Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction


Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

185 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      43
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      8
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      101
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      12


Recommended Posts

One of the stipulations of the Oxford vaccine research team was that the commercial partner they selected had to to agree to produce it at cost price for, I think, the first year. So no-one is paying more and its part the reason the AZ vaccine is £3 per shot compared with £20-£30 for the others.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

US and EU have done a deal promoting alignment and regulatory recognition and allowing US banks to clear Euro transactions, thereby removing the need to do this in London. Over time, London will lose much of its current importance in the financial markets as New York appears likely to be become a direct competitor in a European context.

All hail Brexit! 

Jobs and specialisms will leave London in the FS sector and supporting sectors. As the City contributes around 10% of HMRC tax revenue this is likely to result in increases in other taxes to plug the gap.

Still, we should probably give it 40 or 50 years before drawing any conclusions. 

Edited by benjii
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, benjii said:

US and EU have done a deal promoting alignment and regulatory recognition and allowing US banks to clear Euro transactions, thereby removing the need to do this in London. Over time, London will lose much of its current importance in the financial markets as New York appears likely to be become a direct competitor in a European context.

All hail Brexit! 

Jobs and specialisms will leave London in the FS sector and supporting sectors. As the City contributes around 10% of HMRC tax revenue this is likely to result in increases in other taxes to plug the gap.

Still, we should probably give it 40 or 50 years before drawing any conclusions. 

I don't this really amounts to anything if we remember that Liz Truss has negotiated a trade deal with Namibia.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Does it matter ?

No it doesn’t, but just underscores the idiocy and hypocracy in deregulating throughout the 1980s so financial services became front and centre in economic activity, which despite the credit crunch it still is, and then the same party destroying it with Brexit.

This country has gone mad, really lost the plot, handing the clearing house market to NYC on a plate. All very well talking about levelling up, but that will take decades to bear serious fruit. Still, going by early polls for the spring local elections, the public especially in the midlands and north is still lapping up the empty nationalist gesturing. Labour is gaining seats alright but they are LD ones in the main. Swinson destroyed them in the 2019 GE with the policy to reverse Brexit if they miraculously got a majority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If he's going to blame the consequences of the deal between them - that they were negotiating since 2010 - on the Brexit vote that happened six years after they started negotiating, then I'd say yes. Wouldn't you?

I think the point is that the UK Government has been bullish about the prospects of the financial services sector post-Brexit, whilst all along they would have known the possibility of the NY agreement was looming like the threat of the Tirpitz heading for PQ-17.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I think the point is that the UK Government has been bullish about the prospects of the financial services sector post-Brexit, whilst all along they would have known the possibility of the NY agreement was looming like the threat of the Tirpitz heading for 

... also we would have been part of the negotiations if we had still been in the EU. Adverse effects on London from any agreement  could have been mitigated.  As it turns out by leaving the EU we left the negotiations,  nobody there would have cared about London's position and as a result the UK loses out. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If he's going to blame the consequences of the deal between them - that they were negotiating since 2010 - on the Brexit vote that happened six years after they started negotiating, then I'd say yes. Wouldn't you?

But when they started negotiating there was an EU interest in protecting the City as the EU top financial market, this interest no longer exists.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, aintforever said:

But when they started negotiating there was an EU interest in protecting the City as the EU top financial market, this interest no longer exists.

Ah, right, that must be the reason why they didn't reach any agreement in the six years following the start of the negotiations.

I've seriously underestimated the EU and their ability to predict the future so accurately.  Odd though that they didn't let the remain campaign know what was going to happen as they told us it was all going to move to Frankfurt.

The flip side of your argument is that it was always going to happen anyway, but I guess you're way too blinkered to even consider that possibility...

Edited by Weston Super Saint
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

.

The flip side of your argument is that it was always going to happen anyway, but I guess you're way too blinkered to even consider that possibility...

Without Brexit London would still have been in the position of being the principal clearing house within the EU, rather than being in competition with NY.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Without Brexit London would still have been in the position of being the principal clearing house within the EU, rather than being in competition with NY.

Don't worry, I understand your argument, I just think it's pony!

If the EU had any intention of keeping London as the principal clearing House, then they wouldn't have started negotiating with NY SIX years before Brexit became a reality.

There are plenty of things you can bash Brexit for, this one is stretching the truth to say the least!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

,..I just think it's pony!

