Brexit Benefits

[jimbo]

I honestly have no idea what your malfunction is jimbo.

No malfunction this end.

I don’t care what your mates at the magical vaccine factory say or your drinking buddies at the paperwork palace.

Fair enough, I offer the view from those directly involved and it's not relevent to your world view.

Authorising the use of the vaccine in the U.K. was done with EU rules available to every member state.

You're wilfully ignoring things that don't fit your view. THings can be technically possible but practically or (in this case) politically impossible.

We did not use a British approvals scheme like JRM and MH went on record and said.

The MHRA carried out their review and approval - so it was a UK approval.
UK approval - 29th Dec 2020
EMA Approval - 29th Jan 2021

Looks faster as well..

Anyone could have done what we did.

But no-one did - please expalin why if it was easy and anyone could do it, in an issue of thousands a day dying, were countries that could have acted faster (Like the UK) did not?

Another questions for you - explain why the EU has an issue with AZs late delivery?
Pfizer/BioNTech - low yields, lower deliveries = No problem for EU
Pfizer/BioNTech - 100M doses to China = No problem for EU
Moderna - low yields, lower deliveries = No Problem for EU
AZ - vaccine doesn't work for old people (Macron), no contract to deliver from UK, low yields = EU breaks international law (UK-EU trade deal), breaches the GFA (according to EUs brexit postion), threatens to block exports (only to UK).....



I

[piman2k]

Another questions for you - explain why the EU has an issue with AZs late delivery?

And again, I won't comment or make positive claims on things I don't understand or know about.

I don't know why you've posted the approval dates up, because it's meaningless to this discussion. I haven't debated that we didn't approve it earlier.

You're wilfully ignoring things that don't fit your view.

No, I'm not. I have said, repeatedly, that the mechanism by which we did approve it was available to every country in the union and that it was not a UK specific, Brexit-created mechanism like was falsely claimed by the Secretary of Health and the Leader of the House of Commons.

The politics, the "umming and ahhhing" is absolutely moot. Other people don't appear to be struggling to understand this point so I have no idea why you are.

[piman2k]

I mean, here it is in Black and White, but at this point I am half expecting you to say it's rubbish because it's the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/55163730

Under European law a vaccine must be authorised by the EMA, but individual countries can use an emergency procedure that allows them to distribute a vaccine for temporary use in their domestic market.

Britain is still subject to those EU rules during the post-Brexit transition period which runs until the end of the year.

The UK's own medicines regulator, the MHRA, confirmed this in a statement last month.

And its chief executive, Dr June Raine, said on Wednesday that "we have been able to authorise the supply of this vaccine using provisions under European law, which exist until 1 January".

I'm not arguing that we didn't do the right thing and it isn't a Britain 1, EU 0 situation when it comes to the vaccine. I'm just arguing the facts behind the approval. And your friends might be very much involved but the Chief Executive of the MHRA is saying what I've said.

[jimbo]

I mean, here it is in Black and White, but at this point I am half expecting you to say it's rubbish because it's the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/55163730


I'm not arguing that we didn't do the right thing and it isn't a Britain 1, EU 0 situation when it comes to the vaccine. I'm just arguing the facts behind the approval. And your friends might be very much involved but the Chief Executive of the MHRA is saying what I've said.

Why were the UK the ONLY EU country to make use of this mechanisum in a situation of thousands dying.
I'm saying (based on personal contact to people involved) because Brexit.
You are saying because they didn't because?

It is technically possible for Boris to scrap the NHS as he has a big majority in parliment.
It is policatiaclly impossible to scrap the NHS.

Get the difference??

[piman2k]

I don’t know why the the U.K. was the only one to act like it did and the other countries didn’t.

That doesn’t in any way mean other countries couldn’t have done it.

That’s the irrefutable fact of the matter. And that’s all I have to say on this because I’m tired of repeating myself. You do you.

[arry]

I don’t know why the the U.K. was the only one to act like it did and the other countries didn’t.

That doesn’t in any way mean other countries couldn’t have done it.

That’s the irrefutable fact of the matter. And that’s all I have to say on this because I’m tired of repeating myself. You do you.

I can see it from both sides here.

You're saying that other EU countries could have because the 'emergency' get-out-of-jail exists. Jimbo is saying that they should have if they could have and therefore the fact they didn't is evidence enough that they weren't as free to do it as the letter of the law states.

I guess it's a bit like things you're allowed to do but absolutely don't because you don't want to rock the boat. For example, it's perfectly legal for me to leave a floater in the bowl - but I don't suspect my wife would be too impressed by it and it might have some pretty detrimental outcomes for our relationship.

Basically, you're both 'right'.
You - there's not reason they COULDN'T have.
Jimbo - there's no reason they WOULDN'T have if they could without consequence.

[piman2k]

And that’s what I have repeatedly pointed out arry, having the ability cannot be disputed. It was there for them to use.

Our cabinet said they had a U.K. approval scheme available to them because of Brexit. When they had the right all along and it was nothing to do with Brexit. It just emboldened them to do it.

[arry]

Our cabinet said they had a U.K. approval scheme available to them because of Brexit. When they had the right all along and it was nothing to do with Brexit. It just emboldened them to do it.

You're actually agreeing with each other, in a weird way.

The salty tears and sandy little buttholes over vaccine exports and the diplomatic rights have, for me, exposed the side of the EU that the Brexiteers warned about but the Remainers denied existed. It's no longer surprising for me to see why member states wouldn't dance their tune.

Even more shocking, IMO, is the fact they effectively went to close a border of one of their member states without having the good grace to, oh I dunno, consult with their Govt first?! Sheesh.

[piman2k]

Yeah I have to say, I always thought it would be the UK Government that would find an excuse to push the conflict button and impose Article 16. I was stunned to see the EU doing it, which is extremely damaging to their position of having some form of morale high ground. But I guess that's it now we're out, we're just anyone else.

[arry]

Well you know, only The Pope is infallible

[docwra]

You dont need a neutral, hes (Jimbo) right. While it may not be a direct effect of the Brexit agreement and certainly not one that could have been predicted it wouldnt have happened if we were still in the EU.
Piman is right in saying that Rees Mogg tried to take credit for something that wasnt true (surprise surprise) but that doesnt mean the above is wrong. That said ........

Are you two genuinely so intent on arguing that you missed this a page ago?

As for the Article 16 "exposing the EU's true colours" Johnson was threatening to do EXACTLY the same thing with EXACTLY the same article about 3 weeks ago.
The difference is that EU accepted it was a mistake, apologised and rescinded. Johnson is incapable of any of that.

[piman2k]

No chap, I wasn't the one arguing I never said jimbo was wrong, he was saying I was wrong. Hence the frustration!

[LeonatLarge]

No chap, I wasn't the one arguing I never said jimbo was wrong, he was saying I was wrong. Hence the frustration!

You're always wrong, it is one of the natural orders of the universe

[R3K1355]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55903599

The EU has told British fishermen they are indefinitely banned from selling live mussels, oysters, clams, cockles and scallops to its member states.

As the UK is now a separate country, it is not allowed to transport the animals to the EU unless they have already been treated in purification plants.

[piman2k]

And the worst part of it is, the government (DEFRA) told them the EU would be changing the rules in April. Which was a complete lie.

[Asht_200]

Just to be clear, I was a remainer(remoaner) but the way the EU are behaving has made me wonder if I voted the right way.

Forget the BS Boris, Gove, Rees-Mogg , and Farage spouted. The EU already want to start issuing penalties.

They wanted to block exports of vaccines to “3rd countries “ which means the U.K. wouldn’t get it’s order of the Pfizer vaccine in time - knowing bureaucrats, they’d probably put what was allocated to us on hold and then ship it when it was out of date.... just because Astrazenica were experiencing manufacturing issues due to demand. - ignore the Tories claiming they could get the vaccine approved faster due to Brexit absolute BS (MHRA is independent) funnily enough 1 reason the EU took so long to approve any vaccine was due to the EMA (European Medicines Agency) still transitioning to Amsterdam from London - oops

They then threatened article 16 which would have imposed a hard border in Ireland (this was the main reason I was against Brexit - I remember the troubles)

And now France, Italy and Ireland are now muttering about the EU / #frexit, #Italexit , I have heard the Irish hash tag- who would have thought the French???

We also have 2 big imminent volcanic eruptions around the globe to contend with. Do any of the non believers feel perhaps God is going to unleash another 7 plagues, simply because Trump was an asshole? you couldn’t say that in a Facebook group


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Asht_200]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55903599

That is just plain political. Our raw / live shellfish was ok to go to Europe to be processed , but now we aren’t in the EU it isn’t...

Let’s all big up Marine Le Pen to start with. If Russia can influence US elections, surely us Brits can influence the French


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sideways14a]

I apologise for last nights chilies i made - it took the lining off the sewers in the town and may be responsible for the cascadia fault rupturing.

Shi1 happens

[Asht_200]

I don’t know why the the U.K. was the only one to act like it did and the other countries didn’t.

That doesn’t in any way mean other countries couldn’t have done it.

That’s the irrefutable fact of the matter. And that’s all I have to say on this because I’m tired of repeating myself. You do you.

Can I throw a curveball here?

Another reason why the EU was slow to react.. they didn’t have the infrastructure setup / expertise to approve so quickly. Until recently, medicine regulation for all EU nations was done in London.

Remoaner hat on, I have banged on about financial services being important etc to the U.K. I completely forgot the industry I came from. Pharmaceutical. We have some of the best on the world and are a world leader apart from one, in the EU they are predominantly generics (making cheap copies when a drug goes off patent)

Pfizer’s European regulatory is in Canterbury, Astrazenica is based in the U.K. you don’t honestly think they haven’t been talking to the MHRA throughout the clinical trials process / research.

It’s simple really (well not simple). The U.K. had a head start over Europe

Oh and
To anyone who thinks the U.K. cut corners... the MHRA are among the most bureaucratic organisations going. The amount of pharmacovigilance required to get these vaccines approved is mammoth. We simply had the people and the experience to get it approved faster. That’s all. It’s not political conspiracy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[piman2k]

The shellfish ban isn't political. It isn't the EUs decision either. It's the standard policy applied to all third countries of which we willingly chose to become. It's also a policy that we helped write and enforce as members.

So why anyone would expect to be treated any differently to the rest of the third countries I cannot explain, beyond British exceptionalism of course.

I agree that the article 16 decision was a very bad call, but the media are absolutely focused on this one recent instance where the EU has made a bad judgement call.