Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Conservatory status, stuck on the side of a house but nobody really uses it.....

Seriously though its a bit of right old mess and it always was a mess and there isn't any easy solution to it. We have a border which needs to be a border but can't be a border and you can move the border to a place which doesn't need a border but can have a border so that other place that needs a border but can't have a border is okay but then people don't want this border.

I am now totally confused....

Solution is easy and will be the one they will be told to go and achieve, Operate the Protocol properly.

Sam Russell

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Conservatory status, stuck on the side of a house but nobody really uses it.....

Seriously though its a bit of right old mess and it always was a mess and there isn't any easy solution to it. We have a border which needs to be a border but can't be a border and you can move the border to a place which doesn't need a border but can have a border so that other place that needs a border but can't have a border is okay but then people don't want this border.

I am now totally confused....

The simple solution for the time being would e to close the ports of Belfast and Larne for imports - or at least those requiring SPS inspection.

A Dub in Glasgo

Surely the temporary solution is to put the checks onto the otherside of the Irish sea (Cairnryan and Liverpool)

ujjjjjjjjj

Akrasia wrote: »

Unfortunately the same applies over here, if you’re fully vaccinated and a new variant emerges that is resistant to immunity ( either natural from having had Covid) or vaccine induced immunity then we may be back to square 1

Hopefully a 2nd infection will cause a much milder illness as happens a lot, but this is not guaranteed

The risks the UK is taking by delaying the booster vaccine are not confined only to the UK

Investors betting on a v shaped recovery are just gambling at this point, for multiple reasons

Doesn't look like a risk with new data:

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n326

Good news if all true as a single AZ shot is conferring good immunity and the 12 week delay ain't an issue. All positive stuff. Just need loads of it !!!

BonnieSituation

McGiver wrote: »

Could we end up with a condominium status for Northern Ireland?

No. It's not compatible with the GFA nor with the wishes of anyone and if It's loyalism you're trying to appease with it you'd fail.

Efforts to accommodate stupidity need to stop.

Brexit is incompatible with the GFA. The WA is very complicated. I think England would be very happy to somehow get rid of NI and the NI protocol.

There is a legal mechanism for that available. We don't need another one.

They will first try to renege on the WA (again), but this time they will hit very hard. So I don't see what options they have left after that.

The hit this time will be harder as they are a Third Country. In the transition period we had to deal with them and their idiocy. Now though, they can fire away and shoot themselves. We'll only worry about the effect on us.

ujjjjjjjjj

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Surely the temporary solution is to put the checks onto the otherside of the Irish sea (Cairnryan and Liverpool)

Not a bad idea but I am sure it will p*ss someone off......

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Regarding vaccinations,why did`nt Ireland follow EU recommendation that the astra zeneca vaccine is fit for purpose with no restrictions but appeared to just follow Germany and France?did Ireland do any independent research or just follow them?

What?

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/da62c-statement-on-the-approval-of-the-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-in-the-irish-vaccination-programme/#

Do you do ANY independent reading?

BonnieSituation

Akrasia wrote: »

Goves’ letter was much more politically hamfisted than the mistake made by the Commission to move towards A16 without prior consultation with the relevant stakeholders

He has an absolutely zero chance of extracting concessions from the EU with this kind of bully boy tactic when everyone can see that the bully’s posse has deserted him and he is trying to take on the entire school on his own

The UK will be forced to back down again or escalate their threats, committing themselves to a battle they cannot possibly win while they’re already in a weakened position

It actually reminds me of a faithless partner who openly shags everyone with 2 legs for years, then tries to take the moral high ground when his wife comments that she quite likes George Clooney from ER, and every one of their mutual friends just look at him and think he’s so damn lucky his wife is very tolerant but he’s pushing his luck way too far now

The EU already pushed him out to next week. It's absolutely amazing just how awful this is going for them.

BonnieSituation

yagan wrote: »

I honestly can't see that by their current second jab rate. Per head of population we already have a greater proportion fully vaccinated even though we started over three weeks behind them.

More mutations may require them to another first round with another vaccine again.

On our current trajectory we'll have half the State done by June.

And that trajectory will just get faster and faster as supplies come in stream.

BonnieSituation

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Conservatory status, stuck on the side of a house but nobody really uses it.....

Seriously though its a bit of right old mess and it always was a mess and there isn't any easy solution to it. We have a border which needs to be a border but can't be a border and you can move the border to a place which doesn't need a border but can have a border so that other place that needs a border but can't have a border is okay but then people don't want this border.

I am now totally confused....

Reunification seems like a nice clean solution to me.

ujjjjjjjjj

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Reunification seems like a nice clean solution to me.

