Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

tubercolossus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whether its procurement or rollout the EU'S performance is woeful. This link to euronews details how slow the rollout is.

"COVID-19 vaccine: What are the real reasons behind the EU's slow rollout? | Euronews" https://www.euronews.com/amp/2021/01/29/why-has-the-eu-s-coronavirus-vaccine-rollout-been-so-slow

My God, you are such a bluffer. Did you think I wouldn't read the article? It clearly states, or rather re-states, the reasons behind the EU's slower procurement of vaccines, many of them unavoidable or laudable (ensuring no liability, 27 different nations to please, more regulation) and also clearly states that many countries' vaccine rollouts were unsatisfactory and came in for criticism.

tubercolossus

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU strategy over vaccine procurement was unwieldy and slow which has had implications on vaccine rollout imo.

The key word here being the last one, or rather three.

In. My. Opinion.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU strategy over vaccine procurement was unwieldy and slow which has had implications on vaccine rollout imo.

The UK strategy over PPE procurement, protection of healthcare workers, dealing with travel, lockdowns and overall deaeths was unwieldy and slow and has implications for the impact of Covid.

Why do you fail to mention this everytime you mention the vaccine rollout.

What is noticeable is the VdL has already been taken to task over the delays and the mistakes. In the UK, apparently it is too soon to have any sort of investigation or review of how the government has handled it because, democracy I suppose

And once again, what has it got to do with Brexit?

You claim to hate brexit. What do you hate about it?

tubercolossus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Whether you consider him to be right or wrong, he is offering a different perspective on Brexit. And he is doing that despite dismissive and denigrating comments at times. I commend him for that.

I actually thought you were being sarcastic.

Strazdas

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU strategy over vaccine procurement was unwieldy and slow which has had implications on vaccine rollout imo.

Von der Leyen actually admitted all this in her speech on Wednesday. Roll out way too slow, Commission over promised supplies to member states, were too confident etc.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Oh come on, Rob. You've thrashed this particular dead horse into a well-tenderised lasagne at this stage, without recycling last month's news (and a poor quality article at that, which - as pointt previously - confuses "doses administered" with "full courses completed" to make the UK look better.)

Yes,the UK has followed its own strategy of administering as many first doses as possible and the plan to administer second doses by up to twelve weeks has been backed up by the WHO.
I don't like anything about brexit and would agree it's response to covid has been awful but the UK's approach to vaccines, whether its procurement or rollout has been very good.
Regarding the £350 million savings on the side of Johnson's bus,I think he should have been barred from office over it as its clearly lies.

Professor Moriarty

tubercolossus wrote: »

I actually thought you were being sarcastic.

No, I wasn't.

tubercolossus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, I wasn't.

Yes, I see that.

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

I was thinking the other way round. Any games on the sea border in Belfast/Larne will cause a few 'problems' on the French side. The French can be quite creative.

It is very unlikely that the EU will introduce any unnecessary measures at the GB-NI-RoI borders.

If Britain refuses to behave, the 'fight' will be between England and the EU26 - for example in Dover. This is where most of the trade passes, and where it will have the best chance of 'sobering' the minds of Westminster.

Lars

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Is that any worse than you, as a British taxpayer, funding Serco's Indian track-and-trace sub-contractors? Or handing millions here and billons there to Cayman Islands domiciled PPE non-suppliers?

Unfortunately that's how the elites in power roll.
They like to spend the money then the workers have to pay for it on the never never when the bill arrives. Whilst the elites sail off into the sunset.

reslfj

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You missed the point of my post, the French on their side could put a blind eye on illegal migrants leaving France for UK, on uk side this truck would just be waved thru despite taking back control of borders rhetoric

The EU plays by the rules!

But the UK must too.
Otherwise it will not be unofficial demonstrations in Calais, but freezing EU-UK negotiation tables in Brussels that will hit the UK.

The French has for years allowed refugee checks in Calais. Nobody will allow refugees in trucks.

Lars

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Yet here you are day in and out making excuses defending said homegrown UK “elites”, now that Brexit has happened they try blame EU for all their mistakes but it’s rather obvious the emperor has no clothes.

