU's Official Journal.

Legally, it had a similar status to a published Bill, a proposal, not an actual law in force.

I propose you give me €10 billion...

Unfortunately, my proposal is not a legally-enforceable contract...

FrancieBrady

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Yes, she came across as being a bit rattled alright, wasn't her usual motormouth self.

The optics of this is awful for the EU, you'd want to read some of the comments from the Brexiteers, maybe you already have.

But hopefully it will all blow over and we will get our quota before 2022. :P

I genuinely and sincerely couldn't care less what Brexiteers have to say. They are out, and deserve no more consideration from me tbh.

Imreoir2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Yes, she came across as being a bit rattled alright, wasn't her usual motormouth self.

The optics of this is awful for the EU, you'd want to read some of the comments from the Brexiteers, maybe you already have.

But hopefully it will all blow over and we will get our quota before 2022. :P

It's already blown over. It's not happening.
The Brexiters can foam at the mouth all they like, it's hardily of any importance to us what they think.

Spanish Eyes

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's already blown over. It's not happening.
The Brexiters can foam at the mouth all they like, it's hardily of any importance to us what they think.

But it very nearly did. EU is weakened by this, and the vaccine rollout too. That is why there is gloating by the Brexiteers, and who could blame them now.

EU did not perform well at all. But having said that I am an EU supporter, and hopefully always will be. But they need to be called out when they fk up too. Which they did.

Where are our vaccines

tubercolossus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I apologised earlier for my mistake in the spelling of Pfizer and brussels threatened Pfizer as well as AstraZeneca.

What about your subsequent misspelling of 'Lipitor'?

Only mentioning it because you claimed insider knowledge of the pharma industry.

MrMusician18

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But it very nearly did. EU is weakened by this, and the vaccine rollout too. That is why there is gloating by the Brexiteers, and who could blame them now.

EU did not perform well at all. But having said that I am an EU supporter, and hopefully always will be. But they need to be called out when they fk up too. Which they did.

Where are our vaccines

I agree with the above, you can fully expect those who hate the EU institutions to crow about a failure of the institutions. Who cares what they think though, they are an irrelevance to EU citizens now, they are out. As english speakers that consume British media, we need to remember that especially.

That said, this vaccine nonsense has been going on for over a week and there hasn't been a satisfactory answer for EU citizens on why AZ have been unable to procure EU vaccine from its UK plants. This is really quite incredible, for one, it does how powerful the pharma companies are and two, shows how non transparent this process has been. Post pandemic, there needs to be painful consequences for AZ.

RobMc59

tubercolossus wrote: »

What about your subsequent misspelling of 'Lipitor'?

Only mentioning it because you claimed insider knowledge of the pharma industry.

I have worked at a number of pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers over the years. If my spelling of some of the company or product names isn't quite correct I don't think that means I made it all up to try and get one over on you tuber or anyone else.

tubercolossus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I have worked at a number of pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers over the years. If my spelling of some of the company or product names isn't quite correct I don't think that means I made it all up to try and get one over on you tuber or anyone else.

fair enough.

sondagefaux

tubercolossus wrote: »

What about your subsequent misspelling of 'Lipitor'?

Only mentioning it because you claimed insider knowledge of the pharma industry.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I have worked at a number of pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers over the years. If my spelling of some of the company or product names isn't quite correct I don't think that means I made it all up to try and get one over on you tuber or anyone else.

The brother-in-law used to work in the Pfizer warehouse.

Great with a forklift, not so great at the spelling...;)

Not sure why we haven't had the name of this French pharma company yet.

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/biotech-pharma-companies-ireland

Unless it's a secret!

yagan

MrMusician18 wrote: »

To blame this fiasco on some low level functionary is an exercise in minimisation and is neither accurate nor does anyone any good.

This draft is likely to have had senior official approval by someone who a didn't realise how badly the protocol is working, how controversial the protocol is and how last resort art. 16 is. That's actually quite alarming that aspects of the treaty are poorly understood in the commission.

That said, I'm also not buying the faux outrage from the UK government and media either. They have threatened art. 16 use previously, and the home sec had threatened Ireland with cutting off imports too. While the Irish government should demand the highest standards from EU officials, the UK has been lobbing grenades into the UK-EU relationship for years now. They shouldn't be surprised if one gets kicked back. Hypocrites.

The reaction from the British side is in proportion to their duplicity in knowing they were taking our consignments.

As for Micheal Martin he's simply not at the races. He actually stood up in the Dail recently insisting that there was no bank bailout, then he had to correct his comments to reflect the Dail record from the last time Fianna Fail led a government.

There's actually a lot of support for instigating Article 16, it's just Fianna Fail simply don't understand it's a protective measure. They're like cats that jump when they encounter a cucumber.

sondagefaux

Ah now lads, this wouldn't be the official UK government website telling people that there are export restrictions and bans on medicines, including ones used to treat Covid-19 symptoms?

The government has restricted the export and hoarding of some medicines.

The restrictions apply to the exporting of medicines placed on the market in the UK for UK patients.

Hoarding of medicines is when wholesale dealers withhold a medicine when it’s in short supply.

Exporting and hoarding of medicines can create or worsen medicine shortages.

This guidance will still apply once the transition period has ended.

The restricted medicines list is reviewed and updated regularly. It is your responsibility to check it before exporting medicines.

From 1 January 2021 you may no longer be able to export branded medicines that have been placed on the UK market to countries in the European Economic Area (EEA).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/parallel-export-and-hoarding-of-restricted-medicines

CelticRambler

sondagefaux wrote: »

Ah now lads, this wouldn't be the official UK government website telling people that there are export restrictions and bans on medicines, including ones used to treat Covid-19 symptoms?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/parallel-export-and-hoarding-of-restricted-medicines

The list itself

Remember, the next time buy a box of ibuprofen or paracetamol in Newry and bring it back to the Republic, you may be engaging in illegal activity (and definitely are if you're distributing boxes of it from your centralised warehouse in GB to your supermarket shelves in the RoI.

Also banned: contraceptive pills, bog-standard antibiotics, antacids and simple salt solutions. Bare-faced protectionism from the UK Government, but hey, let's all jump on the EU talking about applying export controls to very specific medicinal products.

FrancieBrady

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But it very nearly did. EU is weakened by this, and the vaccine rollout too. That is why there is gloating by the Brexiteers, and who could blame them now.

EU did not perform well at all. But having said that I am an EU supporter, and hopefully always will be. But they need to be called out when they fk up too. Which they did.

Where are our vaccines

'Weakened'...how?

Touch of the over exaggeration there.