Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

J Mysterio · 27-01-2021 1:54pm

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

It's a very pedantic point. Nothern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so in that regard you could say that Northern Ireland isn't a part of Great Britain but part of the UK.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Geographically NI is not part of Great Britain. It's probably semantics, but the country's name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I don't think it's pedantic, or semantics. Northern Ireland is unequivocally not part of Britain - great or otherwise.

Geographically, it is part of Ireland.

Politically, with GB, it forms the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It remains to be seen how long that will be the case given that political union is failing miserably.

Akrasia · 27-01-2021 1:55pm

tubercolossus wrote: »

Er, I rather think it is part of Britain, actually.

Nope, Britain is the Island that contains Wales, Scotland and England

NI is in the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'

An Ciarraioch · 27-01-2021 2:13pm

Looking at this gridlock on the Channel Tunnel, Irish hauliers won't be in any rush back to the landbridge:

https://twitter.com/vivamjm/status/1354399803195715585

forgottenhills · 27-01-2021 2:15pm

There is a lot of focus on here on some of the day to day issues associated with Brexit and while that's fine I think it might be useful to look at what major initiatives the UK may be considering in strategic terms now that it is not in the EU.

I think that the UKs move to seek accession to the CPTPP trading bloc is quite interesting.

I imagine strategically for them its a hookup to a large trading bloc (yes its ironic but they would see it as a bloc free of political interference). What might work out for them if they achieve accession would be if the US also joins CPTPP as that would give the UK a backdoor free trade deal in some areas with the US. CPTPP is basically some important countries in the general Pacific/Asean area joining up to do some free trade and also to gang up to counteract the increasingly power and threat of China. The US was going to join before Trump and may do so again under Biden.

ArmaniJeanss · 27-01-2021 2:15pm

Lemming wrote: »

I've been here for a decade and you really have to looking for those flags; the English (not so much the Scots from memory on the matter but may be mistaken) make them as small as possible when they are obliged to display them, otherwise they just don't bother if they can get away with it. Westminster does not like acknowledging the EU at all.

With the UK as net-contributor, those signs could easily be brushed aside as 'they are just giving us our own money back'. Leaving would mean there's even more money coming our way (obviously we all know that's not what will happen)

A quick google search returns an interesting article in the weeks after Brexit on Ebbw Vale, a town in Wales that got a large amount of Structural Fund spending, but also the highest Leave vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale

Sam Russell · 27-01-2021 2:24pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Wales probably has the highest per capita number of English people. A lot of them would be older conservative voters too

I think England might just beat them.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK joined on the 1 January 1973 and held their referendum in June 1975.

I don't think it will take several years. We're seeing the effects now or at least some of them. There's currently a transition period for financial services for the next 18 months. If the deal reached in 2020 is any indication, we're going to see a level playing field on that front as well. Also, the stockpiles that have been assembled are going to run out at some point soon.

All Brexit has done is create unnecessary red tape and trade barriers while ministers blame businesses and try to put Union flags on vaccine vials.

That said, the UK won't be able to rejoin the EU until it understands why it left and why so many people voted for this chaos and hardship when most of the country's problems can be pinned on the two main parties (and possibly the Lib Dems).

I think we need holistic political change here before that can happen including a reformed voting system, a reformed House of Commons and devolution to the regions of England. Even then, it'll be at least a decade until even talking about rejoining becomes viable.

Rejoin is not the only option. They could negotiate changes that make membership of either the CU or SM possible - even in a limited way and see how that goes. Then maybe do a deal on financial services or maybe sign up to some of the EU programmes, like Erasmus. Perhaps a few reciprocal arrangements like the EHIC and the like. Even tie the GB£ to the Euro - mind you that may only last till Wednesday.

Gradual BRINO.