Solution yes but can't imagine it would be very clean......

Akrasia

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Doesn't look like a risk with new data:

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n326

Good news if all true as a single AZ shot is conferring good immunity and the 12 week delay ain't an issue. All positive stuff. Just need loads of it !!!

If true, it’s a gamble that paid off

The evidence to support it came after the decision to do it, it could have gone the other way(and might still turn out that way). Science is evidence based.

Sputnik V was roundly criticized for being approved too early before evidence was clear. And rightly so. The fact that it’s been found to be safe and effective 5 months later does not mean we were wrong to wait for the data

I have multiple qualifications in bio pharma tech
The molecule being approved is one part of the puzzle, the validation of the purification process is another vital step, then finish and fill, stability testing etc etc
The consequences of screwing up can be very severe.
Taking shortcuts is a gamble. The UK are doubling down over and over again, acting first, validating afterwards
I hope their luck holds out

BonnieSituation

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Solution yes but can't imagine it would be very clean......

From a Brexit POV it is extremely clean.

hotmail.com

The story is paused for now. Clearly the view is that there isn't a short term threat of violence in the North.

Plant pots and the like isn't going to get people on to the streets.

reslfj

Enzokk wrote: »

In your haste to score a point in how we only follow and don't think for ourselves, you have shown up yourself again. If you did some research you will have seen we have advised the Astrazeneca vaccine is not used by those over 70's. Germany has said it should not be used in those over 65. France the same as Germany and Belgium has advised not to use it in those older than 55.

I see The Netherlands has also banned it for use in those over 65.

The EMA noted the lack of enough data to judge the efficacy for people 65 years and older.

Denmark and Sweden has (very independently) said AZ for 18-64 years - only.

AZ was heavily promoting their vaccine last summer. But their test plans haven't been as good as for the other approved vaccines brands and their discipline during the test has been appalling.

Lars

yagan

hotmail.com wrote: »

The story is paused for now. Clearly the view is that there isn't a short term threat of violence in the North.

Plant pots and the like isn't going to get people on to the streets.

You're probably right. Without the protection of the British state they're not as brave or dangerous as they were when they ran murder squads.

However I wouldn't dismiss their warning about attacks on port infrastructure, the years of mayhem around Drumcree were to get London's attention.

The biggest irony though is forcing the closure of ports in unionists areas only diverts GB/NI trade through non unionists ports.

Capt'n Midnight

Saren Arterius wrote: »

The monarch isn't a politician.

The UK does have a constitution, but it consists of many many documents, some old and some modern, such as Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights.

The UK is recognised the world over as being a democracy.

The UK constitution is exactly THREE WORDS LONG. "Parliament is God".

Anything can be changed by Parliament by a process that boils down to saying "I divorce thee" three times.

All UK laws can be changed. The HoL can be over ruled, it can and has been stuffed with new lords for the purpose of getting votes through. The Monarch can be nullified.

To suggest that the UK has a constitution is to completely ignore that the people in charge in Westminster now have used Henry the VIII's dictatorial laws to over power the devolved parliaments of the other UK countries. They have used ancient loopholes to do things like prorogue parliament to bypass decisions by the house. They used 3 privy council members** out of hundreds to dictate to the monarch. They have bypassed the Fixed Term Parliament Act by a simple vote.



Notes :
*1689 Bill of Rights ? This was the era of slavery. And of the Draconian Penal Laws in Ireland. Like Magna Carta it was very much a law "for us not them".

** The HoL also has 802 members and for certain businesses the quorum is also just 3.

ujjjjjjjjj

Akrasia wrote: »

If true, it’s a gamble that paid off

The evidence to support it came after the decision to do it, it could have gone the other way(and might still turn out that way). Science is evidence based.

Sputnik V was roundly criticized for being approved too early before evidence was clear. And rightly so. The fact that it’s been found to be safe and effective 5 months later does not mean we were wrong to wait for the data

I have multiple qualifications in bio pharma tech
The molecule being approved is one part of the puzzle, the validation of the purification process is another vital step, then finish and fill, stability testing etc etc
The consequences of screwing up can be very severe.
Taking shortcuts is a gamble. The UK are doubling down over and over again, acting first, validating afterwards
I hope their luck holds out

It's good news re AZ but it was the day the MHRA approved it in the UK. If you read the MHRA data ( it is all online) it's good. They worked quickly and got through job done and my understanding is they were able to work faster than the European regulator as they used a rolling review process to work alongside AZ and process data as it came to them. My understanding is the EMA had to wait for the data and then review it.

I don't for one minute doubt the work of the MHRA and they even acknowledged that there was limited data for the over 65's but this isn't unusual as most clinical trials don't take place on the elderly, but there was data and they approved it.

