Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

He went to Barbados in December,it is on his bucket list.

99% chance he caught it in hospital though.

McGiver

sondagefaux wrote: »

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.

Cheers so not the Council directly but a special body similar to the Council of the Ministers but with just a specific representative from each member state, not necessarily a minister or the prime minister.

So it's analogical to the Council approval just it's not Prime Ministers voting but someone from the member states governments. QMV is common even for Council votes.

McGiver

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.

I agree but do we know who actually drafted it? We can only speculate. By clerk I didn't mean a janitor I meant non political staff i.e. Employee of the Commission not the Commission itself. And of course it's possible that the political staff reviewing it could have overlooked or not realised the implications as well.

McGiver

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well if this is weakened, I'm all for it. Imagine that they could cough up another 9 million doses and get things running a week earlier just like that. "Best endeavours" must have been recalibrated for them.

Edit: Beaten to it.

So they just conjured up 30% more product from their sleeves?
Perhaps they checked all their cupboards and found the extra 9M doses they claimed they didn't have.

Important to note that 40M is still only 40% of the agreed volume.

Sounds all very dodgy if you ask me. They'd be sued if they tried this in the US.

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

I agree but do we know who actually drafted it? We can only speculate. By clerk I didn't mean a janitor I meant non political staff i.e. Employee of the Commission not the Commission itself. And of course it's possible that the political staff reviewing it could have overlooked or not realised the implications as well.

It looks like the entire regulations covering exports of vaccines were rushed and not thought through. Someone high up in the Commission had a rush of blood to the head and was not thinking calmly.

sondagefaux

McGiver wrote: »

Cheers so not the Council directly but a special body similar to the Council of the Ministers but with just a specific representative from each member state, not necessarily a minister or the prime minister.

So it's analogical to the Council approval just it's not Prime Ministers voting but someone from the member states governments. QMV is common even for Council votes.

Yes, a very good summary.

There is also an 'emergency' procedure set out in Article 8 of that Regulation, which allows the Commission to pass an implementing regulation and then gives the Committee a choice to repeal it after.

Based on media reports, this seems to be what the Commission was about to do before the Irish intervention.

Leonard Hofstadter

yagan wrote: »

We're not leaving a twelve week gap between Pfizer shots like the UK, we're already racking up our second shots while in the UK some vaccination centres are only reporting 50% take up.

I won't be surprised if the UK outbreak drags on long after others come down.

It is an absolute thundering disgrace what is going on in the UK. They're spacing things out to make it look like they're 'winning' the race to get people vaccinated and to allow life resume to some sort of normality.

It simply cannot be emphasised enough that what the Tory Government is doing has no scientific evidence whatsoever backing it. Not a scintilla. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

No studies have been done.

As someone who works in clinical trials for a living, I can tell you that the risks of blatantly ignoring the 21 days (or 28 days as we're doing) for the follow-up dose could result in the vaccine either not being effective (we don't know but it's possible that the level of antibodies will decrease at a much more rapid rate than had the vaccine been administered at the intervals the manufacturers have set), or worse, allow new mutations of the virus to circulate, and all the existing vaccines won't work as well against these new mutations - even for people who have had the vaccine administered correctly. I don't think I need to say any more about the knock-on consequences of that when you think of all the restrictions (which of course were absolutely and completely necessary) we've had, and all the negative consequences in terms of the economy and peoples' mental and physical health.

yagan wrote: »

The Pfizer results from Israel so far have been very encouraging. Overall on a global scale all proven vaccines, be they Chinese, Russian or elsewhere should be applied as soon as possible.

AstraZeneca's profit driven double dealing isn't new, but the UKs complicity has bloodied the waters with the EU. Expect the screws to turn tighter in the coming months.