Lemming · 27-01-2021 2:28pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

With the UK as net-contributor, those signs could easily be brushed aside as 'they are just giving us our own money back'. Leaving would mean there's even more money coming our way (obviously we all know that's not what will happen)

Living in Yorkshire, I have heard that line more than once from leave supporters. They usually go silent or mumble non-committally when one points out that it may, in part be equivalent to "your money coming back" but it's only being spent north of the Watford gap on because Westminster has been given preconditions on spending said monies on deprived regions to improve peoples lives/local economies/etc. Any beginnings of protest tend to fall silent when said leavers are reminded of the Tories track record towards Yorkshire and where they would rather spend that money instead ...

... as the expression goes; "Never Trust a Tory"

RobMc59 · 27-01-2021 2:29pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

What number? We're now into year 5 of Brexit - should we wait until JRM's 50-year milestone before completing our assessement?

OK - so can you explain then why the British government (Tory MPs in particular) refuse to rule out dropping standards? And given that they have gone to great lengths to ensure that they have the freedom to compromise on quality (defying farmers, customers and the Lords) without further parliamentary oversight, how much of a "potentially good" thing do you seriously believe this is likely to be? Bearing in mind that the export-health-cert problems are also a direct outcome of the government's refusal to commit to maintaining current standards?

It's what Johnson signed up for - why wouldn't it? The rule-book has been written; so unless you think that this government or the next is going to re-open the FTA negotiations, what's happening now is what's going to happen for the foreseeable future.

Lest there be any doubt, don't forget that when Brexiter were yakking on about seamless trade and invisible borders controlled by AI, we were able to provide dozens of examples of existing borders elsewhere where there were all the same problems that we're seeing at the GB-EU frontier. Most of those other borders are between trading blocs that have better relationships than GB-EU, so there is no prospect of things improving, other than people getting used to filling in reams of documents.

This is a classic Brexiter argument: I remember how things were before things were different. The EU is. By dint of its existence and its enormous influence on the rest of the world, whatever you remember from before doesn't apply any more. Nations across the globe choose to align themselves with EU standards because it makes life easier for them (and they happen to be, for the most part, the highest international standards - so you can always trade down if you want to do a deal with, say, the US).

I know you've repeatedly asserted your belief that GB can make the best of the bad hand the ERG/Brexit Party dealt it, but the depressing reality is that enough of your countrymen voted for this government despite Johnson's utter contempt for Parliament, the Queen and traditional British "fair play" - so there's no reason to think that there's more than enough of a critical mass of voters to keep the Good Ship Britannia sailing off towards the edge of the world in search of Atlantis or some other mythical continent.

Thought provoking post Celtic..
I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.
Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU.
The government have signed up to a very thin deal because they want minimal EU say over the destiny of the UK,not what I wanted but we have to get on with it,things can and do change.It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.
Long term,I hope the tories are given their marching orders and the deal can be revisited.

breezy1985 · 27-01-2021 2:40pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thought provoking post Celtic..
I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.
Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU.
The government have signed up to a very thin deal because they want minimal EU say over the destiny of the UK,not what I wanted but we have to get on with it,things can and do change.It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.
Long term,I hope the tories are given their marching orders and the deal can be revisited.

"Assert it's will"
"overbearing desire to control every aspect of life"
You buy this crap straight from the mouth of Farage but ya it's the pro EU people who accept control without question. Laughable stuff

Akrasia · 27-01-2021 2:41pm

yagan wrote: »

Have a friend living in a coastal town in north wales popular with English retirees who actually started a campaign to remove all EU funding signs from the EU funded promenade they enjoy every day. Bitter folk.

They won't have to remove them, they'll fall down all on their own when the funding for maintenance and basic upkeep falls off a cliff as the Tories tighten the purse strings for anything other than their own vanity projects, or jobs for the boys

listermint · 27-01-2021 2:42pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thought provoking post Celtic..
I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.
Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU.
The government have signed up to a very thin deal because they want minimal EU say over the destiny of the UK,not what I wanted but we have to get on with it,things can and do change.It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.
Long term,I hope the tories are given their marching orders and the deal can be revisited.

Overbearing , check.
Questioning Brussels, check.
Control every aspect of life, check.
Accept control, check.
Edicts, check.

Youre playing the who's who of brexit hits for the last 5 years . Can you give some clear and concise example of all of this overbearing control and edicts that we are accepting as an Ireland within the EU.