Looks like we have a new SWF based contagious disease - Duckyspeakitis. The first symptom is demonstrated above. Patients will quickly move on to stage 2, where the use of "chicks", "micks", ,"paddies", and "sweaties" will be observed. In the late stages, referring to one's "snap dragon" or "doris" will indicate that the sufferer has reached a terminal diagnosis.

Edited by badgerx16
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we can finally see in black and white, the EU/Astra Zeneca supply contract which shows exactly why the EU will not be suing anyone and the UK will get the vaccine doses it deserves. An interesting extract is the definition of "Best Reasonable Efforts"

Quote

“Best Reasonable Efforts” means

(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or  commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and

(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world. 

10.1. Compliance; Assistance. 

The Commission and the Participating Member States shall use their Best Reasonable Efforts to support, within the framework of their competencies, AstraZeneca in its Best Reasonable Efforts to achieve for the Vaccine fast access to the European population through pan-European access mechanisms, including accelerated regulatory approval processes. 

It shows the total amateur nature of the EU lawyers in drafting this contract. Clause 10.1 is particularly damning and shows the equally amateur regulatory processes in the EU. Thank fuck we are now out of this shit show of a political union.

Edited by Guided Missile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best efforts and reasonable efforts are two different things. Best efforts usually means you will do all within your power to ensure something happens. Reasonable efforts normally means you will try to complete something assuming costs and timescales do not change in any significant way. 'Best Reasonable efforts' is a new one on me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

So, we can finally see in black and white, the EU/Astra Zeneca supply contract which shows exactly why the EU will not be suing anyone and the UK will get the vaccine doses it deserves. An interesting extract is the definition of "Best Reasonable Efforts"

It shows the total amateur nature of the EU lawyers in drafting this contract. Clause 10.1 is particularly damning and shows the equally amateur regulatory processes in the EU. Thank fuck we are now out of this shit show of a political union.

Like a Japanese soldier in the forest still fighting the Second World War.

With the difference being his side won the fucking war.

Absolutely batshit insane.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

So, we can finally see in black and white, the EU/Astra Zeneca supply contract which shows exactly why the EU will not be suing anyone and the UK will get the vaccine doses it deserves. An interesting extract is the definition of "Best Reasonable Efforts"

It shows the total amateur nature of the EU lawyers in drafting this contract. Clause 10.1 is particularly damning and shows the equally amateur regulatory processes in the EU. Thank fuck we are now out of this shit show of a political union.

You've missed, no surprise, the nub of the dispute. 

If AZ had tried and failed to produce a working vaccine or had had delays in producing any vaccine then the EU would have no legal case. The problem is that two of the four production facilities specified in the contract are working normally yet the EU is getting only a small fraction of the doses it ordered. There appears to a clear basis for legal dispute but its impossible for anyone to come to a clear view without knowing what the capacity of each site is and if there are any other annexes or agreements dealing with how delivery priority is determined.         

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digging a bit deeper in the EU/AZ Agreement, you will find other little nuggets:

Quote

(h) Capacity Limitations. In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by or on behalf of the Participating Member State, AstraZeneca shall promptly inform the Participating Member State. While AstraZeneca shall continue to use Best Reasonable Efforts to engage with its own contract manufacturers and suppliers to utilize the capacity and/or components, the Participating Member State will assist in finding a mutually acceptable solution for this Agreement and the competing agreement. To the extent AstraZeneca's performance under this Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the aforementioned competing agreement(s).

...and...

Quote

Final delivery subject to agreement of delivery schedule and regulatory approval.

One must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

You do remember that the referendum was over 4 years ago ? To paraphrase what Billy Joel sings in "Leningrad", "Haven't you heard you won the war ? What do you keep on fighting for ?"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/obsessed

Put yourself in his shoes. His hero has been kicked out of office in the States. Brexit cock ups on this side of the channel have started and will only get worse. This country under his UK hero Johnson has the worst Covid death rate in the world. It also is the worst performing G7 cointry in 2020. Irony of ironies Deutsche Bank of all banks could well be about to pull the plug on the orange one's highly indebted business "empire".

No wonder he is obsessed by the EU and vaccines. Things going wrong there is the only bright spot in  his weird existence. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Digging a bit deeper in the EU/AZ Agreement, you will find other little nuggets:

...and...

One must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing.

Why do you give a shit?

If this was Trump making challenging demands of a supplier you'd be wanking into a sock about it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Have you noticed the title of this thread?