It certainly sounds promising, but too many confounding factors for it to be fully conclusive. I'm not sure how many have received their second vaccine (and whether they've been done at the recommended follow-up interval), I believe while nearly 50% have received their first dose, it's a much, much lower percentage that have been fully vaccinated. I wouldn't be counting all my chickens before they've hatched on this one just yet. Also, whatever about the politics and Palestine, it's shocking how they're basically not vaccinating any Palestinians. I hope for the sake of the world that it's successful as like everyone else I can't wait for things to be re-opened and to get back to normal (once it's safe to do so of course).

yagan

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

It certainly sounds promising, but too many confounding factors for it to be fully conclusive. I'm not sure how many have received their second vaccine (and whether they've been done at the recommended follow-up interval), I believe while nearly 50% have received their first dose, it's a much, much lower percentage that have been fully vaccinated. I wouldn't be counting all my chickens before they've hatched on this one just yet. Also, whatever about the politics and Palestine, it's shocking how they're basically not vaccinating any Palestinians. I hope for the sake of the world that it's successful as like everyone else I can't wait for things to be re-opened and to get back to normal (once it's safe to do so of course).

With a conscripted standing army Israel are reportedly running a 24/7 vaccination program adhering to the Pfizer recommended three week interval.

I don't know what's happening regarding the palestinian territories.

sondagefaux

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

It is an absolute thundering disgrace what is going on in the UK. They're spacing things out to make it look like they're 'winning' the race to get people vaccinated and to allow life resume to some sort of normality.

It simply cannot be emphasised enough that what the Tory Government is doing has no scientific evidence whatsoever backing it. Not a scintilla. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

No studies have been done.

As someone who works in clinical trials for a living, I can tell you that the risks of blatantly ignoring the 21 days (or 28 days as we're doing) for the follow-up dose could result in the vaccine either not being effective (we don't know but it's possible that the level of antibodies will decrease at a much more rapid rate than had the vaccine been administered at the intervals the manufacturers have set), or worse, allow new mutations of the virus to circulate, and all the existing vaccines won't work as well against these new mutations - even for people who have had the vaccine administered correctly. I don't think I need to say any more about the knock-on consequences of that when you think of all the restrictions (which of course were absolutely and completely necessary) we've had, and all the negative consequences in terms of the economy and peoples' mental and physical health.



It certainly sounds promising, but too many confounding factors for it to be fully conclusive. I'm not sure how many have received their second vaccine (and whether they've been done at the recommended follow-up interval), I believe while nearly 50% have received their first dose, it's a much, much lower percentage that have been fully vaccinated. I wouldn't be counting all my chickens before they've hatched on this one just yet. Also, whatever about the politics and Palestine, it's shocking how they're basically not vaccinating any Palestinians. I hope for the sake of the world that it's successful as like everyone else I can't wait for things to be re-opened and to get back to normal (once it's safe to do so of course).

Israel had given both doses of vaccines to 19.98% of its population by Saturday.

The UK had given both doses of vaccines to about 1% of its population by Saturday.

Leonard Hofstadter

yagan wrote: »

With a conscripted standing army Israel are reportedly running a 24/7 vaccination program adhering to the Pfizer recommended three week interval.

I don't know what's happening regarding the palestinian territories.

Good to hear, massively increases the credibility of the Pfizer one as it will have been shown to work in the real world. But still, I'd adopt a wait and see approach until we have all the data.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Israel had given both doses of vaccines to 19.98% of its population by Saturday.

The UK had given both doses of vaccines to about 1% of its population by Saturday.

Again it's encouraging that they're up to 20% of all doses. With regards to the UK, they originally decided they would follow the science, but then decided to ignore it. I know of at least two people who are getting their second vaccine 12 weeks after their first one. I mean vaccines are not so precise that they have to be administered at exactly 21 days and at the exact same hour, minute and second (so the 28 days we're going for with the Pfizer one is not going to cause issues) but 12 weeks is absolutely taking the proverbial and there would be untold consequences.

Let's face it, this is the Tories quite literally playing politics with peoples' lives, they are so desperate for a Brexit 'win' that they are literally ignoring the science so they can be seen to be further along with their vaccination programme than the EU - when in fact for reasons I outlined in my previous post their actions could either not protect those who have been vaccinated or allow for new mutations of the virus to appear and thus reduce the efficacy of existing vaccines even for those who have been vaccinated properly.