Maybe the problem with UK was never the EU but a dysfunctional fundamentally undemocratic system that’s been rotting for decades as it was forced to shed its empire

You are confusing my trying to defend my country as defending 'elites'.I don't like brexit or the tories and agree the UK political system needs an overhaul from top to bottom. People shouldn't have political power just because of their 'privileged' background .Johnson is a prime example of this.

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Well maybe the EU should send a warning to London that these agents would instead be needed to deal with Brexit related paperwork

There is no benefit to the EU in being seen to allow easier migration across the Channel. The subject of illegal migrants is touchy enough in most EU member states without complicating it by linking it to Brexit.

What the EU would very much like would be a firm commitment by the UK to (re)align itself with SPS rules and regulations, and rules-of-origin. So issuing instructions to all border control points across the Union to increase checks on British imports from 1-in-1000 to 1-in-500 (on the basis of reasonable suspicion of non-compliance) would have a considerably greater impact on the UK than a few dinghies worth of Somali refugees.

I think we saw the opening shots of that battle in Šefčovič's letter the other day. Sort out SPS and RoO and most of the NI problem goes away instantly. Sort out SPS and RoO and most of the impact on the EU goes away too.

reslfj

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Well maybe the EU should send a warning to London that these agents would instead be needed to deal with Brexit related paperwork

Do you know that this will be the same people ? I don't.

The UK has left the EU and has slower and less access to the Europol/Schengen databases. It's 100% a UK problem.

Lars

Liberalbrehon

I wonder if Johnson et al. will go feck it and just rush to try and create a new Global deregulated free trade economic zone. Sell whatever you want to us and us to you, caveat emptor, bring back the good ole days of the 1820's. This is their dream, isn't it? Would be completely delusional.
UK will be dropping down from 5th largest economy in the world to 10th and further on current trends over next number of years.

johnnyskeleton

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whether its procurement or rollout the EU'S performance is woeful. This link to euronews details how slow the rollout is.

"COVID-19 vaccine: What are the real reasons behind the EU's slow rollout? | Euronews" https://www.euronews.com/amp/2021/01/29/why-has-the-eu-s-coronavirus-vaccine-rollout-been-so-slow

From that article it seems that the EUs approval was not emergency use and so if there is a problem the production company is liable, as opposed to governments indemnifying them.

Also EU is paying less than the UK.

So it isnt that the UK simply better, theyre quicker. Time will tell whether:
A) the quicker rollout actually prevents deaths;
there are significant side effects of the vaccine that need to be compensated for; and
C) whether the extra few months speed that the UK has adopted will allow them to come out of lockdown any quicker - they still have very high daily numbers for all the vaccines that theyve administered.

Lemming

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There can't be positives from it, despite what many Brexit supporters claim. That's why JRM reckons that the benefits will take 50 years to realise.

But the benefits have already started to materialise five weeks into the sunny uplands of Brexit, never mind fifty years; just not for UK PLC. That's the problem with abdicating all responsibility to faith in market forces - sometimes those self-same lauded forces come up with their own solutions to the problems that you create and those solutions are not to your liking or benefit. At all. In this case, companies decamping in part or total out of the UK to the benefit of EU member states instead of the UK.

RobMc59 wrote: »

but the UK's approach to vaccines, whether its procurement or rollout has been very good.

I'll correct you there Rob; the UK government approach has been haphazard at best, prone to awful gambles (most of which have resulted in appalling death statistics), and thus far their current gamble appears to be looking like it may pan out very well. A lot can still go wrong between the pace of rollout, any side-effects that may start to manifest as more and more people are vaccinated, and of course the elephant in the room being however many new virus variants that UK PLC is able to breed/import/export due to inept, democidal mismanagement of the pandemic.

Brexit and the British government haven't caused more vaccines to be produced. Their contract with AZ just means they get priority. It's not some good, it's just a transfer of life-saving vaccines.

Padre_Pio

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

From that article it seems that the EUs approval was not emergency use and so if there is a problem the production company is liable, as opposed to governments indemnifying them.

Also EU is paying less than the UK.

