Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia

Nody wrote: »

Was about to post this; which also may fall foul under the state aid clauses of WTO and the EU deal...

Yep. It will be hilarious if the one big brexit 'win' promoted by the same folks who said 'WTO rules' are just as good as a deal with the EU, turns out to be challenged as illegal state aid by both the EU and the WTO

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/eu-vaccine-passport-excludes-5m-britons-given-indian-made-astrazeneca/

If they remained they could have had a say and maybe Covid would have been handled better in uk and eu, it seems the manufacturer never applied for authorisation for the type made in India

Now they have no say on how Eu operates it’s schemes

It's approved in Ireland and eight other European countries.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

It's approved in Ireland and eight other European countries.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It’s an Indian variant (hahaha) of the Brexit vaccine, the article has a bit of detail and doesn’t seem to be behind usual paywall

The EU does not (at the moment) recognise the Indian-made, Indian-branded AZ vaccine as valid for intra-EU travel. Some EU countries have indicated that they will accept incoming travellers from India as "vaccinated" if they've had that particular vaccine. That situation will, undoubtedly, evolve over time.

However, the most significant aspect of this is that the UK authorities have, again, demonstrated their untrustworthiness to the EU, by passing off all AZ vaccines injected as the EU-made, EU-approved brand, when 5 million of them were brought in from a third country with no approval for use in the EU. If your vaccination cert indicates that you've received a certain brand, that's what you should have received. Issuing certs bearing incorrect information, that can only be validated by checking lot numbers, would normally result in the practitioner being struck off.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

The EU does not (at the moment) recognise the Indian-made, Indian-branded AZ vaccine as valid for intra-EU travel. Some EU countries have indicated that they will accept incoming travellers from India as "vaccinated" if they've had that particular vaccine. That situation will, undoubtedly, evolve over time.

However, the most significant aspect of this is that the UK authorities have, again, demonstrated their untrustworthiness to the EU, by passing off all AZ vaccines injected as the EU-made, EU-approved brand, when 5 million of them were brought in from a third country with no approval for use in the EU. If your vaccination cert indicates that you've received a certain brand, that's what you should have received. Issuing certs bearing incorrect information, that can only be validated by checking lot numbers, would normally result in the practitioner being struck off.

Bit of a non event really as EU nations are beginning to accept the validity of indian vaccines.There is also the possibility of EU vaccine green cards not being recognised in India if the indian vaccine isn't approved according to some sources.

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

They could you know just apply?

The event here is that
1. Uk is reckless and
2. Uk leaving Eu has repercussions for its citizens when they want to go to EU
3. Uk no longer has a say in how Eu schemes operate

As for India itself, having extensively travelled this country it’s not high on my list of destinations to return to, and that was before Covid (back then it entitled getting quite a range of vaccinations to visit safely)

I don't care whether the EU approves the Indian vaccine or not.When it's deemed OK to go to Ireland,Spain or perhaps Greece I will do as they are just some of the countries who are fine with the Indian vaccine.
I'm also surprised the telegraph has been used as a source as i was under the impression it was unreliable to say the least.

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You don’t see having a single/common/consistent/easy to understand travel requirement across 27 states as a better alternative to having to check ever changing requirements in your destination country as something that helps travel as a positive?

You don’t see how uk not being in Eu resulted in a mess for uk citizens?

This just one of now hundreds of examples of small paper cuts and needless friction which is a direct result of voting for a death by thousand of paper cuts

Personally,I believe the centralised EU approach was exposed as slow to react and unwieldy over vaccines,whether for roll out or acquisition.By the time brussels 'appoves'the indian vaccine it looks like EU countries are using their initiative to approve it themselves

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Personally,I believe the centralised EU approach was exposed as slow to react and unwieldy over vaccines,whether for roll out or acquisition.By the time brussels 'appoves'the indian vaccine it looks like EU countries are using their initiative to approve it themselves

How did you feel about the isolationist, bat**** crazy approach the UK began it's 'approach' to the pandemic and would have brought Arlene with it, had she got her way?

Sam Russell

RobMc59 wrote: »

Personally,I believe the centralised EU approach was exposed as slow to react and unwieldy over vaccines,whether for roll out or acquisition.By the time brussels 'appoves'the indian vaccine it looks like EU countries are using their initiative to approve it themselves

Well, prior to Covid, the EU had no competence for Public Health. It still has no competence for Public Health.

It acts on Public Health through joint action, as it does for international affairs. It obviously takes time where any action takes time to agree a joint position. It has done quite well, given its legal requirements to get agreements on any propositions from wiling subscribers.

Plus, they were funding pharma companies hugely with little chance of success (but most came good). If no vaccine worked, there would be severe criticism at the billions of Euro lost.