I am shocked and extremely annoyed by the mainstream media and how little negative coverage they are giving. Let's not forget the raison d'etre of the mainstream media in a hyper partisan and fact-free era is that they are supposed to be interested in the facts and reporting the truth to their readers.

It is really misleading to be constantly talking about the percentages of people who got their first dose when we know that people only get proper protection when they have received their second dose. It's certainly important, but the way the media are portraying it, you'd believe if you didn't know better that once you got your first Covid vaccine you just have to wait for everyone else to get it and then life can go back to normal and we can do all the things we want to do once more. It most certainly does not work like that.

If the Tories' handling of this is a 'success', well I'd truly hate to see what failure looks like. Anyone I know in the scientific or medical community is just shaking their heads at what is going on in the UK at the moment. Sadly the general public doesn't seem to be aware and thinks the UK is doing much 'better' than we are, or other European countries, when nothing could be further from the truth. Had they vaccinated people properly, then they would be entitled to claim it - but then their advantage for the percentage of people who have had a Covid vaccine (as opposed to the proper dose at the correct interval) would be nowhere near as much as it is, and then that wouldn't be a 'Brexit dividend' now, would it?

I can't understand why SF and other parties in NI (except the DUP obviously) are so silent on this appalling ignorance of science, either, come to think of it.

McGiver

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

It is an absolute thundering disgrace what is going on in the UK. They're spacing things out to make it look like they're 'winning' the race to get people vaccinated and to allow life resume to some sort of normality.

It simply cannot be emphasised enough that what the Tory Government is doing has no scientific evidence whatsoever backing it. Not a scintilla. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

No studies have been done.

As someone who works in clinical trials for a living, I can tell you that the risks of blatantly ignoring the 21 days (or 28 days as we're doing) for the follow-up dose could result in the vaccine either not being effective (we don't know but it's possible that the level of antibodies will decrease at a much more rapid rate than had the vaccine been administered at the intervals the manufacturers have set), or worse, allow new mutations of the virus to circulate, and all the existing vaccines won't work as well against these new mutations - even for people who have had the vaccine administered correctly. I don't think I need to say any more about the knock-on consequences of that when you think of all the restrictions (which of course were absolutely and completely necessary) we've had, and all the negative consequences in terms of the economy and peoples' mental and physical health.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext
In the Lancet paper

The timing of priming and booster vaccine administration varied between studies. As protocol amendments to add a booster dose took place when the trials were underway, and owing to the time taken to manufacture and release a new batch of vaccine, doses could not be administered at a 4-week interval. 1459 (53·2%) of 2741 participants in COV002 in the LD/SD group received a second dose at least 12 weeks after the first (median 84 days, IQR 77—91) and only 22 (0·8%) received a second dose within 8 weeks of the first. The median interval between doses for the SD/SD group in COV002 was 69 days (50–86). Conversely, the majority of participants in COV003 in the SD/SD group (2493 [61·0%] of 4088) received a second dose within 6 weeks of the first (median 36 days, 32–58; appendix 1 p 11[/url]

COV002 was the UK trial. 53% had a median gap of 84 days. Plus low dose and standard dosing was mixed up.

And then further the authors claim:

In participants who received two standard doses, efficacy against primary symptomatic COVID-19 was consistent in both the UK (60·3% efficacy) and Brazil (64·2% efficacy), indicating these results are generalisable across two diverse settings with different timings for the booster dose (with most participants in the UK receiving the booster dose more than 12 weeks after the first dose and most participants in Brazil receiving their second dose within 6 weeks of the first). Exploratory subgroup analyses included at the request of reviewers and editors also showed no significant difference in efficacy estimates when comparing those with a short time window between doses (<6 weeks) and those with longer (≥6 weeks), although further detailed exploration of the timing of doses might be warranted.

reslfj

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, a clerk in the commission (they employ some 40k of them) ...

Th EU Commission has only about 33-34k employees including UvdL in Brussels - iirc.

Lars

fash

yagan wrote: »

The Pfizer results from Israel so far have been very encouraging. Overall on a global scale all proven vaccines, be they Chinese, Russian or elsewhere should be applied as soon as possible.

