The Doctor Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 http://www.researchresearch.com/news/article/?articleId=1366644 The start of a brain drain as academics look to preserve funding. "Whatever status Britain may have in future EU framework programmes it will essentially be a second rate status" - quick Thracian, email him ranting about great again Britain and how we shouldn't even bother trying to negotiate our future survival.
Strokes Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 14 minutes ago, The Doctor said: You say prejudice, I say realism. We've got people like Gove suggesting that we should scrap the CTD when we leave despite that: a) the CTD is being scrapped and replaced by the CTR next year anyway, b) the CTD is important for ensuring the safety of our drugs, and it's replacement is a godsend for transparency over pharma R&D, and c) the pharma industry will insist on being homogeneous with the EU to enable them to continue trade in the EU. Any time the chief Brexiteers opens their mouth it becomes blindingly apparent they're less fit to represent us over this than Rudkin is to negotiate city's transfers, anyone who honestly sees otherwise is deluded. And what part will Michael gove have in the negotiations?
Webbo Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 18 minutes ago, The Doctor said: You say prejudice, I say realism. We've got people like Gove suggesting that we should scrap the CTD when we leave despite that: a) the CTD is being scrapped and replaced by the CTR next year anyway, b) the CTD is important for ensuring the safety of our drugs, and it's replacement is a godsend for transparency over pharma R&D, and c) the pharma industry will insist on being homogeneous with the EU to enable them to continue trade in the EU. Any time the chief Brexiteers opens their mouth it becomes blindingly apparent they're less fit to represent us over this than Rudkin is to negotiate city's transfers, anyone who honestly sees otherwise is deluded. ie. I disagree so they must be idiots.
The Doctor Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 9 minutes ago, Strokes said: And what part will Michael gove have in the negotiations? Shall we focus then on the Brexit secretary, David Davis, who advocated negotiating a bilateral trade deal with Germany, essentially demonstrating he doesn't know how eu trade works? the heads of this farce are obvious clowns. As far as I can see the biggest success this can possibly be is that I only have to say I told you so once a month for the next two years.
The Doctor Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 7 minutes ago, Webbo said: ie. I disagree so they must be idiots. This isn't really a case of me disagreeing so much as the industries as a whole disagreeing. On the point of clinical trials, of course I disagree with scrapping the CTD or its replacement, but more importantly the pharma industry will. So, either it remains, or the industry tells the uk to get stuffed. At best we end up wrapped in EU red tape without the ability to influence it any more (like we did with the CTR, which was spearheaded by Brits)
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 8 minutes ago, Webbo said: ie. I disagree so they must be idiots. He did quote a specific example. I'm assuming that CTR/CTD stands for Clinical Trials Regulation/Directive? I admit to knowing nothing about this. Why don't you address his example, rather than "playing the man"? 13 minutes ago, Strokes said: And what part will Michael gove have in the negotiations? Gove will presumably have little or no role in negotiations, but will probably be an influential figure in parliament. As I understand it, @The Doctor's example concerned Gove's proposals about how EU legislation should be replaced by the UK Parliament - shredding particular EU legislation under the Great Repeal Bill, I presume. If so, given May's tiny majority, leading ideological Brexiters like Gove could have a big influence over such decisions, taken in Parliament not the negotiations.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 1 minute ago, The Doctor said: This isn't really a case of me disagreeing so much as the industries as a whole disagreeing. On the point of clinical trials, of course I disagree with scrapping the CTD or its replacement, but more importantly the pharma industry will. So, either it remains, or the industry tells the uk to get stuffed. At best we end up wrapped in EU red tape without the ability to influence it any more (like we did with the CTR, which was spearheaded by Brits) Big industry likes regulation because it protects them from newer, smaller firms. They can afford HR depts, legal advice, executives with nothing better to do than pour over the latest directives. If it was genuinely a bad idea why would the govt impose it? When did the conservatives become anti business?
The Doctor Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said: He did quote a specific example. I'm assuming that CTR/CTD stands for Clinical Trials Regulation/Directive? I admit to knowing nothing about this. Why don't you address his example, rather than "playing the man"? Gove will presumably have little or no role in negotiations, but will probably be an influential figure in parliament. As I understand it, @The Doctor's example concerned Gove's proposals about how EU legislation should be replaced by the UK Parliament - shredding particular EU legislation under the Great Repeal Bill, I presume. If so, given May's tiny majority, leading ideological Brexiters like Gove could have a big influence over such decisions, taken in Parliament not the negotiations. It does indeed, and meeting its requirements will be necessary for pharma companies to file with other regulatory authorities in the eu (so, the other 27 states version of the MHRA) and market their drugs in the EU, so that being removed is not a plus point for our R&D community. as for EU law vs uk law, that's a parliamentary issue (or rather it should be) more than a negotiation issue - negotiation should be mostly focused on the terms of leaving, what access we get and what of the eu we have to accept in return; supplanting eu law into the uk statues has already been signalled as being done by ministers via these Henry VIII powers, so extremists like Gove and tools like BoJo have more sway there than anyone should be comfortable with.