So it isnt that the UK simply better, theyre quicker. Time will tell whether:
A) the quicker rollout actually prevents deaths;
there are significant side effects of the vaccine that need to be compensated for; and
C) whether the extra few months speed that the UK has adopted will allow them to come out of lockdown any quicker - they still have very high daily numbers for all the vaccines that theyve administered.

That is the main point.

I presume the UK govt is on the hook for any compensation payouts since they pushed the vaccines through early, unlike in EU where manufacturers are on the hook.

There's no limit to the amount of money the givt could be forced to pay in compensation if things go tits up.

RobMc59

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

From that article it seems that the EUs approval was not emergency use and so if there is a problem the production company is liable, as opposed to governments indemnifying them.

Also EU is paying less than the UK.

So it isnt that the UK simply better, theyre quicker. Time will tell whether:
A) the quicker rollout actually prevents deaths;
there are significant side effects of the vaccine that need to be compensated for; and
C) whether the extra few months speed that the UK has adopted will allow them to come out of lockdown any quicker - they still have very high daily numbers for all the vaccines that theyve administered.

After scrutinising available data the EU has approved a number of vaccines without any recommendations regarding negative effectiveness. The WHO has done the same which suggests that the UK strategy is correct

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

After scrutinising available data the EU has approved a number of vaccines without any recommendations regarding negative effectiveness. The WHO has done the same which suggests that the UK strategy is correct

Yes, but the Uk did not know this at the time, the data wasn't conclusive enough at the time.

I can't understand why you cannot appreciate that this was a gamble, a gamble that appears to be paying off and that is good for everyone.

I'm glad they did it, it gave the test cases to complete the data set so that we can all feel more confident in the vaccine, but I fully understand why the EU wanted to take the required time.

Seth Brundle

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but the Uk did not know this at the time, the data wasn't conclusive enough at the time.

I can't understand why you cannot appreciate that this was a gamble, a gamble that appears to be paying off and that is good for everyone.

I'm glad they did it, it gave the test cases to complete the data set so that we can all feel more confident in the vaccine, but I fully understand why the EU wanted to take the required time.

It was two gambles if I'm not mistaken - the first when they approved it without all the information about it and the second when the increased the recommended interval to between nine and twelve weeks.
As you say, it now looks to be paying off but it could have proven very costly in terms of lives lost.

Junkyard Tom

A little bit of sanity emerging from Brexitland? It would really take the heat out of things in the north.

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1360170529320296450?s=20

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

After scrutinising available data the EU has approved a number of vaccines without any recommendations regarding negative effectiveness. The WHO has done the same which suggests that the UK strategy is correct

Seth Brundle wrote: »

As you say, it now looks to be paying off but it could have proven very costly in terms of lives lost.

There is, as yet no data to suggest that any vaccination strategy has been either correct or life saving in the long term - because we haven't even entered the medium term yet.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has watched way too much Hollywood science. The real test will come later this year, and probably throughout next year, as delayed side-effects become apparent, the most potentially serious of which will be exaggerated immune reactions to newer mutations - Covid ++ if you like.

And (yet again) it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit ... except that if the need arises, the EU can shut out travellers from GB in the name of public safety (or reject "vaccination certificates" issued by the British government).

RobMc59

After workers at the Airbus facility at Broughton voted to accept a shorter working week to safeguard jobs it was great to see the very impressive Beluga passing overhead today towards Chester,probably to pick up another set of wings.

View

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A little bit of sanity emerging from Brexitland? It would really take the heat out of things in the north.

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1360170529320296450?s=20

Brexit means Brexit.

It isn’t the responsibility of the EU countries to aid Brexiters in pursuing their fantasy.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

After workers at the Airbus facility at Broughton voted to accept a shorter working week to safeguard jobs it was great to see the very impressive Beluga passing overhead today towards Chester,probably to pick up another set of wings.

Can you expand what you are trying to point out here?

tubercolossus

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit and the British government haven't caused more vaccines to be produced. Their contract with AZ just means they get priority. It's not some good, it's just a transfer of life-saving vaccines.