AstraZeneca's profit driven double dealing isn't new, but the UKs complicity has bloodied the waters with the EU. Expect the screws to turn tighter in the coming months.

.
Yes- certainly considering the UK has both export restrictions on covid medication and intentionally sought to get hold of vaccines ahead of and to the detriment of the EU, they need to learn the concept of quid pro quo.

Peregrinus

reslfj wrote: »

Th EU Commission has only about 33-34k employees including UvdL in Brussels - iirc.

Lars

Which is a little bit smaller than the workforce of Kent County Council and its maintained schools.

BonnieSituation

fash wrote: »

.
Yes- certainly considering the UK has both export restrictions on covid medication and intentionally sought to get hold of vaccines ahead of and to the detriment of the EU, they need to learn the concept of quid pro quo.

Would this be considered an example of plucky Britain getting one over the evil EU?

---

When this all blew up last week, it was clear that the commission knew something that they couldn't let on.

It's also clear that this will be twisted into anti-EU rhetoric. Today will be interesting I'm sure.

Peregrinus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's also clear that this will be twisted into anti-EU rhetoric.

Yes. To be fair, not without a bit of justification. But for domestic UK political reasons it will be massively overblown.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Today will be interesting I'm sure.

Not that interesting. There's a couple of overriding truths to bear in mind.

1. The UK isn't a member state. The EU is basically unbothered by the state of public opinion in third countries about the EU; it's at best a second-order issue for them. It's not as though a (re)accession application from the UK is a live possiblity, or anything like that.

2. This isn't really a Brexit issue. AstraZenica has, it seems, made contractual commitments to more doses of vaccine than, it turns out, it can deliver. And it may have entered into inconsistent contract terms with different counterparties about what is to happen in the event that it can't deliver all its commitments. In these circumstances, a row is pretty well inevitable. But it's not a row that's related to Brexit.

fash

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Would this be considered an example of plucky Britain getting one over the evil EU?.

Absolutely - but if the EU reciprocates - or had even done the same in advance- it's then "bullying and vindictive EU punishes Britain" and "we were right to leave" etc.

ambro25

Brexit consequence no.3477, 100% NTB example no.458, cut no.256/1000:

British patent attorneys cannot act before the German Patent Office anymore.

They can still act before the European Patent Office (Münich, The Hague (NL)). But they have now ceased to be authorized at national offices of (most, if not all) EU member states (including Ireland's own IPOI, I believe).

Reciprocally -for the sake of balance- EU27 attorneys have ceased to be authorized at the UKIPO.

The net result for users (IP owners-applicants) is typically Brexity: it's now more expensive and cumbersome to protect IP in both EU27 and the U.K. but only because it now costs extra to protect in the UK.

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Who cares about British media and public opinion, does anyone care about opinions in other third world European countries like Russia where we know everything is warped and distorted

This is a bit of an odd remark.

We are where we are precisely because of this imo. The septic tank that is the British Media drove through this enormous societal change without any degree of critical thinking about what it actually entails.

And us, in Ireland, with historical and current bonds and relationships have clearly not come away from this messy situation unscathed. We're in a situation where we're seeing producers having to find new routes to markets, where truck drivers are concerned about their roles, where groupage is not really a viable opportunity anymore, where entire industries have had to think on their feet in order to avoid ruin.

I think it's prudent if not a requirement to care about our nearest neighbour's most influential voices. Even if we disagree wholly with almost all of their rhetoric. They have enormous power over society, enormous.

ambro25

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Interesting I raised issue of patents on this thread few months back and was told European patents are not in Eu related, seems that was also a lie

European patents are not EU-related, it was not a lie.

There is a difference between the European patent system (international treaty, like WTO, NATO, etc) and national patent systems. But there is no difference between the European trademark and design system and national TM/design systems (because that one is properly EUropean, it is Directives-based, it is not an international treaty-based system like the European patent system).

British attorneys could work in all such contexts, including nationally in each EU member state, so long as the UK was in the EU (then under the WA) and their British professional qualification was recognized by other EU member states (in the specific case of my earlier post, Germany - but the same applies for all other EU member states, hence my comment about Ireland). Not since 1st January anymore: they can continue to work the European patent system, and their domestic IP system, but none of the others anymore.