Just wondering so one can ensure that you haven't been a brexit cheerleader all along. Details backing up the above classics would be a good start.

breezy1985 · 27-01-2021 2:44pm

Akrasia wrote: »

They won't have to remove them, they'll fall down all on their own when the funding for maintenance and basic upkeep falls off a cliff as the Tories tighten the purse strings for anything other than their own vanity projects, or jobs for the boys

Yep.
"Sorry lads no money to fix the school cause Joanna Lumley wants an Fing bridge"

Akrasia · 27-01-2021 2:45pm

tubercolossus wrote: »

Yes, you're all correct. But somehow I don't think UKOGBANIEXIT was ever going to catch on.

The fact that NI wasn't even included in the concept of brexit from the beginning is one of the issues that has caused their own downfall

The GFA put huge hurdles in the withdrawal agreement negotiations, stalling them for years while May and Johnson tried to lie about 'technological solutions' for a frictionless customs border

Before the referendum, the future of Northern Ireland was probably item number 100 on the list of the average englander's top 100 things to consider when voting for or against Brexit

The Raging Bile Duct · 27-01-2021 2:46pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU.

I've seen this line trotted out more times than I care to remember and it's pure waffle. What do you mean by 'control every aspect of life'? The overbearing food standards that ensure we're not eating poo? The overbearing right to privacy and data protection? The overbearing workers rights? The overbearing rights of free movement and free trade? Is Brussels going to start telling me when I can go to the toilet?

listermint · 27-01-2021 2:47pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The fact that NI wasn't even included in the concept of brexit from the beginning is one of the issues that has caused their own downfall

The GFA put huge hurdles in the withdrawal agreement negotiations, stalling them for years while May and Johnson tried to lie about 'technological solutions' for a frictionless customs border

Before the referendum, the future of Northern Ireland was probably item number 100 on the list of the average englander's top 100 things to consider when voting for or against Brexit

Why would any of that be considered it was a very narrow understanding of life, and what they want from maybe up to 50 individuals in the Tory party, meeting in secret, taking public funds to fund their party within a party. Their only sole goal was get out of the EU. Nothing outside of that mattered.

Democracy... Indeed.

schmoo2k · 27-01-2021 2:49pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

I don't think it's pedantic, or semantics. Northern Ireland is unequivocally not part of Britain - great or otherwise.

Geographically, it is part of Ireland.

Politically, with GB, it forms the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It remains to be seen how long that will be the case given that political union is failing miserably.

And geographically Ireland is part of the British Isles!

J Mysterio · 27-01-2021 2:52pm

schmoo2k wrote: »

And geographically Ireland is part of the British Isles!

That term is in dispute. I don't use it myself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

Seth Brundle · 27-01-2021 2:56pm

mod: can we stop with the GB/UK/British Isles discussion please?

schmoo2k · 27-01-2021 2:56pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

That term is in dispute. I don't use it myself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

Yea I went looking for that link before I posted - but the fact I had to go look for it made me feel bad.

Enzokk · 27-01-2021 3:08pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thought provoking post Celtic..
I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.
Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU.
The government have signed up to a very thin deal because they want minimal EU say over the destiny of the UK,not what I wanted but we have to get on with it,things can and do change.It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.
Long term,I hope the tories are given their marching orders and the deal can be revisited.

You are so concerned about the overbearing attitude of Brussels and them telling us what we can and cannot do that you wanted to Remain. You trot out the same stupid lines about the EU that has caused people to hate and fear the EU and vote to Leave, even when it is shown to be a idea that will cost livelihoods and put people out of work.

Do you know what will happen if the deal is revisited? The UK will have to accept that there will be instances where you will have abide by rules you had no say in. But in the same post you seem to rant against this very thing. Do you want to revisit your desire for a renegotiated deal when you know this will be the outcome?

And I cannot believe I have to say this, but there isn't some Brussels office that decide to inflict rules on the EU, it is the EU of which Ireland is one member that decides on these regulations and rules to follow. Can we please just stop with the Leaver Brexit narrative almost 5 years after the referendum.