My impression is that this is not the case. The EU's contract stated that AZ had to take 'all reasonable efforts' to ensure delivery, including delivery from all four factories (2 in EU, 2 in UK). They also had a similar contract with the UK, and when things went tits up instead of letting both down but on a pro rata basis they favoured the UK instead, on a first come first served basis. Which prompted the comment from some Eurocrat about it not being like going to the butchers'.

It remains to be seen what steps the EU will take with regard to AZ, but I suspect it won't be pleasant for them.

breezy1985

Hurrache wrote: »

I think at this point Rob is only trying to convince himself about Brexit.

People of his mindset were sure a few years ago that Brexit would be the catalyst for us to all wake up and vote Irexit and are now left clinging in desperate hope to their shattered beliefs

RobMc59

Enzokk wrote: »

Can you expand what you are trying to point out here?

Not much to cheer a person up at the moment Enzokk,probably the same for everyone. Although its nice to see despite differences over brexit there are still examples of cooperation for the good of all in Europe whether in the EU or not.

breezy1985

RobMc59 wrote: »

After workers at the Airbus facility at Broughton voted to accept a shorter working week to safeguard jobs it was great to see the very impressive Beluga passing overhead today towards Chester,probably to pick up another set of wings.

Are you cheering on the fact that workers were so desperate that they had give up full time jobs just to scrape by ?

RobMc59

breezy1985 wrote: »

People of his mindset were sure a few years ago that Brexit would be the catalyst for us to all wake up and vote Irexit and are now left clinging in desperate hope to their shattered beliefs

I recently had to look up the meaning of Irexit when I first read it on boards within the last six months..

schmoo2k

breezy1985 wrote: »

People of his mindset were sure a few years ago that Brexit would be the catalyst for us to all wake up and vote Irexit and are now left clinging in desperate hope to their shattered beliefs

Yea its quite interesting to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E889PD0nGQE&lc=UgwpQU-JRI2f5r8WhDF4AaABAg.9Jd-THK63ig9JeOgMP1Swk

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

I recently had to look up the meaning of Irexit when I first read it on boards within the last six months..

Whether Irexit gains traction or disappears without trace depends on where the UK is in a decade's time, most definitely not the immediate future.

RobMc59

breezy1985 wrote: »

Are you cheering on the fact that workers were so desperate that they had give up full time jobs just to scrape by ?

As this appears to be right across airbus I don't see why you would ridicule their decision

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Whether Irexit gains traction or disappears without trace depends on where the UK is in a decade's time, most definitely not the immediate future.

I cannot see it ever gaining traction. A country of only 5m deciding to leave the EU, SMCU and the Eurozone to 'go it alone' would be absolutely bonkers, even more nutty than the Brexit decision. A country and economy of Ireland's size would be decimated by the negative impacts.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

As this appears to be right across airbus I don't see why you would ridicule their decision

He isn't. He's questioning why you see the fact they have to lose a portion of their income to save their jobs as a positive.

View

Strazdas wrote: »

I cannot see it ever gaining traction. A country of only 5m deciding to leave the EU, SMCU and the Eurozone to 'go it alone' would be absolutely bonkers, even more nutty than the Brexit decision. A country and economy of Ireland's size would be decimated by the negative impacts.

That is basically what Ireland decided to do approx a hundred+ years ago when we were gung-ho to leave the U.K. & the Empire and become an isolated agrarian society.

Unsurprisingly the parts of Ireland - ie the NE - that were more industrial/less agrarian were hostile to that idea.

Never underestimate the possibility of a bonkers idea gaining traction.

tubercolossus

View wrote: »

That is basically what Ireland decided to do approx a hundred+ years ago when we were gung-ho to leave the U.K. & the Empire and become an isolated agrarian society.

Unsurprisingly the parts of Ireland - ie the NE - that were more industrial/less agrarian were hostile to that idea.

Never underestimate the possibility of a bonkers idea gaining traction.

Equating a country gaining its independence from a colonial ruler with leaving the EU is the sort of nonsense Anne Widdicombe and her ilk peddled in the European Parliament.

Professor Moriarty

tubercolossus wrote: »

Equating a country gaining its independence from a colonial ruler with leaving the EU is the sort of nonsense Anne Widdicombe and her ilk peddled in the European Parliament.