The Doctor Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: Big industry likes regulation because it protects them from newer, smaller firms. They can afford HR depts, legal advice, executives with nothing better to do than pour over the latest directives. And in the case of pharmaceuticals joe public should be grateful for regulation that ensures that drugs are safe and fit for use before being prescribed rather than the nation being treated as the industries Guinea pigs. If it was genuinely a bad idea why would the govt impose it? Are you serious? All governments impose a series of genuinely bad ideas and the root is always the same, prioritising ideology over evidence - it's why contrary to the advice of healthcare officials, the last labour government raised the classification on cannabis, it's why the current government has pursued enforcement of these fit to work tests that cost more to manage than they save in catching fraudulent claims, while putting thousands of people through unnecessary pain When did the conservatives become anti business? right around the time they went hardline on Brexit when so many business leaders were pleading to make it as soft as possible.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: He did quote a specific example. I'm assuming that CTR/CTD stands for Clinical Trials Regulation/Directive? I admit to knowing nothing about this. Why don't you address his example, rather than "playing the man"? Gove will presumably have little or no role in negotiations, but will probably be an influential figure in parliament. As I understand it, @The Doctor's example concerned Gove's proposals about how EU legislation should be replaced by the UK Parliament - shredding particular EU legislation under the Great Repeal Bill, I presume. If so, given May's tiny majority, leading ideological Brexiters like Gove could have a big influence over such decisions, taken in Parliament not the negotiations. "People like Gove" that's not an argument. The great repeal bill will just make 40 years of EU laws into ours because it's impractical to recreate all those laws in the 2 years before we leave. Once we've left we can repeal/amend as we see fit. That'll be up to our parliament, MPs elected on a manifesto saying what laws they want to change. If the Tories get in , I'll get what I want, if it's Labour you'll get what you want and if it turns out to be a bad idea we can vote them out and a new govt can change things again. That democracy and it's a damn sight better than having things imposed on us by faceless technocrats.
Buce Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 1 hour ago, Emilio Lestavez said: And yet he has a motivational therapist. Can't decide whether Thracian is coming from right or left today! Right. It's always right. Wrong. It's always wrong.
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 1 minute ago, The Doctor said: It does indeed, and meeting its requirements will be necessary for pharma companies to file with other regulatory authorities in the eu (so, the other 27 states version of the MHRA) and market their drugs in the EU, so that being removed is not a plus point for our R&D community. as for EU law vs uk law, that's a parliamentary issue (or rather it should be) more than a negotiation issue - negotiation should be mostly focused on the terms of leaving, what access we get and what of the eu we have to accept in return; supplanting eu law into the uk statues has already been signalled as being done by ministers via these Henry VIII powers, so extremists like Gove and tools like BoJo have more sway there than anyone should be comfortable with. These "Henry VIII Powers" were discussed on Newsnight last night, if anyone's interested enough to check I-Player. These issues were raised by Prof. Michael Dougan before the referendum: how parliament simply won't have the capacity to process the massive volume of EU legislation that will be repealed under Brexit. So, large amounts will be rewritten/approved by Tory ministers without much parliamentary oversight. Apparently there are differences of opinion within the Tory Brexiter camp: some want to just put most of the EU legislation into UK law and then get onto selectively repealing bits of it and watering down social/environmental regulation after the 2020 election. Others want to get stuck into straightaway, by raising lots of amendments to the Great Repeal Bill. Given May's narrow majority and the weak opposition, they hope to slash such regulations before the 2020 election.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 2 minutes ago, The Doctor said: And in the case of pharmaceuticals joe public should be grateful for regulation that ensures that drugs are safe and fit for use before being prescribed rather than the nation being treated as the industries Guinea pigs. Are you serious? All governments impose a series of genuinely bad ideas and the root is always the same, prioritising ideology over evidence - it's why contrary to the advice of healthcare officials, the last labour government raised the classification on cannabis, it's why the current government has pursued enforcement of these fit to work tests that cost more to manage than they save in catching fraudulent claims, while putting thousands of people through unnecessary pain right around the time they went hardline on Brexit when so many business leaders were pleading to make it as soft as possible. Or it could be that these regulations make life saving drugs more expensive and take longer to come market. I've already explained why big business like regulation but there were plenty of businesspeople in favour of leaving.
Buce Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 42 minutes ago, The Doctor said: http://www.researchresearch.com/news/article/?articleId=1366644 The start of a brain drain as academics look to preserve funding. "Whatever status Britain may have in future EU framework programmes it will essentially be a second rate status" - quick Thracian, email him ranting about great again Britain and how we shouldn't even bother trying to negotiate our future survival. Don't despair. In the fantasy that is Thracian's World, Great Again Britain will once again rule the waves - who needs academics when you have warships?
Thracian Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 26 minutes ago, Buce said: Don't despair. In the fantasy that is Thracian's World, Great Again Britain will once again rule the waves - who needs academics when you have warships? Great Again Britain will rule itself. I don't give a toss about ruling other people and never have. "Warships" (or Safekeeping Assistants in the broad sense I am thinking) help, and without them in the future we'll be potential prey for all sorts, and the development of them - and all connected with such work across countless disciplines - would require as many academics as we can muster or as many as might be left when the Chinese have taken their share for the myriad edge-of-technology projects they have in the pipeline.
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 21 minutes ago, Webbo said: "People like Gove" that's not an argument. The great repeal bill will just make 40 years of EU laws into ours because it's impractical to recreate all those laws in the 2 years before we leave. Once we've left we can repeal/amend as we see fit. That'll be up to our parliament, MPs elected on a manifesto saying what laws they want to change. If the Tories get in , I'll get what I want, if it's Labour you'll get what you want and if it turns out to be a bad idea we can vote them out and a new govt can change things again. That democracy and it's a damn sight better than having things imposed on us by faceless technocrats. A lot of the repealed EU legislation will doubtless be dealt with as you suggest: recreated wholesale in UK law via the Great Repeal Bill, then up for political debate and amendment later. However, because of the sheer volume of legislation, it seems that a lot will not be in the Great Repeal Bill put to parliament but will be dealt with by ministers with little parliamentary oversight....not quite so democratic - and parliamentary scrutiny can avoid simple cock-ups, not just decisions being taken without parliamentary support. It seems that some of the Tory Brexit ultras also plan to raise lots of amendments to the Repeal Bill over the next 18 months, hoping to use May's tiny majority and need for support to extract a lot of concessions - immediate watering down of EU regulations on employment, the environment etc. As for "people like Gove", that may be the loose wording we're all sometimes guilty of, but his meaning was clear. He quoted a specific example of something that Gove had proposed (which you've now responded to, tbf) and "people like" suggested that it was only one example...anyway, you'll be pleased to know that I've got some work to do today, so won't be "contributing" as much as yesterday!
Webbo Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: A lot of the repealed EU legislation will doubtless be dealt with as you suggest: recreated wholesale in UK law via the Great Repeal Bill, then up for political debate and amendment later. However, because of the sheer volume of legislation, it seems that a lot will not be in the Great Repeal Bill put to parliament but will be dealt with by ministers with little parliamentary oversight....not quite so democratic - and parliamentary scrutiny can avoid simple cock-ups, not just decisions being taken without parliamentary support. It seems that some of the Tory Brexit ultras also plan to raise lots of amendments to the Repeal Bill over the next 18 months, hoping to use May's tiny majority and need for support to extract a lot of concessions - immediate watering down of EU regulations on employment, the environment etc. As for "people like Gove", that may be the loose wording we're all sometimes guilty of, but his meaning was clear. He quoted a specific example of something that Gove had proposed (which you've now responded to, tbf) and "people like" suggested that it was only one example...anyway, you'll be pleased to know that I've got some work to do today, so won't be "contributing" as much as yesterday! Please do keep contributing. I'd guess that most of what this bill will be is rewording the laws. Changing European parliament to UK parliament, ECJ to UK court etc. Surely we don't need a vote for that? I'm sure the media and the opposition parties will go through the changes with a fine tooth comb and alert us to anything they can make capital from.
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'd guess that most of what this bill will be is rewording the laws. Changing European parliament to UK parliament, ECJ to UK court etc. Surely we don't need a vote for that? I'm sure the media and the opposition parties will go through the changes with a fine tooth comb and alert us to anything they can make capital from. I'm sure a lot of it will be routine stuff, as you suggest. But some of the legislation won't be directly transferable if only because equivalent institutions or processes don't exist in the UK, or because a decision is required as to which of several institutions or processes is the most suitable. Plus, we'll be trusting ministers, without parliamentary scrutiny, not to make controversial changes without referring them to parliament. Hopefully, as you say, scrutiny by media, opposition parties and others (unions, CBI, pressure groups, lawyers, charities etc.) will highlight any problems.....but if the volume of legislation is as massive as suggested (and we are talking about 44 years of EU legislation), then such scrutiny will be a mammoth task. Brexit ultras pressuring May to accept hard-line amendments to the Repeal Bill will, at least, be in the open in parliament, I suppose. But will May have to cave in too often, given her workload and small majority? And will Corbyn be able to lead effective opposition to any dangerous amendments, given his party divisions and lack of appeal to potential Tory rebels? Must work!