Seth Brundle · 27-01-2021 3:10pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thought provoking post Celtic..
I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.

Do you not believe that you are seeing the effects already?
I can see loads of negative effects - maybe it is just that none of the positives have become visible yet? Let me know what these positives are and I'll keep an eye out!

RobMc59 wrote: »

Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..

You hope that standards are maintained at the current level (I note the use of the word hope!).
Who set those standards and why?

For what reason was the EU "trying to assert its will on the UK"?
Had it anything to do with any third country hoping to sell into the EU having to adhere to minimum standards?
Had the UK decided to ban all sales into the EU, would the EU still have tried to assert it's will on the UK?

RobMc59 wrote: »

It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.

Can you name one positive for the people of the UK that has happened since the UK left the EU?
Nobody tried stopping the UK from leaving the EU. They made the various decisions themselves and despite all expert advice proceeded to leave with next to nothing of a plan. They threatened its neighbours if they didn't get their way and have lost credibility at an international level.

If a country wishes to leave the EU, then they can; as you saw with the UK's departure. Nobody was standing in their way stopping them. So why isn't there a queue to leave?
If another country were of similar mind to the Uk and decided to leave, do you think they would leave the CU and the SM? Do you think they would protest at being treated like all other third countries who are expected to meet the rules of trading with the EU?

Akrasia · 27-01-2021 3:11pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thought provoking post Celtic..
I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.
Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU.
The government have signed up to a very thin deal because they want minimal EU say over the destiny of the UK,not what I wanted but we have to get on with it,things can and do change.It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.
Long term,I hope the tories are given their marching orders and the deal can be revisited.

The UK are finding out very quickly that all of this EU 'red tape and Beaurocracy' exists not to create more paperwork, but to eliminate the need for it within the customs union and single market

It's setting the common standards and the rules for manufacturing and processing that everyone agrees to follow, that then allows member states to trade freely amongst each other

The devil is in the detail so they need to be complex and capture every conceivable scenario, but having this framework allows businesses to trade with a block of 518 million people using a single set of standards, rather than having to comply with the requirements of 30 different countries any of which could change at the whim of any of their governments

El Weirdo · 27-01-2021 3:29pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

...It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU...

I suppose it would be too much to ask you to provide examples of Brussels controlling every aspect of EU life? Or will you just ignore the posts asking you to do so, just like you did when you came up with the same nonsense a couple of weeks ago?

demfad · 27-01-2021 3:36pm

listermint wrote: »

Overbearing , check.
Questioning Brussels, check.
Control every aspect of life, check.
Accept control, check.
Edicts, check.

Youre playing the who's who of brexit hits for the last 5 years . Can you give some clear and concise example of all of this overbearing control and edicts that we are accepting as an Ireland within the EU.

Just wondering so one can ensure that you haven't been a brexit cheerleader all along. Details backing up the above classics would be a good start.

He wont. He will ask others to use their energy explaining themselves on every last obvious truth yet will make sweeping statements without any suibstantiation again draining people's energy.

Textbook behaviour the social media has come to expect from this type of right wing poster over the last number of years.

Strazdas · 27-01-2021 3:36pm

France 2 had a report on the increased traffic to Cherbourg on their evening news on Monday. They talk about how lorry totals have trebled and show Irish drivers saying even attempting to go through GB is way too much hassle.

You can watch the report here :

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/la-grande-bretagne-et-l-ue/apres-le-brexit-le-port-de-cherbourg-enregistre-un-trafic-plus-important-en-janvier_4271491.html

RobMc59 · 27-01-2021 3:37pm

El Weirdo wrote: »

I suppose it would be too much to ask you to provide examples of Brussels controlling every aspect of EU life? Or will you just ignore the posts asking you to do so, just like you did when you came up with the same nonsense a couple of weeks ago?

The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.

sondagefaux · 27-01-2021 3:40pm

British chicken exports to the EU are now at 20% of the levels they were at in January 2020.

Export Health Certificates must be completed in three different languages.