For us, they did well. Otherwise we would be way down the queue for vaccines.

liamog

RobMc59 wrote: »

By the time brussels 'appoves'the indian vaccine it looks like EU countries are using their initiative to approve it themselves

It's the European Medicines Agency of Amsterdam that will manage the approval, not Brussels. Health products are also approved at state level such as our HPRA.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How did you feel about the isolationist, bat**** crazy approach the UK began it's 'approach' to the pandemic and would have brought Arlene with it, had she got her way?

Slightly OT but has`nt she resigned? As far as I`m aware,many countries cooperate and contribute to vaccine production.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Slightly OT but has`nt she resigned? As far as I`m aware,many countries cooperate and contribute to vaccine production.

Once again, you criticise the EU and sidestep any criticism of the UK.

The fact is Rob, nobody's 'approach' to the pandemic was all things to all men and women.

20silkcut

Without getting into a discussion on the pandemic, Is it fair to say we can lay the blame of the coming 4th wave at the feet of Boris Johnson ?

Did he delay shutting down travel from India for fear of scuppering a future trade deal with India?

Is this another indirect gift of brexit? In that it’s taking hold in our corner of Europe first.

ClosedAccountFuzzy

If you look at where the EU is on vaccines compared to countries that are quite similar to individual EU member states in developed parts of Asia and even the likes of Canada or Australia and NZ we are months ahead of them already on rollout.

The reality is if the 27 EU states and the others who joined the programme went on their own they'd have been in a similar position competing with each other for what were very limited resources.

The USA went ahead with vaccination programmes at rapid speed by banning exports and cutting off even countries like Canada which would have an expectation of being part of those supply chains.

There was a lot of crazy going on in the early days of the vaccine rollout and also a lot of rather nasty tabloid "EU is a failure" press from the UK.

The reality is the EU does not have the ability to go into military command economy mode like the USA and has to work within market forces to a large degree and by comparison to most of the world it is way ahead on vaccines right now. The US and UK are just a bit further ahead and that gap has been closing quite rapidly as the summer rolled on.

The big issue on vaccines is going to be down to uptake not supply in the US, UK and EU. If you look at the US right now the problem isn't the speed of supply, it's convincing the rather large % of their population who are anti-vaxxers to take a vaccine at all.

Anyway without going way off topic, I just think this endless talk about the EU programme being an failure is absolute nonsense.

We're vaccinating at high speed with very good quality vaccines right now and the potential need for booster shots is already covered. E.g. Ireland has 4.9m doses of Pfizer / BioNTech available for each of 2022 and 2023 if we need them as well as Moderna and other options too.

What you saw in spring was the system ramping up. There were also issues around spread of bets on vaccine technologies which were unknowable unknowns. The fact that Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna emerged as the most solid options was actually quite surprising as sensible money would have been on Sanofi, GSK, and solutions using viral vectors like AstraZeneca and J&J also seemed more likely to be successful, along with other traditionally very large players in vaccines' solutions which never even got off the ground at all.

Two small biotech companies ended up being hugely successful in this and their technologies have become easier and easier to use as things like the initial highly conservative storage requirements turned out to be largely unnecessary. None of that could really have been predicted by policy makers, hence your spread bet of investments into a wide array of vaccines by the EU, and there was always an assumption some or most of those candidates wouldn't make it to market, but the orders still had to be place to ensure they happened at all.

I just think we're pillorying the EU and our own response in Ireland without being remotely objective about how it actually compares to the world.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Bit of a non event really as EU nations are beginning to accept the validity of indian vaccines.There is also the possibility of EU vaccine green cards not being recognised in India if the indian vaccine isn't approved according to some sources.

That's an oddly hollow threat that given:

a.) India is in such a state atm that I can't imagine there's many Europeans that eager to get over there as part of one of their first post-Covid trips.

b.) They can use the standard negative test situation in conjunction with proof of vaccines if they really must go.

c.) The European standard will inevitably end up being if not the de facto international standard as copied by others, then the basis on how others will manage their Covid passports.

So I guess, bully to India. * shrugs *

ClosedAccountFuzzy

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't care whether the EU approves the Indian vaccine or not.When it's deemed OK to go to Ireland,Spain or perhaps Greece I will do as they are just some of the countries who are fine with the Indian vaccine.
I'm also surprised the telegraph has been used as a source as i was under the impression it was unreliable to say the least.

Vaccine approval is done at a technical level by scientists, not politicians. The same applies in the FDA or the EMA.

Rushing approvals or driving them politically is a recipe for a total disaster and it simply won't happen. It would also cause serious scepticism about the robustness of the approvals process. You're talking about products that are being rolled population wide and they need to be checked, tested and approved in a very objective, thorough, transparent and independent process if they are to be both safe and accepted as such. The public expect that.

