Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

PeadarCo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Living here I see wagons from the Republic and NI on a regular basis . Its unusual to see so many cars heading for the port at once but a dub in Glasgows suggestion that its as a result of VAT issues being sorted out sounds likely.
I was shocked when I checked the VRT rates for my own car if I relocated to Ireland,not sure how that works now after brexit either.

There have always been substantial imports from the UK even with VRT. I don't think Brexit will make a massive difference. It might reduce a bit. But if you want a used right hand drive car, there are going to be more available in the UK than Ireland. It'll be interesting to see see the figures for UK imports as time goes on. There has always been enough imports to impact prices in Ireland.

Seth Brundle

BonnieSituation wrote: »

No you don't.

If you did, you wouldn't have needed to bring the IRA up. They weren't relevant to the discussion.

mod: Let's park the IRA discussion unless it actually becomes an issue.

Sam Russell

RobMc59 wrote: »

Living here I see wagons from the Republic and NI on a regular basis . Its unusual to see so many cars heading for the port at once but a dub in Glasgows suggestion that its as a result of VAT issues being sorted out sounds likely.
I was shocked when I checked the VRT rates for my own car if I relocated to Ireland,not sure how that works now after brexit either.

I'll let you into a secret - If you were to relocate to Ireland, you would not pay any VRT if you have owned your car more than six months and have sufficient mileage, but check the details - transfer of residence rules apply. Just fill in the proper forms and get prior approval. To make sure you get maximum benefit, make sure it is a decent car, not a banger, and bought soon enough to qualify.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Living here I see wagons from the Republic and NI on a regular basis . Its unusual to see so many cars heading for the port at once but a dub in Glasgows suggestion that its as a result of VAT issues being sorted out sounds likely.
I was shocked when I checked the VRT rates for my own car if I relocated to Ireland,not sure how that works now after brexit either.

You're exempt from VRT if you move to Ireland and have owned to motor for at least 6 months.

Read thon small print.

EDIT: wot Sam sed

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

There have always been substantial imports from the UK even with VRT. I don't think Brexit will make a massive difference. It might reduce a bit. But if you want a used right hand drive car, there are going to be more available in the UK than Ireland. It'll be interesting to see see the figures for UK imports as time goes on. There has always been enough imports to impact prices in Ireland.

The best thing about having UK imports available is that it keeps the prices of S/H cars from Irish dealers down at a sane value.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You're exempt from VRT if you move to Ireland and have owned to motor for at least 6 months.

Read thon small print.

EDIT: wot Sam sed

Well you never know when all this covid madness subsides Bonnie, although I think Dublin is a bit pricey for me!

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Well you never know when all this covid madness subsides Bonnie, although I think Dublin is a bit pricey for me!

That's that loyalty to the half-crown again...

Sam Russell

RobMc59 wrote: »

Well you never know when all this covid madness subsides Bonnie, although I think Dublin is a bit pricey for me!

You do not have to live in Dublin, you have a lot of other places in the country open to you that might well be cheaper. Leitrim is quite a bit cheaper.

ArmaniJeanss

Hurrache wrote: »

Another angry letter to the EU from the Tories. The amusing part about this one is that it's basic 3rd country rules, rules which the UK had a part in writing. The UK now claiming they were misled by the EU on these well known and long established rules.

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1357675043145269248

"The government considered having Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove send the letter to the EU, in an indication of how serious it believes the issue to be."

I just love this thought process.
How can we emphasise how important this is? We could get the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to send it, that'll really show them we mean it.

Hurrache

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

How can we emphasise how important this is? We could get the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to send it, that'll really show them we mean it.