It's worse than that. She equated it with slavery. Which was ironic considering Britain's history.

BonnieSituation

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That is the main point.

I presume the UK govt is on the hook for any compensation payouts since they pushed the vaccines through early, unlike in EU where manufacturers are on the hook.

There's no limit to the amount of money the givt could be forced to pay in compensation if things go tits up.

I thought there was no magic money tree?

What are the bets it will have to be paid out under a Labour Govt, thus rehabilitating the Tories again...

breezy1985

schmoo2k wrote: »

Yea its quite interesting to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E889PD0nGQE&lc=UgwpQU-JRI2f5r8WhDF4AaABAg.9Jd-THK63ig9JeOgMP1Swk

The paraphernalia behind him would suggest he is very neutral on the subject of Brexit

breezy1985

RobMc59 wrote: »

As this appears to be right across airbus I don't see why you would ridicule their decision

The right decision for the bosses not the worker. You really are a proper Tory aren't you.

And I can't believe someone as opinionated and vocal as you on this thread has never heard of Irexit. I would be ashamed to come on here and comment if I knew that little about Brexit and the surrounding politics

BonnieSituation

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A little bit of sanity emerging from Brexitland? It would really take the heat out of things in the north.

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1360170529320296450?s=20

And once these talks complete I wager that we will be told how mighty Britannia extracted concessions and as such the merry-go-round continues.

It's exhausting.

breezy1985

View wrote: »

That is basically what Ireland decided to do approx a hundred+ years ago when we were gung-ho to leave the U.K. & the Empire and become an isolated agrarian society.

Unsurprisingly the parts of Ireland - ie the NE - that were more industrial/less agrarian were hostile to that idea.

Never underestimate the possibility of a bonkers idea gaining traction.

The EU is a group we can join or leave at will and have been mostly beneficial. The UK forced itself on us and turned the country into a giant agricultural sweatshop.

The more developed areas were more developed because they were Protestant/unionist not the other way round

10000maniacs

yagan wrote: »

A united Ireland could happen not because of our consent or public will, but because the UK could simply fall apart and orphan NI. What banner can unionists gather under when their union demerges? No one ever asks what happened the soviets outside Russia.

Putin just annexes the territories at will if he is inclined to do so. And shoots down passenger planes in the process.

View

tubercolossus wrote: »

Equating a country gaining its independence from a colonial ruler with leaving the EU is the sort of nonsense Anne Widdicombe and her ilk peddled in the European Parliament.

No it is not.

My point was that a bonkers idea can find traction and a population can get swept up in it. History is frequently determined by bonkers ideas sweeping a population.

Like it or not, if any of our political parties today stood on the electoral platform of the parties of a hundred years ago, they would face electoral annihilation in today’s Republic and their platform would be openly ridiculed as being crazy. The population of today’s Republic would be no more likely to vote for such an isolationist agrarian platform than unionists were back then.

10000maniacs

tubercolossus wrote: »

Equating a country gaining its independence from a colonial ruler with leaving the EU is the sort of nonsense Anne Widdicombe and her ilk peddled in the European Parliament.

In her final speech, she mentioned how fishing catches for UK fishermen have been cut by 40% by the EU.
Well, hate to point this out, but I think UK fishermen would be happy for their stocks to be cut by 40% now.
Before they joined the EU in 1973, UK fishermen shipped 60% of their catch to Europe. It will be a tiny fraction of that 60% post Brexit.

View

breezy1985 wrote: »

The EU is a group we can join or leave at will and have been mostly beneficial. The UK forced itself on us and turned the country into a giant agricultural sweatshop.

The more developed areas were more developed because they were Protestant/unionist not the other way round

Your latter point is sectarian. The NE of Ireland was more industrialised because of its proximity the industrialised areas of Scotland, not because of any particular “genius” associated with any given religious affiliation.

tubercolossus

View wrote: »

Your latter point is sectarian. The NE of Ireland was more industrialised because of its proximity the industrialised areas of Scotland, not because of any particular “genius” associated with any given religious affiliation.

I think the point was not that there was 'genius' in a religious affiliation, but rather discrimination in its favour, and against the other denomination.