Put simply, they have regained control of their national IP system (other EEA-based attorneys cannot act before the UKIPO anymore), they have lost access (completely so) to the EU27 market. Save for the European patent system, which is not 'EU'.

But given that a European patent, once granted, becomes a bundle of national (EU27, EEA, UK, Swiss, Turkish...) granted patent(s), they have also lost control of these national granted rights in the EU27 post-grant, they can only 'keep' (act for, manage, represent) the UK one.

I was commenting about this (inescapable) consequence of Brexit in these Brexit threads in 2015-2016 before the referendum. That's precisely why I left the UK in early 2018 (main professional reason, beside other more personal ones).

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

European patents are not EU-related, it was not a lie.

There is a difference between the European patent system (international treaty, like WTO, NATO, etc) and national patent systems. But there is no difference between the European trademark and design system and national TM/design systems (because that one is properly EUropean, it is Directives-based, it is not an international treaty-based system like the European patent system).

British attorneys could work in all such contexts, including nationally in each EU member state, so long as the UK was in the EU (then under the WA) and their British professional qualification was recognized by other EU member states (in the specific case of my earlier post, Germany - but the same applies for all other EU member states, hence my comment about Ireland). Not since 1st January anymore: they can continue to work the European patent system, and their domestic IP system, but none of the others anymore.

Put simply, they have regained control of their national IP system (other EEA-based attorneys cannot act before the UKIPO anymore), they have lost access (completely so) to EU27 market. Save for the European patent system, which is not 'EU'.

But given that a European patent, once granted, becomes a bundle of national (EU27, EEA, UK, Swiss, Turkish...) granted patent(s), they have also lost control of these national granted rights post-grant, save for the UK one.

I was commenting about this (inescapable) consequence of Brexit in these Brexit threads in 2015-2016 before the referendum. That's precisely why I left the UK in early 2018 (main professional reason, beside other more personal ones).

Seems like the British exams come with a good degree of prestige once passed. Can't see that being the case any longer.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems like the British exams come with a good degree of prestige once passed. Can't see that being the case any longer.

I think that they will maintain that professional prestige.

What they will lose, is professional (commercial) relevance and attractiveness over time.

McGiver

ambro25 wrote:

But given that a European patent, once granted, becomes a bundle of national (EU27, EEA, UK, Swiss, Turkish...) granted patent(s), they have also lost control of these national granted rights in the EU27 post-grant, they can only 'keep' (act for, manage, represent) the UK one.

Isn't some sort of central/common European Patent body and process overdue?

AFAIK the British didn't agree with it few years back or on the other hand pushed for it. I know they were involved but can't remember how (blocking vs pushing).

sondagefaux

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Would this be considered an example of plucky Britain getting one over the evil EU?

---

When this all blew up last week, it was clear that the commission knew something that they couldn't let on.

It's also clear that this will be twisted into anti-EU rhetoric. Today will be interesting I'm sure.

No need, EU's all good.

BIONTECH AND PFIZER have said they will ramp up their coronavirus vaccine deliveries to the European Union, pledging to send up to 75 million extra doses to the bloc in the spring.

“Pfizer and BioNTech continue to work toward increased deliveries beginning the week of February 15, ensuring we will supply the full quantity of vaccine doses in the first quarter we contractually committed to and up to an additional 75 million doses to the European Union in the second quarter,” they said in a statement.

https://www.thejournal.ie/biontech-pfizer-eu-75-million-vaccines-5341322-Feb2021/

That more than makes up for the shortfall in AstraZeneca vaccine doses.

The subtle hints from the EU Commission are bearing fruit rapidly.

Combined with the extra 9 million doses that'll be provided by AstraZeneca, the EU will receive 84 million more vaccine doses than it was going to get last week.