And make sure you put a coat of arms on it, that'll make it look extra serious.

ujjjjjjjjj

Akrasia wrote: »

The MHRA approved the vaccine based on the data that it required a booster after 3 weeks to ensure adequate immunity
The UK government took a gamble that they could stretch the booster window to 12 weeks without evidence that this was safe or effective or without assessing the risk that it could increase the likelihood of a vaccine tolerance variant of the virus could emerge in semi vaccinated individuals

Gamble is the wrong word here. At worst they took an informed decision that stretching out the booster window to 12 weeks was going to have minor impact on efficacy and taken across an entire population it actually made more sense to get a high level of immunity conferred from the first shot as it proportional would have a much higher impact on covid levels in the community. Data has since come out showing that their decision was entirely correct and the AZ vaccine is showing excellent efficacy after one shot, does get a tiny boost with a second shot and 12 weeks is fine as a time frame to wait for this but getting the first shot out there is key and the quicker the better.

This notion of a 'semi vaccinated individual' potentially producing a mutant virus strain is just clutching at straws to find some reason not to just say yes the MHRA made a great call.

I applaud the MHRA for what they have done and wish the EMA had been so on the ball. It really isn't that hard to say you know.

It may well be a positive impact of Brexit or it may well have happened even if the UK was still in the EU, we won't ever know that. But possibly just possibly it shows that we can legitimately ask questions about the speed of EU beaucracy in a time of crisis. By asking this question we don't immediately have to become Brexit fans and EU bashers.......but maybe just maybe use it to help the EU react faster in the future which let's face it isn't a bad thing.

murphaph

Was it an MHRA decision to stretch the doses?

ujjjjjjjjj

murphaph wrote: »

Was it an MHRA decision to stretch the doses?

My understanding is the MHRA approved the AZ second shot to be given in a 4-12 week time frame with no bias as to what was preferential so yes my understanding is the MHRA approved it. Public health may then have made the actual decision to push it to the 12 Week end to push and maximise the first dose coverage.

MrMusician18

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Gamble is the wrong word here. At worst they took an informed decision that stretching out the booster window to 12 weeks was going to have minor impact on efficacy and taken across an entire population it actually made more sense to get a high level of immunity conferred from the first shot as it proportional would have a much higher impact on covid levels in the community. Data has since come out showing that their decision was entirely correct and the AZ vaccine is showing excellent efficacy after one shot, does get a tiny boost with a second shot and 12 weeks is fine as a time frame to wait for this but getting the first shot out there is key and the quicker the better.

This notion of a 'semi vaccinated individual' potentially producing a mutant virus strain is just clutching at straws to find some reason not to just say yes the MHRA made a great call.

I applaud the MHRA for what they have done and wish the EMA had been so on the ball. It really isn't that hard to say you know.

It may well be a positive impact of Brexit or it may well have happened even if the UK was still in the EU, we won't ever know that. But possibly just possibly it shows that we can legitimately ask questions about the speed of EU beaucracy in a time of crisis. By asking this question we don't immediately have to become Brexit fans and EU bashers.......but maybe just maybe use it to help the EU react faster in the future which let's face it isn't a bad thing.

Decisions are easier when you have the data. I'm no expert in this but the MHRA do appear to be getting raw data from AZ much sooner than the rest of the world.

On another note, it has to be acknowledged that the MHRA are one of the world's leading medicines agencies, the EMA used to rely on it to do a lot of heavy lifting. The EMA itself has been weakened by the loss of MHRA input and may well take a few years to build up the competencies in other nations to compensate for the change. It's unfortunate that Brexit has coincided with the pandemic.

So the UK decision to stretch the doses was a calculated gamble, but they knew that the odds we in their favour.

But on Brexit and has that given the UK an advantage? I don't think so. The UK was always likely to do is own thing outside of EU structures even if it had not chosen to leave the UK was firmly in the outer orbit post 2008, and remain wouldn't have changed that.


What is much more interesting now is seeing the amount of energy the EU is now having to expend managing it's relationship with a noisy neighbour, eating into the time it needs to give to more substantive issues. The tone of the future relationship is going to be very much adversarial, and that will do no one any good.

listermint

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Gamble is the wrong word here. At worst they took an informed decision that stretching out the booster window to 12 weeks was going to have minor impact on efficacy and taken across an entire population it actually made more sense to get a high level of immunity conferred from the first shot as it proportional would have a much higher impact on covid levels in the community. Data has since come out showing that their decision was entirely correct and the AZ vaccine is showing excellent efficacy after one shot, does get a tiny boost with a second shot and 12 weeks is fine as a time frame to wait for this but getting the first shot out there is key and the quicker the better.

