View Poll Results: If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

Voters
871. You may not vote on this poll
  • Remain

    594 68.20%
  • Leave

    245 28.13%
  • Wouldn’t vote

    32 3.67%
Page 11516 of 11516 FirstFirst ... 105161101611416114661150611513115141151511516
Results 115,151 to 115,160 of 115160
  1. #115151
    Members nicko31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Gods country fortnightly
    Posts
    10,937


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by beorhthelm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    are they concerned about rushed trials or approval? the two are separate, one by the pharma companies is done and proved safety, the second is a bureaucratic process evaluating the trials and wont change the results - no corners to cut. they've had weeks to look at the trial data and process, thats why they could approve quickly. reasons for delay elsewhere are up to them. it quite sad its been dragged into this debate.
    Just a perception the process is rushed as we have it approved before it not just before EU, but sooner than any other developed country

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #115152
      Members
      Join Date
      Sep 2009
      Location
      Prague, Czech Republic
      Posts
      12,485


      0 Not allowed!
      As this quicker, as out of the EU fantasy, has been debunked thoroughly, I guess we can expect an apology from the government for trying to deceive it's people?
      The guy that invented predictive text died today, his funfair will be next fryingpan.
    • #115153

      0 Not allowed!
      How has this thread missed the biggest news of the day? All the naysayers are proved wrong.

      RICHARD SWIVELLER, a good-hearted, though somewhat queer young man
    • #115154

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by nicko31 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Getting the vaccine out quickly is important, but so is public confidence and trust. It does seem the latter is the priority for the EU.

      I personally would take the vaccine tomorrow, but I've personally been surprised at the number of people I've heard express reservations our process has been rushed through too quickly. I really hope corners have not been cut to create some faux victory for the Johnson administration
      The first thing I thought was, also, we are being rather hasty, perhaps the EU countries wanted a guineau pig to go first, sensing Johnson and his Government would grasp at any opportunity to claim superiority at any turn, we were the ideal candidates
      Brexit = Nationalism
    • #115155

      0 Not allowed!
      Believe the facts not the liars

      Brexit did not speed up UK vaccine authorisation

      2 Dec 2020
      The UK has become the first country in the world to authorise the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for use, with the rollout due to start next week. Amid the excitement, Matt Hancock told an interviewer:

      “It is absolutely clear that because we’ve left the EU I was able to change the law so that the UK alone could make this authorisation decision. So because we’ve left the EU, we’ve been able to move faster.”

      His colleagues Jacob Rees Mogg and Nadine Dorries made similar comments on Twitter this morning.

      But it’s not correct. Here’s why.

      Today’s decision comes from the UK’s independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It’s long worked in tandem with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) deciding which drugs are safe for use.

      When we were part of the EU, the EMA had areas of jurisdiction that meant only it could make decisions about certain types of medicine, including vaccines. National regulators like the MHRA couldn’t get involved.

      When the UK left the EU on 31 January this year, we entered the “transition period”, which means the European regulations we adopted during our time in the trade bloc are still in effect until the end of 2020.

      That includes the rule that says vaccines generally must be authorised by the EMA instead of national regulators.

      But as a UK government press release from 23 November 2020 states: “if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, […] becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation which we have implemented via Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.”

      So even if we were still a member of the EU, the UK regulator would have been able to take this decision on its own because EU law already allows it. Incidentally, that legislation took effect in the UK in 2012, long before Brexit was on the cards.

      Asked whether Brexit had sped up the process, the head of the MHRA, Dr June Raine, said today: “We have been able to authorise the supply of the vaccine using provisions under European law which exist until 1 January.”

      She added that the regulator’s “speed or our progress has been totally dependent on the availability of data in our rolling review, and the rigorous assessment and independent advice we have received”.

      What about that new legislation Matt Hancock mentioned?

      In October 2020, the government announced it would amend regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations (the same piece of EU-derived law discussed today).

      But, as the government’s own consultation document set out, the amendments would only “clarify” the situation because the existing law was already adequate for coronavirus vaccines.

      Here’s what the government said: “If the need arises, regulation 174, in its present form, could be used to authorise nationwide distribution and supply of an unlicensed COVID-19 vaccine (or treatment) in the UK, as well as other potential products.

      “In practice, this means that, if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate – with strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and efficacy – became available before the end of the transition period but it had not yet been licensed by the European Medicines Agency, regulation 174 could be used to enable temporary UK-only deployment.”

      3 December update
      Since we published this article, we’ve been asked by several readers: didn’t EU nations decide to “move as one” when it came to vaccines? Wouldn’t that have slowed the UK down if we were still a member?

      In October, the European Commission issued a “Communication” after EU countries agreed that no individual national regulator would move faster than the EMA.

      It’s true that if Britain were still part of the trading bloc, we’d have been under political pressure to be part of that arrangement.

      But the European Commission confirmed to FactCheck that “there was no legal obligation to sign up to the Strategy”.

      The German health minister, Jens Spahn said yesterday that it was a matter of choice: “We have member states including, Germany, who could have issued such an emergency authorisation if we’d wanted to. But we decided against this and what we opted for was a common European approach to move forward together”.

      So even if Brexit hadn’t happened, we’d still have been entitled, under EU law, to opt out of the joint system and “go it alone” with the Covid vaccine.

      https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...-authorisation

      Last edited by Randy McNob; Today at 21:18.
      Brexit = Nationalism
    • #115156
    • #115157
      Bringer of TRUTH JC Footy Genius's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      8,934


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Lincoln Imp View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Cakery.

      "The expectation would be... pressure may have been applied"... as a sovereign nation within the EU the UK would not have been obliged to have delayed approval and the current position cannot therefore be described as a benefit of Brexit.
      What a Bizarre response it's almost like you have no idea how the EU works. Of course, there is pressure to adopt a common position/united front on numerous issues ... pretending this doesn't happen is just silly.
      “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
    • #115158

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Randy McNob View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Believe the facts not the liars

      Brexit did not speed up UK vaccine authorisation

      2 Dec 2020
      The UK has become the first country in the world to authorise the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for use, with the rollout due to start next week. Amid the excitement, Matt Hancock told an interviewer:

      “It is absolutely clear that because we’ve left the EU I was able to change the law so that the UK alone could make this authorisation decision. So because we’ve left the EU, we’ve been able to move faster.”

      His colleagues Jacob Rees Mogg and Nadine Dorries made similar comments on Twitter this morning.

      But it’s not correct. Here’s why.

      Today’s decision comes from the UK’s independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It’s long worked in tandem with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) deciding which drugs are safe for use.

      When we were part of the EU, the EMA had areas of jurisdiction that meant only it could make decisions about certain types of medicine, including vaccines. National regulators like the MHRA couldn’t get involved.

      When the UK left the EU on 31 January this year, we entered the “transition period”, which means the European regulations we adopted during our time in the trade bloc are still in effect until the end of 2020.

      That includes the rule that says vaccines generally must be authorised by the EMA instead of national regulators.

      But as a UK government press release from 23 November 2020 states: “if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, […] becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation which we have implemented via Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.”

      So even if we were still a member of the EU, the UK regulator would have been able to take this decision on its own because EU law already allows it. Incidentally, that legislation took effect in the UK in 2012, long before Brexit was on the cards.

      Asked whether Brexit had sped up the process, the head of the MHRA, Dr June Raine, said today: “We have been able to authorise the supply of the vaccine using provisions under European law which exist until 1 January.”

      She added that the regulator’s “speed or our progress has been totally dependent on the availability of data in our rolling review, and the rigorous assessment and independent advice we have received”.

      What about that new legislation Matt Hancock mentioned?

      In October 2020, the government announced it would amend regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations (the same piece of EU-derived law discussed today).

      But, as the government’s own consultation document set out, the amendments would only “clarify” the situation because the existing law was already adequate for coronavirus vaccines.

      Here’s what the government said: “If the need arises, regulation 174, in its present form, could be used to authorise nationwide distribution and supply of an unlicensed COVID-19 vaccine (or treatment) in the UK, as well as other potential products.

      “In practice, this means that, if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate – with strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and efficacy – became available before the end of the transition period but it had not yet been licensed by the European Medicines Agency, regulation 174 could be used to enable temporary UK-only deployment.”

      3 December update
      Since we published this article, we’ve been asked by several readers: didn’t EU nations decide to “move as one” when it came to vaccines? Wouldn’t that have slowed the UK down if we were still a member?

      In October, the European Commission issued a “Communication” after EU countries agreed that no individual national regulator would move faster than the EMA.

      It’s true that if Britain were still part of the trading bloc, we’d have been under political pressure to be part of that arrangement.

      But the European Commission confirmed to FactCheck that “there was no legal obligation to sign up to the Strategy”.

      The German health minister, Jens Spahn said yesterday that it was a matter of choice: “We have member states including, Germany, who could have issued such an emergency authorisation if we’d wanted to. But we decided against this and what we opted for was a common European approach to move forward together”.

      So even if Brexit hadn’t happened, we’d still have been entitled, under EU law, to opt out of the joint system and “go it alone” with the Covid vaccine.

      https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...-authorisation

      no need to wet the bed hun, your EU dream ended in January
      regards
      DF
    • #115159

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Randy McNob View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The first thing I thought was, also, we are being rather hasty, perhaps the EU countries wanted a guineau pig to go first, sensing Johnson and his Government would grasp at any opportunity to claim superiority at any turn, we were the ideal candidates
      so nothing to do with saving people's lives, what a tosser you are
      regards
      DF
    • #115160

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by JC Footy Genius View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      What a Bizarre response it's almost like you have no idea how the EU works. Of course, there is pressure to adopt a common position/united front on numerous issues ... pretending this doesn't happen is just silly.
      Utterly wacky. It's almost like you don't read the posts you respond to. Nowhere did I deny that there would be pressure to adopt a common position or pretend that such things don't happen. My point was that as a sovereign nation the UK would, as a member of the EU, have been able to resist such pressure if it wished to. See Schengen and the euro.