It may gall people but the British vaccine push with AZ and the close integration of the MHRA is a success and the MHRA also moved extremely quickly to approve Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. I would trust them equally to the EMA. Not better or worse but a world leading medical regulator like the EMA.

The EMA has also approved AZ so the two agencies confirm each others decision. The EMA like the MHRA also noted the limited data on over 65's but approved it nonetheless for all age groups.

I don't think it is fair to try and paint a picture that the MHRA were gambling.

BorneTobyWilde

If NI was like the rest of UK, the DUP would still complain. Seems thats all they do is complain, they beg and beg for something, then get it, and then complain about it.

The people of Scotland and Wales would love to still be in the EU customs union

rock22

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

It's good news re AZ but it was the day the MHRA approved it in the UK. If you read the MHRA data ( it is all online) it's good. They worked quickly and got through job done and my understanding is they were able to work faster than the European regulator as they used a rolling review process to work alongside AZ and process data as it came to them. My understanding is the EMA had to wait for the data and then review it.

I don't for one minute doubt the work of the MHRA and they even acknowledged that there was limited data for the over 65's but this isn't unusual as most clinical trials don't take place on the elderly, but there was data and they approved it.

It may gall people but the British vaccine push with AZ and the close integration of the MHRA is a success and the MHRA also moved extremely quickly to approve Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. I would trust them equally to the EMA. Not better or worse but a world leading medical regulator like the EMA.

The EMA has also approved AZ so the two agencies confirm each others decision. The EMA like the MHRA also noted the limited data on over 65's but approved it nonetheless for all age groups.

I don't think it is fair to try and paint a picture that the MHRA were gambling.

The UK gave emergency approval, an option open to other states in Europe, but all other states decided to await proper approval

dogbert27

rock22 wrote: »

The UK gave emergency approval, an option open to other states in Europe, but all other states decided to await proper approval

And it was seen and used by the government to say that "UK leading the world..." "This proves Brexit was the right decision...."

It was a risk taken by a government for political gain than the health of its nation.

Peregrinus

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

. . . I don't think it is fair to try and paint a picture that the MHRA were gambling.

rock22 wrote: »

The UK gave emergency approval, an option open to other states in Europe, but all other states decided to await proper approval

"Gambling" may be the wrong word, but there's always some element of risk taking when it comes to medical decisions of this kind; perfect certain knowledge is unattainable. Basically, do the risks of approving this vaccine outweigh the risks of not approving it.

The UK was in a position where they could make and act on their own decision about the vaccine, because they have a highly-expert, well-resourced and well-regarded medical regulator in the MHRA. So this reduced the risks for them of premature approval. Other countries, not blessed with the equivalent of the MHRA, would have been taking a much bigger risk in proceeding independently.

On the other hand, the risks for the UK of not giving approval were greater than for other countries, because of the appalling death rate they were facing. When other aspects of pandemic management have not worked out so well for you, then delay in rolling out a vaccine costs you more - in lives and in money - than it costs other countries.

So, yeah, there was a judgment call to be made here, and the considerations for the UK in making that judgment call were not the same as the considerations for other countries. For what it's worth, I think they were justified at the time in making the call as they did, and so far it seems to be working out ery well for them. At a time when the UK government doesn't have a lot of successes on its hands, I think they deserve recognition and credit for any successes they do have.

Peregrinus

dogbert27 wrote: »

And it was seen and used by the government to say that "UK leading the world..." "This proves Brexit was the right decision...."

It was a risk taken by a government for political gain than the health of its nation.

False dichotomy here, I think; the UK had both a medical need (lots of deaths) and a political need (government on the nose) to start vaccination ASAP; I don't think you can disentangle the two motivations, since they are both pulling in the same direction.

As for "this proves Brexit was the right decision", that was inevitable. For the true believers everything, when correctly viewed, proves that Brexit was the right decision, successes and failures alike. If the UK hadn't approved vaccines ahead of the EMA that also would have proved that Brexit was the right decision. Even things that transparently prove Brexit to have been the wrong decision prove Brexit to have been the right decision - witness the Brexiters queuing up last month to say that the EU was a big meanie for treating the UK in accordance with third country rules, and this meanness proves that the UK was right to subject itself to third country rules. So, basically, pay no attention to claims of this kind.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Gambling" may be the wrong word, but there's always some element of risk taking when it comes to medical decisions of this kind; perfect certain knowledge is unattainable. Basically, do the risks of approving this vaccine outweigh the risks of not approving it.

The UK was in a position where they could make and act on their own decision about the vaccine, because they have a highly-expert, well-resourced and well-regarded medical regulator in the MHRA. So this reduced the risks for them of premature approval. Other countries, not blessed with the equivalent of the MHRA, would have been taking a much bigger risk in proceeding independently.

On the other hand, the risks for the UK of not giving approval were greater than for other countries, because of the appalling death rate they were facing. When other aspects of pandemic management have not worked out so well for you, then delay in rolling out a vaccine costs you more - in lives and in money - than it costs other countries.

So, yeah, there was a judgment call to be made here, and the considerations for the UK in making that judgment call were not the same as the considerations for other countries. For what it's worth, I think they were justified at the time in making the call as they did, and so far it seems to be working out ery well for them. At a time when the UK government doesn't have a lot of successes on its hands, I think they deserve recognition and credit for any successes they do have.

Exactly and as their immediate neighbour, Ireland should be very happy for them to get the virus under control as quickly as possible. It will have a knock on effect at home, given the close links between the countries.

They took an educated guess that certain things would work out and so far so good.

I'm not advocating their decision making process and I when I get my own vaccination I hope it will be carried out according to the vaccine certification however this may by then allow a greater delay between shots as the UK is effectively a massive new trial with seemingly random intervals between shots.

But having said all the above, the UK could have followed the exact same path as a member state. Brexit made absolutely no positive difference in the UK's ability to deal with the virus. Brexit is such an abject failure that leave politicians and supporters need to use it as a fake reason for leaving.

RobMc59

Enzokk wrote: »

In your haste to score a point in how we only follow and don't think for ourselves, you have shown up yourself again. If you did some research you will have seen we have advised the Astrazeneca vaccine is not used by those over 70's. Germany has said it should not be used in those over 65. France the same as Germany and Belgium has advised not to use it in those older than 55.

I see The Netherlands has also banned it for use in those over 65.

Do you mean in my haste to ask someone who specialises in this subject a question?

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But what of the IRA earlier?

Although I detest the ira or whatever they're calling themselves these days I doubt they had any influence on brexit.I do lump all terrorists together regardless of 'sides'.

ujjjjjjjjj

I think it is really pushing credibility to suggest that the MHRA rushed a decision to suit the 'Brexit is great'argument. Sure it was seized upon by the 'Brexit is great' mob and the reality is we will never know if Brexit hadn't existed would they have bypassed the EU and done exactly the same thing or if they have actually moved faster due to their position post Brexit. Just don't see the need to turn everything into a Brexit / British bashing exercise by painting the MHRA as gambling or risk taking without any of us really knowing the details.

Ultimately I really don't care as getting vaccinations rolling anywhere is good news and if the UK can move through this quickly and open up even just internally it is only good for Ireland especially due to NI and may even pave the way short-term for lifting of restrictions on the Irish side for travel in and out of the UK if they are back to normal ahead of Ireland.

Leroy42

I have no doubt the MHRA didn't even think about Brexit. Rushing it, I think, is a bad phrase. Seems to me they accelerated the work required, so more resources were thrown at it, people worked longer hours etc. It is amazing what can be achieved when people have a singular goal. Also, I am pretty sure that everything else would have been placed on hold for that.

But the Brexiteers, lead by the government who were being battered over its terrible performance dealing with Covid, and knowing the Brexit disaster about to hit, needed something to cling on to.

And it has worked. There are hardly any headlines about the still massive death numbers. 110k now. 10k in the last week since they passed the 100k milestone. And they have now the kiddos of being right on the vaccine which means they must be right about the EU being wrong on Brexit. Although there is little mention of how wrong they were in terms of handing out PPE contracts to connected supporters, the disaster of Track and Trace etc.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Although I detest the ira or whatever they're calling themselves these days I doubt they had any influence on brexit.I do lump all terrorists together regardless of 'sides'.

mod: Rob - be careful here as I can't help sensing that you're bordering on trolling with "doubts" like this!

BlitzKrieg

a lot of brexit crowing about Cadbury's announcement today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-55938419

little details to spot in the bbc report

Some production will remain overseas, Mondelez said, and the firm also confirmed the investment would not lead to the creation of any new jobs.

My understanding is they are moving the cadbury products back inside the UK while all their european brands (milka etc) will remain in europe.

I'm actually curious how much cadbury's sold in EU countries outside of UK and Ireland. I wonder if they feel the irish plants will be enough to cover Ireland and the EU and just leave the UK line inside its own sphere

this old 2017 article indicates most of their business is in the UK https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2017164-cadbury-eats-market-share-repositioning-brand#:~:text=The%20snack%20giant%20increased%20its,Easter%20into%20the%20first%20quarter.


also of course there was issues with the EU too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55846829