This notion of a 'semi vaccinated individual' potentially producing a mutant virus strain is just clutching at straws to find some reason not to just say yes the MHRA made a great call.

I applaud the MHRA for what they have done and wish the EMA had been so on the ball. It really isn't that hard to say you know.

It may well be a positive impact of Brexit or it may well have happened even if the UK was still in the EU, we won't ever know that. But possibly just possibly it shows that we can legitimately ask questions about the speed of EU beaucracy in a time of crisis. By asking this question we don't immediately have to become Brexit fans and EU bashers.......but maybe just maybe use it to help the EU react faster in the future which let's face it isn't a bad thing.

Wait hold on.


Are you claiming wins when there isn't adequate data to suggest any win and only a fraction of people have been given a first dose.


What is this nonsense about it's embarrassing stuff.

looksee

How can people be getting a second dose at 12 weeks when the vaccination only started less than a month ago? Its really not all that relevant to Brexit anyway.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

How can people be getting a second dose at 12 weeks when the vaccination only started less than a month ago? Its really not all that relevant to Brexit anyway.

Nothing at all, just another bit of Brit bashing, a hobby round here for some.

ujjjjjjjjj

listermint wrote: »

Wait hold on.


Are you claiming wins when there isn't adequate data to suggest any win and only a fraction of people have been given a first dose.


What is this nonsense about it's embarrassing stuff.

Study published a couple of days ago based on clinical trail data clearly showed giving one shot and then a second 12 weeks later was fine and not only fine but clinically a good way to do it.

Look we can spend forever trying to pick holes in the MHRA and the British decision but I am clearly seeing it as a success for the MHRA and the British vaccine roleout. Does it mean I am jumping up and down going that's it then Brexit is brilliant and proves it was the right thing to do beyond any doubt......like the Dailymail is....eh no.

By all means take Brexit apart with data and info as to where you see it is going wrong but I don't think it benefits anyone to p*ss all over the MHRA work and the obvious success of the UK vaccine roleout just because it was British. Just makes us look bitter and jealous !!

tubercolossus

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Gamble is the wrong word here. At worst they took an informed decision that stretching out the booster window to 12 weeks was going to have minor impact on efficacy and taken across an entire population it actually made more sense to get a high level of immunity conferred from the first shot as it proportional would have a much higher impact on covid levels in the community. Data has since come out showing that their decision was entirely correct and the AZ vaccine is showing excellent efficacy after one shot, does get a tiny boost with a second shot and 12 weeks is fine as a time frame to wait for this but getting the first shot out there is key and the quicker the better.

This notion of a 'semi vaccinated individual' potentially producing a mutant virus strain is just clutching at straws to find some reason not to just say yes the MHRA made a great call.

I applaud the MHRA for what they have done and wish the EMA had been so on the ball. It really isn't that hard to say you know.

It may well be a positive impact of Brexit or it may well have happened even if the UK was still in the EU, we won't ever know that. But possibly just possibly it shows that we can legitimately ask questions about the speed of EU beaucracy in a time of crisis. By asking this question we don't immediately have to become Brexit fans and EU bashers.......but maybe just maybe use it to help the EU react faster in the future which let's face it isn't a bad thing.

Let's get something straight. The EU is slower because there are 27 countries involved, and 450 million people. Far from the EU ruling with an iron hand, and bullying the little countries etc etc, it is occasionally unwieldy and cumbersome precisely because despite what the Little Brexiters claim, it is supremely democratic. It would actually be nice if in some situations (such as this one) the EU could tell the 27 to STFU, this is what we're doing, deal with it.

It is a drawback in this situation, certainly, but in nearly every other respect the 27 are at a distinct advantage to the UK, since its defenders on here insist on turning this whole thing into a nationalistic dick-waving contest.

I know which side of the fence I'd rather be on.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing at all, just another bit of Brit bashing, a hobby round here for some.