Hurrache

Apart from this being basically all meaningless slogans, but it's absolutely hysterical that they're rushing to get back into trading block, a union if you will, on the other side of the world and this being the day that many are celebrating the anniversary of leaving the EU.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1356203381862375431

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

And us, in Ireland, with historical and current bonds and relationships have clearly not come away from this messy situation unscathed. We're in a situation where we're seeing producers having to find new routes to markets, where truck drivers are concerned about their roles, where groupage is not really a viable opportunity anymore, where entire industries have had to think on their feet in order to avoid ruin.

The only reason "entire industries have had to think on their feet" is because they chose to believe the nonsense that Brexiter politicians spouted about frictionless borders and greatest trade deals ever. That has nothing to do with British public opinion and everything to do with Irish businesses/their owners being lazy.

Remember that, at one time, the rallying cry in England was "no deal is better than a bad deal." Well, no deal would have resulted in exactly the same challenges as hauliers are facing today. Subsequently, as the months passed, Johnson's Brexiter government repeatedly engaged in a ludicrous campaign of pretending that the EU would grant them the Greatest Trade Deal Ever (at the last minute, just wait for the blink, the EU always caves at the eleventh hour) but they were still prepared to walk away and go full WTO.

So there was no reason, none at all, for Irish business dependent on imports from or through the UK to suddenly find themselves needing to "think on their feet" in January 2021 and start looking for new routes to the Single Market. Just because the British media amplifies the lies and dissembling coming from the Johnson administration doesn't mean Irish voters should take it as Gospel, or make decisions about our relationship with, and role in, Europe based up on it.

View

Hurrache wrote: »

Apart from this being basically all meaningless slogans, but it's absolutely hysterical that they're rushing to get back into trading block, a union if you will, on the other side of the world and this being the day that many are celebrating the anniversary of leaving the EU.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1356203381862375431

Now, now, don’t be so negative.

Just think, when the U.K. will be “at the heart” of that FTA, all those Pacific rim countries will send their trade via the U.K. when they trade with each other in future. :-)

View

CelticRambler wrote: »

The only reason "entire industries have had to think on their feet" is because they chose to believe the nonsense that Brexiter politicians spouted about frictionless borders and greatest trade deals ever. That has nothing to do with British public opinion and everything to do with Irish businesses/their owners being lazy.

Remember that, at one time, the rallying cry in England was "no deal is better than a bad deal." Well, no deal would have resulted in exactly the same challenges as hauliers are facing today. Subsequently, as the months passed, Johnson's Brexiter government repeatedly engaged in a ludicrous campaign of pretending that the EU would grant them the Greatest Trade Deal Ever (at the last minute, just wait for the blink, the EU always caves at the eleventh hour) but they were still prepared to walk away and go full WTO.

So there was no reason, none at all, for Irish business dependent on imports from or through the UK to suddenly find themselves needing to "think on their feet" in January 2021 and start looking for new routes to the Single Market. Just because the British media amplifies the lies and dissembling coming from the Johnson administration doesn't mean Irish voters should take it as Gospel, or make decisions about our relationship with, and role in, Europe based up on it.

That’s correct. There was a huge reluctance by many businesses here to divert away from the U.K. and toward direct routes to/from the EU right up to and including the very last minute.The government should have been banging peoples’ heads about diverting away over the last few years.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. To be fair, not without a bit of justification. But for domestic UK political reasons it will be massively overblown.


Not that interesting. There's a couple of overriding truths to bear in mind.

1. The UK isn't a member state. The EU is basically unbothered by the state of public opinion in third countries about the EU; it's at best a second-order issue for them. It's not as though a (re)accession application from the UK is a live possiblity, or anything like that.

2. This isn't really a Brexit issue. AstraZenica has, it seems, made contractual commitments to more doses of vaccine than, it turns out, it can deliver. And it may have entered into inconsistent contract terms with different counterparties about what is to happen in the event that it can't deliver all its commitments. In these circumstances, a row is pretty well inevitable. But it's not a row that's related to Brexit.

I was mostly thinking in terms of our own anti-EU brigade...

BonnieSituation

fash wrote: »

Absolutely - but if the EU reciprocates - or had even done the same in advance- it's then "bullying and vindictive EU punishes Britain" and "we were right to leave" etc.

I can't imagine what it's like not to be able to think for myself.