So far there's absolutely no suggestion that the vaccines, need any adjustment at all. The two mRNA vaccines are very capable against the indian variant and so is AstraZeneca and seemingly so is Janssen / J&J.

If there's a need to tweak anything in Europe it can be done very quickly with the mRNA vaccines due to the technology platform in place and there isn't a hugely complex approach to that from a regulatory point of view

mRNA vaccines are almost like 'programmable technology'. They can drop in new code for a slightly different spike protein etc without much difficulty.

There has been absolutely enormous capacity put in place by Pfizer/BioNTech (with EU support) and they've also assembled a consortium of 13 other companies which include very heavy hitters like Sanofi and Novartis to maximise that capacity. Moderna and their main manufacturing partner Lonza has also massive ramped things up in Europe and there are other options too.

The vaccine programme in Europe is enormous and I think people really need to go learn about it from sources other than UK tabloids and ranting posters online.

I think there's a lot of utter nonsense being talked on this thread about highly technical topics.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

Bit of a non event really as EU nations are beginning to accept the validity of indian vaccines.There is also the possibility of EU vaccine green cards not being recognised in India if the indian vaccine isn't approved according to some sources.

The EU Digital Covid Certificate (if that's what you mean by 'vaccine green card' - there's no green in it) is not meant to be recognised in India or anywhere else. Its purpose is to establish a uniform registration of EU citizen's covid status, either on the basis of vaccination or testing, to enable EU citizens to more freely cross the internal borders of the EU.

If other countries choose to align with the EU's now fully-functional system, then that's great - provided that they are (a) using vaccines that do, in fact, confer adequate protection on the person injected; and (b) that the authorities can be trusted to make true and accurate declarations.

It is on point (b) that the UK has shown itself to be untrustworthy, injecting citizens with one vaccine, then declaring that they have been given a different one. The concern is not with the vaccine itself, for which approval and retrospective recognition can be sought; the problem is that as of now, we have a concrete example of the UK importing and distributing non-EU approved medicines and then passing them off as something else.

Would you trust someone who you knew to be deliberately mislabelling a product?

peter kern

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't care whether the EU approves the Indian vaccine or not.When it's deemed OK to go to Ireland,Spain or perhaps Greece I will do as they are just some of the countries who are fine with the Indian vaccine.
I'm also surprised the telegraph has been used as a source as i was under the impression it was unreliable to say the least.

regardless of which AZ vaccine, do you think it is smart of some eu countries to allow people from the uk in ,to speed up the spread of the delta variant ?

ClosedAccountFuzzy

The European digital COVID cert will be used by the EU, non EU Schengen members, and probably others will plug into it too as time goes on. It's primarily a tool for the EU to ensure trans European travel works safely.

What other countries do is up to them, but it's quite likely it will form the basis of a broader international system as time goes on.

There will have to be a robust protocol to ensure that vaccine claims being made by people are verifiable i.e. that they're not fake. There was a huge issue with fake PCR test certs and so on early in the process. Whatever way this new system works it needs to be very robust and secure.

Given the "sources" of the Indian batches of AstraZeneca story, I would assume nothing other than it's yet more pot stirring by the UK media.

In all likelihood they'll just need to plug the UK and EU systems together. As yet that has not happened.

There's a broader international travel system coming into play sometime later.

The UK is not part of the EU or Schengen thus has nothing to do with EU COVID certs anyway.

RobMc59

peter kern wrote: »

regardless of which AZ vaccine, do you think it is smart of some eu countries to allow people from the uk in ,to speed up the spread of the delta variant ?

I wouldn't attempt to go outside the UK until deemed safe for all concerned despite being fully vaccinated and don't think anyone else should either.

ClosedAccountFuzzy

I just find this "OMG how dare the EU not include us in EU systems!!!" "I am absolutely outraged!" while having left the EU and sworn that you want nothing whatsoever to do with it or its "red tape" is just becoming a bit tiresome.

The COVID digital certs are for EU countries' use and for internal EU travel arrangements. The UK is a 3rd country now. It's not part of the EU nor part of Schengen.

It will end up being approved much as any mutual recognition of digital certs with the USA, Canada, Turkey etc might be.

I don't really think people are quite getting that the UK is no longer an EU member state which means systems and processes will treat it as they would any other 3rd country.

I'm sure there'll be a mutual recognition of certification but it needs to be agreed first and I can't really see that being top priority, particularly with δ variant running rampant.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

Personally,I believe the centralised EU approach was exposed as slow to react and unwieldy over vaccines,whether for roll out or acquisition.