Frankly I'm tired of this line. It's boring and untrue.

And it's rolled out by the same usual suspects those ones including yourself who are very much anti EU and make no bones about it.

The posts speak for themselves can we stop with the slurs and bylines like Brit bashing, does nothing for your point of argument.

ujjjjjjjjj

looksee wrote: »

How can people be getting a second dose at 12 weeks when the vaccination only started less than a month ago? Its really not all that relevant to Brexit anyway.

No one is of course in the general population but who said this was the case ?Recently published clinical trial data shows the 12 week gap is fine and it is approved by the MHRA.

And of course it is relevant to Brexit.....it is entirely possible that Brexit has allowed this to happen as the MHRA were able to work away at their pace and not at EU pace. Does it mean this may have happened anyway even if Brexit never happened, yes possibly but it could be a win for Brexit.

By the way I am not banging a drum here for the sake of just being argumentative, if the UK can do something faster or cheaper or more efficiently than the EU due to Brexit it allows member states in the EU to push and question the EU beaucracy as to how they can improve and in turn improve the EU. Simple example being if we are faced with another virus like this in 20 years time the EMA make take a different approach similar to what the MHRA did. Then we all win.

listermint

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Study published a couple of days ago based on clinical trail data clearly showed giving one shot and then a second 12 weeks later was fine and not only fine but clinically a good way to do it.

Look we can spend forever trying to pick holes in the MHRA and the British decision but I am clearly seeing it as a success for the MHRA and the British vaccine roleout. Does it mean I am jumping up and down going that's it then Brexit is brilliant and proves it was the right thing to do beyond any doubt......like the Dailymail is....eh no.

By all means take Brexit apart with data and info as to where you see it is going wrong but I don't think it benefits anyone to p*ss all over the MHRA work and the obvious success of the UK vaccine roleout just because it was British. Just makes us look bitter and jealous !!

We are just out of January . They only started giving injections a handful of weeks ago and you are claiming victory based on studies that are less than a few weeks old with a small portion of participants.


This victory spinning stuff is bizarre

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

There’s another Brexit related incident brewing this time on visa fees, it puts Ireland in interesting position due to cta


https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-countries-oppose-uks-visa-fees-as-discriminatory/

The EU isn't a single country, so the UK appears to be treating each country separately.
One of the first things they said when they left was that FOM would end, now they're deciding from which countries they would prefer to allow workers to come in from.


CTA is still unchanged, it reverts back to how it was before we both joined the EEC.

tubercolossus

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

And of course it is relevant to Brexit.....it is entirely possible that Brexit has allowed this to happen as the MHRA were able to work away at their pace and not at EU pace. Does it mean this may have happened anyway even if Brexit never happened, yes possibly but it could be a win for Brexit.

I thought we had already established that the UK was able to invoke emergency legislation to authorise the Pfizer vaccine early under EU law. And that furthermore this was also available to all EU countries - except none decided to go down that road. Britain's success in early vaccination is part of the same process. Which means that you are wrong, and it has precisely nothing to do with Brexit. Did you not know this, or are you acting in bad faith, pray tell?

yagan

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

There’s another Brexit related incident brewing this time on visa fees, it puts Ireland in interesting position due to cta


https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-countries-oppose-uks-visa-fees-as-discriminatory/

I don't think so. Lots of EU countries have special historical legacy migration exemptions for non-EU nations, like the way people from many former Spanish empire countries can naturalise as EU Spanish citizens after just two years residency.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU isn't a single country, so the UK appears to be treating each country separately.
One of the first things they said when they left was that FOM would end, now they're deciding from which countries they would prefer to allow workers to come in from.


CTA is still unchanged, it reverts back to how it was before we both joined the EEC.

There was a time when the USA policy on visas was simple - the USA charge for a visa for a nation was exactly the same as that nation charged a USA citizen for a visa. It was a just system and was fair. If Ruristan charged the equivalent of $500 for visa for a USA citizen, the a Ruristan applicant was charged the same.

