Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

  • Total voters
    1,084


L

Lincoln Imp

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2009
5,964
JC Footy Genius said:
No, I'm just pointing that (according to the German Health Minister) all 27 EU member states have apparently decided to act as one delaying the role out of this vaccine in their individual nations prioritising a common EU approach (over public health?). Obviously, if we had remained in the EU I am certain the expectation would be we fall in line and pressure may have been applied to follow the collective policy ... Brexit has finally freed us from this process.
Click to expand...

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.
 




L

Lincoln Imp

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2009
5,964
JC Footy Genius said:
Apparently, it's more important the vaccine is delivered to every member state in a box with an EU flag on it than being delivered days/weeks/months earlier ...
Click to expand...


Actually in spite of Alok Sharma's poundshop Trumpery it's more of an American flag with black, red and gold highlights and a crescent and star in one corner.
 


WATFORD zero

WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,951
JC Footy Genius said:
No, I'm just pointing that (according to the German Health Minister) all 27 EU member states have apparently decided to act as one delaying the role out of this vaccine in their individual nations prioritising a common EU approach (over public health?). Obviously, if we had remained in the EU I am certain the expectation would be we fall in line and pressure may have been applied to follow the collective policy ... Brexit has finally freed us from this process.
Click to expand...

So while you're giving your best guess of what may, or may not, have happened in some fantasy parallel universe that doesn't exist. (You'd be amazed what 'I am certain' of in fantasy parallel universes that don't exist :facepalm:).

Maybe as an ardent Unionist and Brexiteer, you could tell us what is going to happen as a result of things you have actually done, to the Irish/NI border in the next 5 days in actual real life. Just simple basics, like whether there will be a hard border on the Island or a 'border' in the Irish sea ?

Because, as I'm sure you remember from when you used to post regularly on this account, I'm always the first to defend you from claims of 'whataboutism' and fantasy on the Brexit thread :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:


beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,332
nicko31 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:


vegster

vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,908
Lincoln Imp said:
Actually in spite of Alok Sharma's poundshop Trumpery it's more of an American flag with black, red and gold highlights and a crescent and star in one corner.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it Johnson that insisted that the marketing and packaging for the Oxford vaccine featured a Union flag?
 




nicko31

nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,649
Gods country fortnightly
beorhthelm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 


D

daveinprague

New member
Oct 1, 2009
12,572
Prague, Czech Republic
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?
 


Dick Swiveller

Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,165
How has this thread missed the biggest news of the day? All the naysayers are proved wrong.

[TWEET]1334472682184859648[/TWEET]

Who needs the EU when you have friends like this?
 




Randy McNob

Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,483
nicko31 said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 


Randy McNob

Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,483
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/factcheck/factcheck-brexit-did-not-speed-up-uk-vaccine-authorisation

[tweet]1334226019973287937[/tweet]
 
Last edited:






JC Footy Genius

JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
Lincoln Imp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 


Pretty pink fairy

Pretty pink fairy

Banned
Jan 30, 2008
31,981
Randy McNob said:
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/factcheck/factcheck-brexit-did-not-speed-up-uk-vaccine-authorisation

[tweet]1334226019973287937[/tweet]
Click to expand...

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


Pretty pink fairy

Pretty pink fairy

Banned
Jan 30, 2008
31,981
Randy McNob said:
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
Click to expand...

so nothing to do with saving people's lives, what a tosser you are :nono:
regards
DF
 




L

Lincoln Imp

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2009
5,964
JC Footy Genius said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 


pastafarian

pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
Randy McNob said:
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
Click to expand...

Crikey

Lets go with this crackpot conspiracy then.
EU countries want to use another nation state as a vaccine guinea pig

ffs.....wtf......lol

Get well soon.


Has this what this thread has become, nutjob central?
 




WATFORD zero

WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,951
pastafarian said:
Crikey

Lets go with this crackpot conspiracy then.
EU countries want to use another nation state as a vaccine guinea pig

ffs.....wtf......lol

Get well soon.


Has this what this thread has become, nutjob central?
Click to expand...

It appears it has in the middle of the night yet again.

It always seems to be in the middle of the night when you have a break from your porn, puff and being nuts deep in Battlefield 1 with your boys that you have your brilliant ideas for a post :lolol:
 




nicko31

nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,649
Gods country fortnightly
Look like crunch time this weekend, past Monday internal market returns and we'll properly enter Billy no mates territory...
 


L

Lincoln Imp

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2009
5,964
nicko31 said:
Look like crunch time this weekend, past Monday internal market returns and we'll properly enter Billy no mates territory...
Click to expand...

It does look like Monday doesn't it? 7 December. Anniversary of that other great milestone in international diplomacy, Pearl Harbour.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here