Instead of fetching £3.50 per chicken, truckloads of chicken are being destroyed at a cost of £1,500.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1354198388368158726

So far, British beef exports, British lamb exports, British pork exports and British chicken exports have been badly hit by Brexit.

The vast majority of meat consumption in European countries is made up of beef, sheep meat, pig meat and chicken.

So the big four meats in terms of production and export to the EU have now all been very badly hit by Brexit.

Charles Babbage · 27-01-2021 3:42pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Wales probably has the highest per capita number of English people. A lot of them would be older conservative voters too

I suppose that if the English who availed of freedom of movement and retired to Spain are pro Brexit, then there isn't much hope for those that only made it to Wales.

Sam Russell · 27-01-2021 3:45pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.

Public health (inc. vaccinations) is not a competence of the EU. Animal health is.

Maybe, if PH was an EU competency, we might be in a better place now - with pan-EU actions co-ordinating the fight against Covid. Some countries, like Spain, cannot even co-ordinate the fight within their own borders.

Strazdas · 27-01-2021 3:48pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Wales probably has the highest per capita number of English people. A lot of them would be older conservative voters too

Also, there is no Welsh press to speak of. Unfortunately, all they get is the right wing ranting and propaganda from the English tabloids.

sondagefaux · 27-01-2021 3:51pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.

Like back in December? When Astra Zenreca vaccine doses were supplied to the UK from production centres in the EU. Or the fact that 20 million of the AZ vaccine doses ordered by the UK will be produced in the EU?

About four million doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine will be available in the UK for inoculation before the end of this year, if it receives emergency authorisation from the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, as expected.

But leaders of the government’s vaccines task force said initial supplies would be imported from continental Europe – like the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine approved by the MHRA last week.

The original plan was for all British doses to be produced through a supply chain set up by Oxford university and AstraZeneca in the UK. The vaccine is manufactured on their behalf by two biotech companies, Oxford BioMedica and Cobra Therapeutics, and filled and finished by Wockhart in Wrexham.

“There have been some [UK manufacturing] challenges,” said Ian McCubbin, the task force’s manufacturing lead, at a press briefing on Monday. “That’s why there is a little delay in the delivery of the doses.”

AstraZeneca said it was using a continental facility initially because it had booked capacity there “which we wanted to use rather than waste”, not because of problems at the British sites.

The company and the vaccines task force said they expected UK-made supplies to start flowing smoothly early in the new year. Mr McCubbin said at least 80 million of the 100 million doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca ordered by the UK government would be made in Britain.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/supply-of-covid-vaccine-doses-held-up-by-manufacturing-delays-1.4430676?mode=amp

I don't remember anyone in the EU being spiteful about this.

demfad · 27-01-2021 3:52pm

Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

1: Switzerland

The thin deal is clearly not satisfactory for most UK trade and of course services. Cue, small bilateral after bilateral deal to remedy this over years and decades. This process is a slow
drift towards a Swiss type arrangement. At some point the 4 freedoms and EU juristiction come back into play.

2: Singapore on the Thames.

The UK Government tries to make the country compete by intervening to give it competitive advantages against the EU. Some industries suffering now would be doomed. The fact that the UK Government is not really intervening as these industries struggle indicates that they realize these firms are doomed in the Singapore scenario anyway and therefore a 'quick death' for them is best for all. (Indicates SoT is the current direction)

3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

Any thoughts?

demfad · 27-01-2021 3:55pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Public health (inc. vaccinations) is not a competence of the EU. Animal health is.

Maybe, if PH was an EU competency, we might be in a better place now - with pan-EU actions co-ordinating the fight against Covid. Some countries, like Spain, cannot even co-ordinate the fight within their own borders.

Public Health as EU competency would be hugely beneficial for Ireland and others like us.

Zubeneschamali · 27-01-2021 3:58pm

demfad wrote: »

Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

1: Switzerland

...

Any thoughts?

The EU has said from the outset that the Swiss deal is a nightmare and will never be repeated.

I think 3 is most likely: the tories lose the next election and Labour move to an EEA type deal.

Seth Brundle · 27-01-2021 3:58pm

demfad wrote: »

Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

Any thoughts?

If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.

ancapailldorcha · 27-01-2021 4:03pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU has said from the outset that the Swiss deal is a nightmare and will never be repeated.

I think 3 is most likely: the tories lose the next election and Labour move to an EEA type deal.

The Swiss arrangement involves 100 bilateral agreemenets. I think a few deals to build on the current arrangement between the UK and the EU is extremely likely.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.

I'd say so but, again any sort of arrangement involving accepting the four freedoms is at least a decade away.

Strazdas · 27-01-2021 4:03pm

demfad wrote: »

Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

1: Switzerland

The thin deal is clearly not satisfactory for most UK trade and of course services. Cue, small bilateral after bilateral deal to remedy this over years and decades. This process is a slow
drift towards a Swiss type arrangement. At some point the 4 freedoms and EU juristiction come back into play.

2: Singapore on the Thames.

The UK Government tries to make the country compete by intervening to give it competitive advantages against the EU. Some industries suffering now would be doomed. The fact that the UK Government is not really intervening as these industries struggle indicates that they realize these firms are doomed in the Singapore scenario anyway and therefore a 'quick death' for them is best for all. (Indicates SoT is the current direction)

3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

Any thoughts?

The UK could only be admitted to the EEA if there was a guarantee that they wouldn't try and disrupt it. Can you imagine the levels of fiasco if the UK joined it and then tried to leave it again under yet another far right government? I could easily see Norway and Iceland vetoing their entry unless they gave cast iron guarantees they wouldn't try and wreck the association, now or at any point in the future.

demfad · 27-01-2021 4:07pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.

This would involve approval from the likes of Norway and others.
The court of arbitration is not the ECJ but another court but the laws it adjudicates are EU, SM laws and precedent would come from ECJ.

Re foolishness: That's why I would suggest a major economic calamity would be necessary. Tory voters and all to the right (and some working class voters) are caught in an authoritarian media bubble similar to the US. That's why I believe the Government would have to fall for this scenario to be possible. The UK Government are more than happy to push the lies/hate etc., knowing they have a loyal media and Social Media machine to amplify.

If an economic catastrophe plus a Government change happenned I believe a move to the single market instead of a 100s bilateral would have enough support (easily 60%+)

El Weirdo · 27-01-2021 4:18pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.

More vagueness.

schmoo2k · 27-01-2021 4:30pm

El Weirdo wrote: »

More vagueness.

And post Brexit...

Irish Praetorian · 27-01-2021 4:46pm

Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.

forgottenhills · 27-01-2021 4:51pm

demfad wrote: »

Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

1: Switzerland

The thin deal is clearly not satisfactory for most UK trade and of course services. Cue, small bilateral after bilateral deal to remedy this over years and decades. This process is a slow
drift towards a Swiss type arrangement. At some point the 4 freedoms and EU juristiction come back into play.

2: Singapore on the Thames.

The UK Government tries to make the country compete by intervening to give it competitive advantages against the EU. Some industries suffering now would be doomed. The fact that the UK Government is not really intervening as these industries struggle indicates that they realize these firms are doomed in the Singapore scenario anyway and therefore a 'quick death' for them is best for all. (Indicates SoT is the current direction)

3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

Any thoughts?

Anyone who believes that the UK are going to make any moves back to EU jurisdiction of any sort, for at least a generation, are dreaming imo.

A milder variation of the Signapore on the Thames idea is their most likely direction (remember that they now have a free trade deal for goods with the EU that they won't want to break). To get clues for where they are heading in the short to medium term I think that the UKs move to seek accession to the CPTPP (Asia-Pacific free trade trading bloc) is quite interesting.

UK seeking accession to CPTPP

Sam Russell · 27-01-2021 4:52pm

demfad wrote: »

Public Health as EU competency would be hugely beneficial for Ireland and others like us.

PH should be an EU competence, as shown by this pandemic. Fast action is crucial as is unified action across the bloc. It was not possible, but we will get there in the end. A good few extra cases and deaths, but there you go.

sondagefaux · 27-01-2021 4:56pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.