However, visas are now a revenue stream, with phone calls to enquire the progress or even information about vUSA isas are through a premium rate phone line. The UK now see visas are a revenue stream, and will I assume privatise the process to a chum's newly formed company to provide the service.

Another route to diminish the sense of freedom in modern Britain - just another effect of Brexit ridden Britain. If the Windrush Generation and the Hostile environment were a sign of what direction Britain was going, well this is another sign pointing in the same direction.

CelticRambler

As someone professionally involved in disease control and vaccination, and thirty years' experience in dealing with coronaviruses, I've held off reacting to this tangent, until now. But ...

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

if the UK can do something faster or cheaper or more efficiently than the EU due to Brexit it allows member states in the EU to push and question the EU beaucracy as to how they can improve and in turn improve the EU.

"faster and cheaper" is very rarely consistent with good regulation, regardless of the product or service being regulated - except, of course, that the EMA was established to make pan-European medicines authorisation more efficient (and, as a consequence, cheaper [and also more respectful of animal welfare]).

But if you're going down that road, your whole argument is completely undermined by the Pandemrix narcolepsy story: a vaccine produced by a British company, authorised by the EMA - based at the time in London, not least because of the experience of the MHRA - in September 2009 and almost a year later began to be implicated in life-changing narocoleptic effects on some vaccinated individuals, those initial reports coming from Scandinavia. Everything you suggest might be good about the current British approvals process was very definitely bad in respect of Pandemrix, when the EMA was based in Britain. The lesson learnt from that? Don't rush vaccine approvals.

There is nothing about the vaccine approval process or the procurement or the roll-out of the vaccination programmes in the UK or the EU that has anything to do with Brexit; nothing; not a thing. And there are huge deficiencies on both sides of the Channel/Irish Sea in respect of just about every aspect of the handling of this pandemic, which have nothing to do with Brexit either.

And yet here we are, on this particular forum, with pages and pages and pages and pages of posts trying to twist skimpy research on initial antibody responses to a still poorly understood virus (that sometimes triggers a potentially serious disease) into arguments around a notional Brexit dividend. Strawmen all over the place. :mad:

Can we please get back to talking about rotting fish and empty shelves in M&S and other stuff that is, in fact, part of the Brave New Brexit World.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

There was a time when the USA policy on visas was simple - the USA charge for a visa for a nation was exactly the same as that nation charged a USA citizen for a visa. It was a just system and was fair. If Ruristan charged the equivalent of $500 for visa for a USA citizen, the a Ruristan applicant was charged the same.

Yes there is a whole section of the US department of state dealing with it, it also extends to penalties for foreigners who commit crimes while in the US.
For example is a US diplomat is issued with parking tickets in another country, the US would ensure that the diplomats of those countries would get the same tickets when they transgress. The US can make life very difficult for foreigners if their country is hostile to US citizens.



https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/Visa-Reciprocity-and-Civil-Documents-by-Country.html/

What is Reciprocity?

Nonimmigrant visa applicants from certain countries*/areas of authority may be required to pay a visa issuance fee after their application is approved. These fees are based on the principle of reciprocity: when a foreign government imposes fees on U.S. citizens for certain types of visas, the United States will impose a reciprocal fee on citizens of that country*/area of authority for similar types of visas.

yagan

CelticRambler wrote: »

There is nothing about the vaccine approval process or the procurement or the roll-out of the vaccination programmes in the UK or the EU that has anything to do with Brexit; nothing; not a thing.

Unfortunately Brexiters will make everything about Brexit.

The EU will probably approve the Spudnik vaccine soon but would you be surprised if the UK didn't?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU isn't a single country, so the UK appears to be treating each country separately.

No, but it is a single community, in the same way that EU concessions are (usually) extended to all EEA member states.

This looks to me like Britain shooting itself in yet another body part: now that the word is out, as soon as they start looking for some modification to the TCA, they'll find themselves being told asked to grant equal treatment to the citizens of all EU member states.

Uniform human visa rules in exchange for the recognition of GB Pet Passports - sounds fair to me. :pac: