Brexit

First topic message reminder :

"man that negotiated the Australia deal with the EU" - Who is this man? I only ask because Australia don't have a deal with the EU; they are, however, in the process of negotiating one.

Imports and exports coming down for a month - expected due to short-term economic upheaval - is small potatoes compared to the utter disaster that the EU 'move as one' vaccination programme has been.

An excellent reminder, not that any were needed, that the EU is utterly incapable of dealing with a crisis, and the UK is far better off out of the failed project.

Wow, how manageable for me

Duty281 wrote:Imports and exports coming down for a month -  expected due to short-term economic upheaval - is small potatoes compared to the utter disaster that the EU 'move as one' vaccination programme has been.

An excellent reminder, not that any were needed, that the EU is utterly incapable of dealing with a crisis, and the UK is far better off out of the failed project.

The UK has a higher death rate than any EU country.

Aside from Czech Republic, Slovenia and Belgium.

Soul Requiem wrote:Aside from Czech Republic, Slovenia and Belgium.

Ha, yeah. Makes it much better. Apologies for missing this (MUCH smaller) countries off.

Duty281 wrote:Imports and exports coming down for a month -  expected due to short-term economic upheaval - is small potatoes compared to the utter disaster that the EU 'move as one' vaccination programme has been.

An excellent reminder, not that any were needed, that the EU is utterly incapable of dealing with a crisis, and the UK is far better off out of the failed project.

Desperate whatabaoutery much?

People dying is something worthy of laughing about? Better to be factually correct I'm sure you'd agree.

Soul Requiem wrote:People dying is something worthy of laughing about? Better to be factually correct I'm sure you'd agree.

But claiming we are so much better than the EU at getting vaccinations done as a justification of Brexit is also bovine effluent.

lostinwales wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:People dying is something worthy of laughing about? Better to be factually correct I'm sure you'd agree.

But claiming we are so much better than the EU at getting vaccinations done as a justification of Brexit is also bovine effluent.

Relevance?

Think he was responding to Duty. So yes, relevant.

Responding to Duty but quoting me, sounds likely.

Maybe not your good self and this probably comes from engaging on different platforms but there is a good deal of whataboutery going both ways, and there is an argument being used about the comparative performance of vaccination programs.

lostinwales wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:People dying is something worthy of laughing about? Better to be factually correct I'm sure you'd agree.

But claiming we are so much better than the EU at getting vaccinations done as a justification of Brexit is also bovine effluent.

How so? The EU 'move as one' vaccination programme has been a disaster - you surely don't dispute that?

The UK's vaccination programme has been such a brilliant success (at least) partially because of its independence from the European Commission. If we were still tied to the EU, the UK's vaccination programme would not have been so successful.

Or possibly if we'd still been in the EU, our influence (backed by the vaccine being developed in the UK) would have improved the roll-out for all EU members, thus improving the outcome for more people than is currently the case. By being isolationist we may have cost lives overall, albeit foreign ones that we don't really care about.

So the EU would have approved the vaccines sooner were the UK still in it? Seems unlikely and based on no actual evidence, they screwed up but we didn't on this issue. It's as simple as that.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:People dying is something worthy of laughing about? Better to be factually correct I'm sure you'd agree.

But claiming we are so much better than the EU at getting vaccinations done as a justification of Brexit is also bovine effluent.

How so? The EU 'move as one' vaccination programme has been a disaster - you surely don't dispute that?

The UK's vaccination programme has been such a brilliant success (at least) partially because of its independence from the European Commission. If we were still tied to the EU, the UK's vaccination programme would not have been so successful.

I do dispute it. It has not been a disaster, or if it has it is as much due to scale and fortune as much as ours has. There are major issues over ramping up vaccine production, because it depends upon a biological process, which means regardless of anything else it is significantly easier buying vaccines for even 60million instead of 400million. The fact that we have developed one of the major vaccines here in the UK and managed to get our local production ramped up ahead of many sites overseas has given us a significant advantage.

And although our vaccination program has so far been a success, we still have well over 23k more recorded deaths than anywhere else in Europe.

You dispute it with nonsense because you cannot accept the UK have done something than the EU. There are numerous major vaccines developed in the EU so that is not at all relevant.

Are you honestly suggesting the EU Vaccine rollout hasn't been a disaster?

Soul Requiem wrote:So the EU would have approved the vaccines sooner were the UK still in it? Seems unlikely and based on no actual evidence, they screwed up but we didn't on this issue. It's as simple as that.

I think the EU roll-out would have been more successful if the UK were still in the EU, in part because the EU would have had better access to the Oxford vaccine developed by a member state.
As things turned out, the UK benefitted, in this case, from leaving the EU, but I'd rather see the benefits across the whole of the EU, because I'm not particularly UK-centric.

Soul Requiem wrote:You dispute it with nonsense because you cannot accept the UK have done something than the EU. There are numerous major vaccines developed in the EU so that is not at all relevant.