The UK approved two vaccines while it was still under EU law. Any member state of the EU could have done the same under EU law and Hungary has done so for the Russian Sputnik vaccine.

The UK was being supplied with AstraZeneca vaccine doses produced in the EU in December and 20 million (out of 100 million) AZ vaccine doses supplied to the UK will be produced in the EU.

The EU has funded the research needed to develop vaccines including the PfizerBiontech vaccine, the Moderna vaccine and the AZ vaccine, as have the UK, the USA and other countries.

The rollout of the vaccination in the UK has been far faster than anywhere in the EU to date.

J Mysterio · 27-01-2021 4:59pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.

They will need to drop sterling, for a start.

Enzokk · 27-01-2021 5:06pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.

It was gambling due to the failed response so far from government. As James O'Brien is fond of saying, just because this government screwed up Brexit and Covid, doesn't mean it will screw up with the vaccines. They gambled on approving first and they are now gambling on delaying the second doses to spread the available vaccines to as many people as possible. This is one area where you have to say they have done extremely well so far and outshone the EU, but we will have to wait and see how it will turn out in a few weeks and months time.

If the Israeli study is correct then they have potentially made a big mistake, if not they are geniuses. I wouldn't want to gamble on people's lives like that, then again they have overseen the worst death toll in Europe so they must have felt the gamble is worth it. I mean at this stage a few thousand extra deaths would just be a statistic for the UK.

yagan · 27-01-2021 5:06pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.

Again this is for another thread, but there's a certain about of counting chickens before they're hatched about the UK vaccine programme. Israel eschewed the UK approach and stuck with the recommended time between shots so it will be interesting to see how they compared, especially in reduced mortality in the more vulnerable age groups.

There's already UK reports of many not turning up for their followup shots.

The issue the new vaccine centre is facing isn't staff numbers or resources - it's the lack of slots being filled by those eligible for the AstraZeneca jab.

Owner of Everest Pharmacy, Waqqass Sheikh, and his staff have the capacity to vaccinate 2,000 people a week.

But since the facility opened last Thursday (January 21), his team are on track to immunise fewer than 1,000 people.

It hasn't been communicated effectively in the UK that the first shot doesn't protect people anything to the same degree as having the booster. If 50% aren't getting the booster then it's going to be a long slow crawl back to normal, or at least until single shot vaccines are more common.

Sam Russell · 27-01-2021 5:13pm

We await the EMA certification of the AZ vaccine. If they come out with a limit on the age of recipients, say below 65, and a specification the the two jab, 21 day regime must be followed, then that is not what the UK are pursuing.

We shall see. If it turns out the 90 day regime fails to protect sufficiently, how many doses will they have wasted?

yagan · 27-01-2021 5:25pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

We await the EMA certification of the AZ vaccine. If they come out with a limit on the age of recipients, say below 65, and a specification the the two jab, 21 day regime must be followed, then that is not what the UK are pursuing.

We shall see. If it turns out the 90 day regime fails to protect sufficiently, how many doses will they have wasted?

Also because the UK exempted them from liability it's created a certain degree of resistance from people who are actually pro vaccine.

forgottenhills · 27-01-2021 5:26pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

We await the EMA certification of the AZ vaccine. If they come out with a limit on the age of recipients, say below 65, and a specification the the two jab, 21 day regime must be followed, then that is not what the UK are pursuing.

We shall see. If it turns out the 90 day regime fails to protect sufficiently, how many doses will they have wasted?

Did you read the long and very informative interview with the AstraZeneca CEO posted yesterday on Italian media?

Here is a quote from his interview:

"First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation, and 71-73 percent of efficacy overall. The second dose is needed for long term protection. But you get a better efficiency if you get the 2nd dose later than earlier. We are going to do a study in the US and globally to use two-month dose interval to confirm that this is indeed the case, there are many reasons to believe it is the case with our vaccine. We have a different technology. First of all, when you look at level of antibody production, this is higher if you give the second dose three months or two months later than one month later. "

It is a very complex area and the short time frame of development means that nobody seems sure what the best approach is for now.

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments