Jump to content


Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, West 77 said:

The very fact none of the EU 27 bloc have chosen to fast track approval is evidence being a member of the EU means bureaucracy is a disadvantage of being member.  I acknowledge past UK Governments haven't used all the powers available to them and used being a member of the EU as an excuse for doing nothing to improve matters over the years.  A positive consequence of Brexit and the return of sovereignty  is all future UK elected Governments will no longer be able to blame the EU unfairly for negative events and will solely be accountable.  The likelihood is if the UK had voted to remain in the EU then the Covid-19 vaccine wouldn't have started to be administrated to the most vulnerable and NHS workers at the beginning of last week in our own country and the decision for approval would have been left to the EU regulators and not the UK regulator.  Standing on our own feet and making decisions unilaterally for the benefit of our own country and people  is a positive consequence of Brexit.

What are the lottery numbers next week please if you are so good at predictions?

 

If there turn out to be issues with the fast tracked German vaccine, will you turn round and blame the EU for dumping it on the UK?

Or will you blame that lying cheating sexist racist PM and praise the EU for being stricter around its approval process?

 

I guess I know which one you'll choose, but it is a guess and I wouldn't suggest there is a likelihood of you choosing it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, we have large economies which have been criticised for lack of initial response to the pandemic (UK and the North America) which are now being held up as exemplars for the adoption of fast-tracked solutions tothe pandemic.

 

Firstly, I hope they are right in the fast tracking of the solution, but secondly perhaps this is a knee-jerk reaction to their failings to address the pandemic in the first place.

 

Maybe one wrong can be corrected by a right, but perhaps they are just layering ineffectual initial responses with ill thought out remedies.

 

Only time will tell, and even then it will only be down to the spinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

 

(And to the sources that the spinners decide to quote)

 

Hypocrisy at its best:

Michael Gove, 2016 - “people in this country have had enough of experts”. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, West 77 said:

The article below implies the EU have been too slow to approve the use of the Pfizer vaccine.

The EU will be (one of?) the first authority (ies) to give full approval, no short-cuts taken.

 

it's a bit rich of the WSJ to criticise the EU, when the US used their own emergency process for approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about the time taken by the EU to appraise the vaccine and give Pfizer its approval is really cute, considering the massive differential in infection and mortality rates between the UK and most of the EU27 countries. 

 

Given the fact that it has sod all to do with Brexit (save for the dumbo straw-manning of the past few pages), it's done a rather nice job of distracting from the elephant in the room: the operational update to the UK economy in 2 weeks' time, when the UK finds itself outside the CU and SM overnight and, in logistic terms, behind even Russia (long experienced with customs processing) and Turkey (in the CU).

 

A deal cannot solve that problem, now or next year, unless it brings the UK into the CU (which means, a BRINO deal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get pretty fed up with the whole issue of point scoring between supposed representatives of different countries.

The only sensible way forward for the world population is cooperation and collaboration.

The Brexit movement has done a fine job in creating barriers and encouraging divisiveness.

We have the opportunities to learn from each other which is certainly the case in relation to all things Covid related from lock downs to vaccines.

Its a little early to say which approach will prove the better in any respect when comparing say the U.K.,Germany ,Sweden,Brazil,the US.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ft.com/content/3df92ad6-9fd4-49aa-875e-640c1e2366d8

 

Are we going to get a sensible deal over the line.

I sincerely hope so because if the discussions over fishing rights really are the major outstanding issue then a compromise solution must be found.

There are plenty of noises from business leaders in both camps regarding the damage to economies,plus of course the continued warnings of our unpreparedness for the major transport and customs issues from Jan 1st.

As regards fishing  the much greater proportion of our catch goes into Europe.

Are Johnson and Macron prepared to reach a compromise which would enable a much wider deal in the greater interest.

Edited by RJRB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we joined the EEC in 1974, it was as it said on the tin - economic. As such, you can always negotiate with a businessman. When it rolled over (without any of its citizens having a vote...) into the EU it became a political union, and you can negotiate with a politician. However, it has now solidified as a totally bureaucratic organisation. You cannot negotiate with a bureaucrat - they say what the rules are, and that's it. Trying to negotiate with all the Barniers is futile. They have their position, you agree with it or no agreement. They will keep telling you to move, but never devaite themselves. I don't know why we keep talking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cyclecar said:

When we joined the EEC in 1974, it was as it said on the tin - economic.

A nice story, but not true.

 

A central plank of the "No" campaign in the '75 referendum was that the UK would have to accept laws drafted in Europe, warning that the Common Market "sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation," in which Britain would be a "mere province".

 

The "Yes" campaign openly acknowledged that being a member of the EEC involved "pooling" sovereignty with the eight other nations who were members at the time.

 

When we joined the EEC, no-one was under any illusion that the EEC was an economic AND political construct...

 

...unless they weren't paying attention :?

 

Edited by Magilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Magilla said:

A central plank of the "No" campaign in the '75 referendum was that the UK would have to accept laws drafted in Europe, warning that the Common Market "sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation," in which Britain would be a "mere province".

 

The "Yes" campaign openly acknowledged that being a member of the EEC involved "pooling" sovereignty with the eight other nations who were members at the time.

 

When we joined the EEC, no-one was under any illusion that the EEC was an economic AND political construct...

 

...unless they weren't paying attention :?

 

I was - which is why I voted 'No' in the fiddled referendum around that time, and why I have never changed my mind.😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cyclecar said:

When we joined the EEC in 1974, it was as it said on the tin - economic. As such, you can always negotiate with a businessman. When it rolled over (without any of its citizens having a vote...) into the EU it became a political union, and you can negotiate with a politician. However, it has now solidified as a totally bureaucratic organisation. You cannot negotiate with a bureaucrat - they say what the rules are, and that's it. Trying to negotiate with all the Barniers is futile. They have their position, you agree with it or no agreement. They will keep telling you to move, but never devaite themselves. I don't know why we keep talking. 

Simplistic and quite uninformed nonsense. 

 

Free history lesson from a LSE professor

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't one of reasons given for Brexit the ability to control our borders, that we couldn't do in the EU?

 

Perhaps the lorry drivers stuck in Kent would like to know that France can't control its borders as it's part of the EU? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

Wasn't one of reasons given for Brexit the ability to control our borders, that we couldn't do in the EU?

 

Perhaps the lorry drivers stuck in Kent would like to know that France can't control its borders as it's part of the EU? 

Who knew that borders had two sides?

Share this post


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

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.