Are you honestly suggesting the EU Vaccine rollout hasn't been a disaster?

I'm assuming he's not, because he said nothing of the sort. Can't you read?

Also, the fact that the EU develop numerous other "major vaccines" is completely irrelevant.

Yes, the UK roll-out has been far superior to that of the EU. That much is very clear. To simply say that this is because of Brexit is extreme jingoism, though.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Or possibly if we'd still been in the EU, our influence (backed by the vaccine being developed in the UK) would have improved the roll-out for all EU members, thus improving the outcome for more people than is currently the case. By being isolationist we may have cost lives overall, albeit foreign ones that we don't really care about.

Not quite, because the EU's vaccine deployment has been a disaster for two main reasons:

1) The EU agreed deals far too late, up to three months after the independent UK. This meant that when there were production issues with the vaccine, there was virtually no time for the EU to sort out these problems; it also led to distribution delays. I don't see how the UK's influence would have led to the EU Commission signing deals three or four months earlier.

2) They approved vaccines far too late. This is because approval had to come from the European Medicines Agency, which could only act when it had received input from every single member state. Approval from the EMA was nearly three weeks later for certain vaccines than the UK's approval. The UK's influence wouldn't have been able to achieve anything here.

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:People dying is something worthy of laughing about? Better to be factually correct I'm sure you'd agree.

But claiming we are so much better than the EU at getting vaccinations done as a justification of Brexit is also bovine effluent.

How so? The EU 'move as one' vaccination programme has been a disaster - you surely don't dispute that?

The UK's vaccination programme has been such a brilliant success (at least) partially because of its independence from the European Commission. If we were still tied to the EU, the UK's vaccination programme would not have been so successful.

I do dispute it. It has not been a disaster, or if it has it is as much due to scale and fortune as much as ours has. There are major issues over ramping up vaccine production, because it depends upon a biological process, which means regardless of anything else it is significantly easier buying vaccines for even 60million instead of 400million. The fact that we have developed one of the major vaccines here in the UK and managed to get our local production ramped up ahead of many sites overseas has given us a significant advantage.

And although our vaccination program has so far been a success, we still have well over 23k more recorded deaths than anywhere else in Europe.

Yes, but these problems with regards to scale and production are exacerbated by the EU's slowness of action, with regards to negotiating deals and approving vaccines. Even von der Leyen accepts that the EU were too late to authorise.

The EU does have a large population - nearly 450m - but so does the USA at nearly 330m, and the USA, like the UK, acted swiftly and has managed to administer just under 30 vaccine doses per 100 people, compared to the EU which is just under 11 doses per 100 people.

The UK does have a high recorded death toll, but there are lots of factors in this which are not directly attributable to government action - e.g. population density, age demographics, obesity levels etc.

Pr4wn wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:You dispute it with nonsense because you cannot accept the UK have done something than the EU. There are numerous major vaccines developed in the EU so that is not at all relevant.

Are you honestly suggesting the EU Vaccine rollout hasn't been a disaster?

I'm assuming he's not, because he said nothing of the sort. Can't you read?

Also, the fact that the EU develop numerous other "major vaccines" is completely irrelevant.

Yes, the UK roll-out has been far superior to that of the EU. That much is very clear. To simply say that this is because of Brexit is extreme jingoism, though.

It's exactly what he said in a post, do try to read what is actually written before coming out with this rubbish.

Why is it irrelevant, the UK authorised the use of the Pfizer vaccine in early December at the same point the EU could have done the same. It is because of Brexit, were we still in the EU we'd also be in a desperately poor vaccination position.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that if the UK were still in the EU they could have sped up a deal for the Oxford vaccine, compared to the current EU timescales.

Equally, if the UK were processing the data instead of, or in addition to Sweden and France, that could well have sped things up in terms of approval. Unless we're worse at it than Sweden and France, of course.

I'm not suggesting it would have progressed at the speed the UK did it alone, but I certainly think it's plausible that having the UK in the EU would have made it quicker than the current EU process.

As for factors that are attributable to this government - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56406393

Let's face it, the government handling was poor, excluding the vaccine roll-out.

The fact that the EU produces other vaccines is completely irrelevant. Other vaccines were developed and are manufactured completely separately. Also the fact that these other vaccines are manufactured in the EU has nothing to do with the regulatory approval needed. Strange point.

The EU authorised the use of the Pfizer vaccine on the 21st of September, hardly a huge time difference.

Again, nobody is saying that Brexit had nothing to do with it. But to say "it's because of Brexit" while offering up such weak reasoning is jingoistic.

I must say that needing a pandemic to find a tangible benefit to Brexit is absolute top banter.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that if the UK were still in the EU they could have sped up a deal for the Oxford vaccine, compared to the current EU timescales.

Equally, if the UK were processing the data instead of, or in addition to Sweden and France, that could well have sped things up in terms of approval. Unless we're worse at it than Sweden and France, of course.

I'm not suggesting it would have progressed at the speed the UK did it alone, but I certainly think it's plausible that having the UK in the EU would have made it quicker than the current EU process.

As for factors that are attributable to this government - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56406393

Let's face it, the government handling was poor, excluding the vaccine roll-out.

I agree that a deal for the Oxford vaccine may have been agreed quicker if the UK were in the EU, but it would have still run into the same problems with slow approval (needing all member states to make input before the EMA approved), distribution delays, and the European Commission not knowing which vaccine to prioritise. Overall, this is another international crisis which has exposed the sclerotic mechanisms of the EU and, again, left its member states bickering amongst each other.

I agree completely with your last sentence.

Pr4wn wrote:The fact that the EU produces other vaccines is completely irrelevant. Other vaccines were developed and are manufactured completely separately. Also the fact that these other vaccines are manufactured in the EU has nothing to do with the regulatory approval needed. Strange point.

The EU authorised the use of the Pfizer vaccine on the 21st of September, hardly a huge time difference.

Again, nobody is saying that Brexit had nothing to do with it. But to say "it's because of Brexit" while offering up such weak reasoning is jingoistic.

I've yet to see you counter the point instead resorting to a litany of ad hominems. It's a significant time difference when we're talking about a pandemic, we'll let UKG off for being slow off the mark originally, whats a few days or even weeks?

Samo wrote:I must say that needing a pandemic to find a tangible benefit to Brexit is absolute top banter.

Death is top banter.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:I must say that needing a pandemic to find a tangible benefit to Brexit is absolute top banter.

Death is top banter.

It's certainly a rich field for professional comedians.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fishing-hull-norway-brexit-talks-b1840438.html

Remember when we were told that Brexit would save the UK fishing industry. Strange that all those charlatens who sold that rubbish are nowhere to be seen as the industry collapses.

British exports to the EU fell by £2bn in Q1 2021 with dairy exports falling by 90%.

These figures are far too drastic now to be considered as teething problems and the industries themselves are calling this structural damage.

Pr4wn wrote:British exports to the EU fell by £2bn in Q1 2021 with dairy exports falling by 90%.

These figures are far too drastic now to be considered as teething problems and the industries themselves are calling this structural damage.

Give it time. I am sure COVID will take some blame too. Anything but Brexit's fault.

COVID has been a lifesaver for Brexit as attention has been taken away from its disastrous consequences.

Cant even blame Covid as exports to the rest of the world are pretty much back to normal.

Ah well it's obvious, isn't it? Just blame 'EU red tape', as if it's an imposition and not exactly what the government freely signed up to.

As more and more companies and supermarkets are facing food shortages, is it maybe about time we admit Brexit might not have the best idea after all?

The latest episode of “no one could have seen this coming except everyone who did” it appears Wetherspoons are having supply issues of certain beers including Carling and Bud Lite.

I dont normally revel in “I told you so”’s but I’ll make an exception for that Tim Martin Kumquat.

Another big W in the Brexit column, as Johnson plans on bringing back imperial measurements.

I for one look forward to the pounds and ounces of food not on the shelves in Tesco.

I'd rather have 4.4lbs of nothing than 2kg of food

Samo wrote:Another big W in the Brexit column, as Johnson plans on bringing back imperial measurements.

I for one look forward to the pounds and ounces of food not on the shelves in Tesco.

Is this for real? Do the Conservative Party actually live in the 1950s (well, other than Jacob Rees-Mogg, who hasn't moved beyond the 18th century)

dummy_half wrote:

Samo wrote:Another big W in the Brexit column, as Johnson plans on bringing back imperial measurements.

I for one look forward to the pounds and ounces of food not on the shelves in Tesco.

Is this for real? Do the Conservative Party actually live in the 1950s (well, other than Jacob Rees-Mogg, who hasn't moved beyond the 18th century)

Sadly it seems to be. I thought it was satire at first until I saw it being reports by The Times.

This lot are truly beyond parody.

It's like something from The Onion.

Getting upset about people having the option to solely use imperial measurements, damn.

More upset about the food and labour shortages tbh, but you cant really call that a “win” in the same way this is.

Getting upset about bringing back imperial measurements being used as a smokescreen to distract form the food and labour shortages is more accurate.

As a small hospitality business owner the staffing shortages and rising food costs hits close to home as well.

It isn't a smokescreen. It's just one small part of some potentially wide-ranging regulatory reform.

Aye, I can't for the return of shillings, waiters having to wear tailcoats by law and a whaling fleet sailing out of Nantucket.

Duty281 wrote:It isn't a smokescreen. It's just one small part of some potentially wide-ranging regulatory reform.

That's been picked up on by remainers, effectively smokescreening themselves.

Duty281 wrote:It isn't a smokescreen. It's just one small part of some potentially wide-ranging regulatory reform.

But why?

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It isn't a smokescreen. It's just one small part of some potentially wide-ranging regulatory reform.

But why?

The burning question rages on.

And remains (hilariously) unanswered.