There is 'Post Match Reaction' and there is obsession bordering on madness. GM should be bigging up the potential successes of Brexit, and the great opportunities that lay before us, ( if there are any ). Indeed, there have been several recent posts requesting that such plus points might be highlighted  Instead he seems to be still digging up 'evidence' of the EU's failings, as if we were still deep in the pre-vote trenches. And he is completely missing the point that, with respect to sourcing and procuring the vaccines, Brexit, in fact, had zero effect on the UK's position.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And he is completely missing the point that, with respect to sourcing and procuring the vaccines, Brexit, in fact, had zero effect on the UK's position.

Absolute pony!

Had we remained in the EU we would have been compelled to toe the same line as the current 27 countries and do as instructed like good little soldiers.

It's precisely because we had left the bloc that we could source and procure the vaccine like every other sovereign state.

I've no doubt you'll trot out the line that all EU members 'could' have gone their own way if they wished, however, the evidence is pretty clear that none of them choose this option, instead they opted to follow the rest of the bloc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Weston, but you are wrong;

"

The UK could have followed the same course of vaccine action if it were an EU member

That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). [1] This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones.

Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them."

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/covid-vaccine-decisions-brexit

 

 "

Ahead of leaving the Single Market, the MHRA has been formally asked under emergency powers to rapidly decide on vaccines without waiting for the EMA as would usually be required.

It is this that enabled the UK to approve the Pfizer vaccine before the EU or other countries. Contrary to some press reports, the legal basis for this has nothing to do with Brexit. It exists within the regulations implementing EU law."

 

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/brexit-and-the-coronavirus-vaccine

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all well and good but I ordered some clothes from Europe and now they are being held up because of Brexit according to the notification I got from UPS. 

They need to stop arguing about unimportant stuff like the vaccine and concentrate on releasing my bloody parcel. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Absolute pony!

Had we remained in the EU we would have been compelled to toe the same line as the current 27 countries and do as instructed like good little soldiers.

It's precisely because we had left the bloc that we could source and procure the vaccine like every other sovereign state.

I've no doubt you'll trot out the line that all EU members 'could' have gone their own way if they wished, however, the evidence is pretty clear that none of them choose this option, instead they opted to follow the rest of the bloc.  

Absolute pony shit as normal. Have you forgotten the PPE nationalism and closed borders at the start of the pandemic, when all the countries did their own thing. This embarrassed the EU and so they have chosen to do things in a more measured way, but countries could do their own thing if they want.

What's the difference between the states of Europe acting collectively and the states in America. Hate the march towards federalism if you must, but hating a bureaucratic benifit of it is weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Could you imagine the screeching we would be hearing if Britain had tried to pull what the EU is doing in NI? 

I reckon most fair minded remainers would agree that the EU are acting poorly and would have no problem saying so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I reckon most fair minded remainers would agree that the EU are acting poorly and would have no problem saying so.

Poorly is an understatement. It's a unique achievement to get so much agreement from so many. Let's not also pretend that the reaction would be on a different scale were the shoe on the other foot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Could you imagine the screeching we would be hearing if Britain had tried to pull what the EU is doing in NI? 

NI gets it's vaccine through the NHS, not Eire, which has also said it is totally opposed to the EU decision.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a long time since we had good reason to hate the French but Macron is a loathsome leader for all his superficial charm. Glad he knows so much about vaccines efficacy rates too. 

Great PR for Brexit too. 

Edited by whelk
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whelk said:

Seems a long time since we had good reason to hate the French but Macron is a loathsome leader for all his superficial charm. Glad he knows so much about vaccines efficacy rates too. 

Great PR for Brexit too. 

He is being a dick, knocking the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine two days after the Pasteur Institute abandoned it's vaccine attempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Irish Republic is tracking hugely behind the North which is a significant problem for our own common travel area.

If I was Boris I would be this morning offering to send enough vaccine to first-dose the 5 million people that live in Ireland, so they can quickly catch up to the rates we're working at.

Hell, if I was Boris I'd get myself pictured in a truck delivering it over the border. For the LOLZ.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

The Irish Republic is tracking hugely behind the North which is a significant problem for our own common travel area.

If I was Boris I would be this morning offering to send enough vaccine to first-dose the 5 million people that live in Ireland, so they can quickly catch up to the rates we're working at.

Hell, if I was Boris I'd get myself pictured in a truck delivering it over the border. For the LOLZ.