As the EMA was located in London pre brexit and had to be set up again in Amsterdam from the start as only some of the staff were prepared to uproot their families etc, responsibility for any slow reaction on the part of the EU lies with the UK. Yet another thing to add to the list.

schmoo2k

RobMc59 wrote: »

Personally,I believe the centralised EU approach was exposed as slow to react and unwieldy over vaccines,whether for roll out or acquisition.By the time brussels 'appoves'the indian vaccine it looks like EU countries are using their initiative to approve it themselves

Yup, we are all sovereign nations and could source our own vaccines had we had the independent resources.

murphaph

Personally, given the delta threat, I'm much happier to be vaccinated with Biontech than AZ. The UK is going to have to give all those AZ recipients another shot before winter. The EU did pretty well for an organisation with no health mandate/competence. It had to learn by doing.

Junkyard Tom

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1411069873560641541?s=20

Appeasement is getting us nowhere. Time for the EU to use its soft power.

CelticRambler

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1411069873560641541?s=20

Appeasement is getting us nowhere. Time for the EU to use its soft power.

From the IT Opinion piece (by Frost and Lewis)

To simply say “the protocol must be implemented in full” is to take a theological approach that is frozen in time and does not deal with the reality that now exists.

Say the guys who drove the Brexit bus off the road, because it was always more important to "respect" the one-day referendum result than deal sensibly with the challenges that reality made obvious as the years passed. :rolleyes:

That whole article reads like the kind of argument I used to have with my eldest son (probably the same as I use to have with my parents :pac: )

In October 2019 the British government reached a remarkable, indeed unprecedented, agreement with the EU, enshrined in the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. ... We assumed that the requirements to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and to try to avoid checks and controls at Northern Irish ports, both spelt out in the protocol, would be meaningful.

So you're idiots? You assumed that the checks and controls spelt out and enshrined in the remarkable, indeed unprecedented, agreement would be at the same time meaningful and avoidable.

... we expected to be able to administer them sensitively in practice ...

Where in the Protocol is this expectation spelt out and enshrined? Oh, it isn't? You were just assuming that the EU would let you pick and choose which rules to apply?

Such arrangements can work only if there is genuine cross-community consent for them

Seriously? Now you're talking about genuine cross-community consent? In a part of the UK where there had been next-to-no cross-community consent in the forty years prior to you signing the agreement? Could this have anything to do with, say, the former NI Secretary, Karen Bradley, not knowing that nationalists don't vote for unionists and vice versa?

That whole article is a perfect example of the maxim "better to be thought a fool than to speak and have it confirmed" :rolleyes:

fash

CelticRambler wrote: »

So you're idiots? You assumed that the checks and controls spelt out and enshrined in the remarkable, indeed unprecedented, agreement would be at the same time meaningful and avoidable.


Where in the Protocol is this expectation spelt out and enshrined? Oh, it isn't? You were just assuming that the EU would let you pick and choose which rules to apply?

That's the thing- especially about the sausage wars. There was literally a section discussed and agreed about a 6 month grace period before the new rules would kick in. How can you claim to be surprised by the concept in principle after specifically negotiating and agreeing it in great detail.

CelticRambler wrote: »

That whole article is a perfect example of the maxim "better to be thought a fool than to speak and have it confirmed" :rolleyes:

They are not fools - they are merely duplicitous, building a narrative and threatening Ireland.

cml387

It's an astonishing article in the IT today.

The subtext is "We didn't expect the EU to attempt to implement the protocol in full. After all,we had no intention of doing so"

McGiver

Why did IT agreed to print this drivel?

This is basically Johnsonist Tory propaganda, containing threats and hints of blackmail on top.

Absolutely utter drivel. I think now that Mr, erm Lord, Frost is actually not an idiot but a malicious agent.

Tyrone212

I got a mortgage from the bank. I agreed to the terms and conditions. I signed the paperwork. I can't believe they are actually expecting me to pay it back. If they don't stop I'll burn the house down.

CelticRambler

fash wrote: »

They are not fools - they are merely duplicitous, building a narrative and threatening Ireland.

McGiver wrote: »

Why did IT agreed to print this drivel?

This is basically Johnsonist Tory propaganda, containing threats and hints of blackmail on top.

That was my first reaction too: is the IT so desperately short of "content" that it has to go scraping the bottom of the Tory barrel of nonsense? While there might be an argument for "presenting the other side" to an Irish audience, I would have thought that anyone who reads the IT these days has at least half a dozen alternative sources of news, including some coming directly from the Tory-controlled media in the UK.

In any case, I would again think that anyone who reads the IT has enough intelligence to recognise the blathering for what it is, so I'll stand by my original assertion that the piece is neither threatening nor narrative-building; it only serves to demonstrate what fools are currently in government in GB.