davieG Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 The EU has outlined its strategy for Brexit negotiations, suggesting talks on a trade deal could begin once "sufficient progress" is made on a separation settlement with the UK. The guidelines, issued by European Council President Donald Tusk, argue for a "phased approach" in talks. The draft will be sent to the 27 member states for approval. They will set the tone for two years of negotiations. Britain formally triggered the Brexit process on Wednesday. It had called for simultaneous talks on exit terms and future trade ties. The draft guidelines, seen by the BBC, suggest starting with discussions on the separation arrangement. Britain would have to show "sufficient progress" before negotiations about a future trade relationship between the EU and the UK could start.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I'm sure a lot of it will be routine stuff, as you suggest. But some of the legislation won't be directly transferable if only because equivalent institutions or processes don't exist in the UK, or because a decision is required as to which of several institutions or processes is the most suitable. Plus, we'll be trusting ministers, without parliamentary scrutiny, not to make controversial changes without referring them to parliament. Hopefully, as you say, scrutiny by media, opposition parties and others (unions, CBI, pressure groups, lawyers, charities etc.) will highlight any problems.....but if the volume of legislation is as massive as suggested (and we are talking about 44 years of EU legislation), then such scrutiny will be a mammoth task. Brexit ultras pressuring May to accept hard-line amendments to the Repeal Bill will, at least, be in the open in parliament, I suppose. But will May have to cave in too often, given her workload and small majority? And will Corbyn be able to lead effective opposition to any dangerous amendments, given his party divisions and lack of appeal to potential Tory rebels? Must work! That's fair and if it was Labour ministers doing the changes I'd probably be less trusting myself. I just think that they want to get this over and done with and they're not going to do anything controversial that might hold things up. There's plenty of time to change stuff once we've left.
Strokes Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 I find it a little strange how we were told by remainers that the EU didn't really have as much influence over laws and sovereignty as we claimed but now we are leaving it's the opposite. I guess if you don't plaster it on the side of a bus, it's a little difficult to get upset over.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 42 minutes ago, Strokes said: I find it a little strange how we were told by remainers that the EU didn't really have as much influence over laws and sovereignty as we claimed but now we are leaving it's the opposite. I guess if you don't plaster it on the side of a bus, it's a little difficult to get upset over. never thought of that before. Whatever your vote it just goes to show how much of a disaster the Remain campaign was.
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 59 minutes ago, Strokes said: I find it a little strange how we were told by remainers that the EU didn't really have as much influence over laws and sovereignty as we claimed but now we are leaving it's the opposite. I guess if you don't plaster it on the side of a bus, it's a little difficult to get upset over. It's perfectly logical for there to have been a lot of legislation in the EU over 44 years - and a lot in the UK Parliament - but for Brexiters to have made ridiculous claims about "Brussels" running most of our legal system. - Most of that EU legislation was passed by the Council (our Government acting with other EU Govts) with or without the European Parliament (directly elected by us) - Lots of the legislation was EU legislation that our Parliament then voted to put into UK law - The Leave campaign threw around some ridiculous percentages for UK legislation supposedly "imposed by Brussels" (i.e. our own Govt, acting with others, or our directly elected EU representatives), which were proved to be distortions The equivalent of your argument is to say that because LCFC have scored several thousand goals over the last 44 years, that is proof that we have dominated football. Anyway, that's irrelevant now. There was a lot of legislation over 44 years, in the EU and in the UK. What matters now is what happens when that EU legislation no longer applies - what is put straight into UK law, what is amended and what is ditched, and how such decisions are made.
Strokes Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: It's perfectly logical for there to have been a lot of legislation in the EU over 44 years - and a lot in the UK Parliament - but for Brexiters to have made ridiculous claims about "Brussels" running most of our legal system. - Most of that EU legislation was passed by the Council (our Government acting with other EU Govts) with or without the European Parliament (directly elected by us) - Lots of the legislation was EU legislation that our Parliament then voted to put into UK law - The Leave campaign threw around some ridiculous percentages for UK legislation supposedly "imposed by Brussels" (i.e. our own Govt, acting with others, or our directly elected EU representatives), which were proved to be distortions The equivalent of your argument is to say that because LCFC have scored several thousand goals over the last 44 years, that is proof that we have dominated football. Anyway, that's irrelevant now. There was a lot of legislation over 44 years, in the EU and in the UK. What matters now is what happens when that EU legislation no longer applies - what is put straight into UK law, what is amended and what is ditched, and how such decisions are made. It's either important significant legislation or it isn't, the change in significance seems to have shifted somewhat since the referendum. I'm not denying how it came to be but if we were never part of the EU it wouldn't be there or if it would why will we now change it?
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2017 Posted 31 March 2017 Michael Duggan (Professor of European Law) on the Great Repeal Bill and post-Brexit UK legal system (dates from October).... ....and on Theresa May's Brexit objectives (dates from January, so doesn't take account of the Article 50 letter):
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.