Agreed. Either that or just set up vaccination centres in the North and invite the Irish to walk over the border and claim them. Would be a genius move but sadly I don't think they will. 

Regardless of whether anyone is pro brexit or not, I think everyone can agree that the EU under the leadership of VDL is an absolute shambles. They messed this vaccine procurement up ridiculously and have managed to turn the majority of the chattering class against then with this decision as well as undermine the careful narrative they've tried to construct for the past four years over NI. As many suspected, they only ever cared about Ireland when it suited them for negotiations and will quite happily throw them under the bus if they think it's beneficial. 

Edited by hypochondriac
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Sorry Weston, but you are wrong;

 

No, you're absolutely right!  The EU's vaccine purchasing strategy is an absolute beacon of light and should be followed the world over!

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1103

A few takeaway quotes from the article :

Quote

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “This is a moment for science and solidarity. Nothing is certain, but I am confident that we can mobilise the resources to find a vaccine to beat this virus once and for all. We must be ready to manufacture and deploy such a vaccine across Europe and the world..... The European Union will do all in its power to ensure that all peoples of this world have access to a vaccine, irrespective of where they live.”

Excellent words Ursula, truly inspirational.

Quote

Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides said: “Working together will increase our chances of securing access to a safe and effective vaccine at the scale we need and as quickly as possible. It will ensure fair and equitable access for all across the EU and globally

Truly inspiring words Stella, you are a credit to the EU and no doubt the peace prize nomination will be winging it's way over to you.

What a beautiful, harmonised proposal in theory, they want to save the world after all.

Meanwhile, a couple of months down the line after they realised that they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery after all, we have :

Quote

Under the new rule, vaccine firms will have to seek permission before supplying doses beyond the EU

Sorry, what was that?  Did someone say protectionist cult?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Sorry Weston, but you are wrong;

"

The UK could have followed the same course of vaccine action if it were an EU member

That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). [1] This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones.

Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them."

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/covid-vaccine-decisions-brexit

 

 "

Ahead of leaving the Single Market, the MHRA has been formally asked under emergency powers to rapidly decide on vaccines without waiting for the EMA as would usually be required.

It is this that enabled the UK to approve the Pfizer vaccine before the EU or other countries. Contrary to some press reports, the legal basis for this has nothing to do with Brexit. It exists within the regulations implementing EU law."

 

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/brexit-and-the-coronavirus-vaccine

Surely there's an important distinction here between what the UK would be legally allowed to do if brexit did not exist and what they would have done in reality? Surely no one is seriously suggesting they would have gone it alone if the rest of the EU were instructed to act together? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Surely there's an important distinction here between what the UK would be legally allowed to do if brexit did not exist and what they would have done in reality? Surely no one is seriously suggesting they would have gone it alone if the rest of the EU were instructed to act together? 

Correct.

Sadly, you're wasting your time with Badger on this point - he will never agree!

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

The Irish Republic is tracking hugely behind the North which is a significant problem for our own common travel area.

If I was Boris I would be this morning offering to send enough vaccine to first-dose the 5 million people that live in Ireland, so they can quickly catch up to the rates we're working at.

Hell, if I was Boris I'd get myself pictured in a truck delivering it over the border. For the LOLZ.

What do you think the reaction to giving Irish citizens a vaccine ahead of British would be? Personally bollocks to that

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Surely there's an important distinction here between what the UK would be legally allowed to do if brexit did not exist and what they would have done in reality? Surely no one is seriously suggesting they would have gone it alone if the rest of the EU were instructed to act together? 

We didn’t join the single currency or Schengen Agreement but yes unlikely we’d go outside of the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whelk said:

What do you think the reaction to giving Irish citizens a vaccine ahead of British would be? Personally bollocks to that

Thats why I said catch up to the same rate as us/Northern Ireland (11%) rather than where they are now (2% or whatever it us).

And pledge to deliver all of it (in the same we have been pledged to get enough for three times our population).

Obviously I don't mean vaccinate Irish 25 year olds tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Surely there's an important distinction here between what the UK would be legally allowed to do if brexit did not exist and what they would have done in reality? Surely no one is seriously suggesting they would have gone it alone if the rest of the EU were instructed to act together? 

But if we have the expertise here to get it approved sooner, I’m not sure our government would tell them to slow down just because we were in the EU. I expect the emergency approval facility is there in EU law for exactly this scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})